Shameful CPU Pricing

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
>
> David Wang wrote:
>
>>Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>>aether <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I see prices going up for one purpose: profit, and the pleasing of
>>>>>shareholders (one and the same)
>>>>
>>>>>The bigwig shareholders should just be shot. These are men who are
>>>>>already million and billionaires many times over, but enough is never
>>>>>enough for them. Such people should be removed from the planet.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, Chairman Mao's theories were put into practice,
>>>>and millions of people were killed.
>>
>>>But not all theories that sound crazy are crazy
>>
>>>http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/apr04/223117.asp
>>
>>I believe that you may have missed the point entirely.
>>
>>It matters little whether or not Chairman Mao's theory,
>>or any such social theory is crazy.
>>
>
> I think it matters. Even the drastic measures taken failed manifestly
> failed to eliminate greed from the society.
>
> One might conclude from the failed Twentieth Century experiments in
> socialism and communism that greed is immutable. The baboon troop
> story is an example of changing what might seem to be immutable
> behavior by changing the composition of the group. If one were
> optimistic, one might hope that some step other than liquidation of the
> aggressive males could achieve the same effect.
>
>
>>Chairman Mao may well be right, and upon elmination of the
>>"bad" people, society would be much better. The problem is,
>>as always, in the implementation of the social theory.
>>
>
> But it wasn't the only problem. "The measures taken" (title of a
> militantly-Communist play by Brecht) didn't achieve the desired effect.
>
> We don't really know in what ways it is possible to arrange human
> societies. It may be possible to arrange a society that doesn't run on
> greed.
>
> RM
>
Been done many times, although in smaller groups. The aboriginal folk
of the Pacific NW in North America are said to have achieved status by
gift giving and the custom of Potlatch.

A number of religious communities such as the shakers, Hutterites, and
probably to some degree the Amish minimize greed as a motivation.

del cecchi

--
Del Cecchi
This post is my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> Grumble wrote:
>
>> ASRock and Asus (to name a few) sell Socket-A MicroATX motherboards with
>> integrated graphics.
>>
>> e.g. http://www.asrockamerica.com/Products/K7S41.htm
>>
>> Pair such a board with a Sempron 2200.
>>
>> ASRock K7S41 = 38 EUR
>> Sempron 2200 = 42 EUR
>>
>> AFAICT, this system will murder the C3-based system, and it's cheaper.
>
> You are quite correct though, the Sempron/ASRock solution would be
> significantly faster than the VIA solution. On the flip side, the VIA
> board is a nifty little Mini-ITX design, about 1/4 the size of the
> ASRock board.

K7S41 = 9.6" x 7.8" = 483 cm^2
EPIA-800 = 17 x 17 = 289 cm^2

Actually, the K7S41 is "only" 70% bigger than the EPIA-800 ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Wang wrote:
> > aether <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I see prices going up for one purpose: profit, and the pleasing of
> > > shareholders (one and the same)
> >
> > > The bigwig shareholders should just be shot. These are men who are
> > > already million and billionaires many times over, but enough is never
> > > enough for them. Such people should be removed from the planet.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Chairman Mao's theories were put into practice,
> > and millions of people were killed.

> But not all theories that sound crazy are crazy

> http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/apr04/223117.asp

I believe that you may have missed the point entirely.

It matters little whether or not Chairman Mao's theory,
or any such social theory is crazy.

Chairman Mao may well be right, and upon elmination of the
"bad" people, society would be much better. The problem is,
as always, in the implementation of the social theory.

The implementation of any such social theory require the
deployment of state terror to selectively eliminate those
deemed to be "bad" or "undesirable".

While Chairman Mao's immediate focus may be the "greedy"
folks, the next batch of people could well be "the perverse",
all pornographers, sexual deviants, homosexuals, etc.

While we're doing the cleanup, let us eliminate the need for
jails altogether. A society without crime can be well
achievable when all criminals are immediately disposed of.

After that, perhaps we can work to elminate SPAM. I can assure
you that General Abacha's son will soon stop sending you
solicitations to help him move that $30M out of Nigeria,
and you'll never have to read about the wonders of Cia|is
(unless you explicitely choose to).

Soon, the ideal society can be reached, provided that enough
people have been eliminated along the way.

> > > The prices will continue to rise. Eventually, very few people will be
> > > able to afford top of the line computers. Everyone else will be using
> > > old hardware.
> >
> > A friend of mine and I actually talked about processor development
> > in terms of the capitalist/communist system.
> >
> > In terms of a communist system, the central planning commision
> > dictated that this year, Intel's fabs will produce 70 million 80386
> > processors, and AMD will produce 30 million 80386 processors.
> > There is no need to produce faster processors, GUI's or GPU's.
> > Playing games is not productive to the greater glory of the state.
> >
> > The price of each processor has been set at $40. Next year, the
> > production quota will be increased by 5%, and costs will be reduced
> > by 10%. Finally, the engineer that designed the faulty multiplier in
> > the 80387 MathCo has been determined to be an enemy of the state,
> > and he will be shot as a warning to all sabateurs.

> Of course, your correspondent here has to be very young even to have
> made such comments. Did any of us who paid for (or authorized payment
> for) time on an IBM 360 ever expect computing to be so ubiquitous or so
> inexpensive? Never mind the CPU. Did anyone who struggled to fill a
> frame buffer, which itself cost a fortune, ever expect commodity
> graphics cards to pump out high-resolution frames in real time?

> No, a computer hardware list is not the place to be probing the
> weaknesses of capitalism.

Fortunately "my correspondent" does not realize that there's a
more authoritative indicator of Intel's greed.

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

3.33 GHz Xeon with 8 MB L3 sells for $3,692, and a piddly
1.6 GHz Itanium with 9 MB of L3 sells for $4,227.

IIRC, AMD is no better in that regard. It apparently wants ~$3000
for the top-of-the-line Opteron.

Nevermind IBM. imagine how much IBM would want just for one POWER5
processor, or a G6 processor module.




Chairman Wang is tired of this thread. Chairman Wang has dictated
that anyone that complains about the exhorbant prices of high end
processors to be shot immediately. Chairman Wang believes that no
further time will be wasted on this non-issue once the undesirable
agitator is elminated.

--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <1119248501.411182.23610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, from
the wonderful person aether <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> said
>The industry is price gouging. That processor
>(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116203) should
>be priced at $500, tops. This is done, as I said, explicitly for profit

Welcome to planet Earth. This is not unique to the CPU industry -
stupid consumers who insist on having 'the best X ever made', whether
it's a car, watch, jacket, or meal at a restaurant =ALWAYS= get gouged
on price. Or did you think a Maserati was really worth 100x more than a
Fiat, and that $10k bottles of wine actually taste that good???

Get over it already, and buy what you need, instead of the most
expensive you can find on paper (which is probably not actually
available anyway).

>-- and it's worsening. It'd be a wonderful day, if such people as are
>responsible for this (see: international bankers, wall street tycoons,
>scumbag shareholders, prick CEO's and CFO's such as Kozlowski and Mark
>Swartz, etc..) were rounded up and hanged.
>

Then nobody could afford to buy $1000+ CPUs and Maseratis I guess? So
that's your solution to the problem then is it?? Personally I'd suggest
you leave planet Earth for somewhere you'll be less disappointed. Triton
is nice, this time of year..

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

> Personally I'd suggest you leave planet Earth for somewhere you'll be
> less disappointed. Triton is nice, this time of year..

I hear it's rather chilly this time of year 🙂

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/triton.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

David Wang wrote:

> Fortunately "my correspondent" does not realize that there's a
> more authoritative indicator of Intel's greed.
>
> http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/
>
> 3.33 GHz Xeon with 8 MB L3 sells for $3,692, and a piddly
> 1.6 GHz Itanium with 9 MB of L3 sells for $4,227.
>
> IIRC, AMD is no better in that regard. It apparently wants ~$3000
> for the top-of-the-line Opteron.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html

Dual-Core Model 875 $2,649

I didn't know Intel had a similar price list, thanks!

Do you know where one can purchase an Itanium 2 CPU?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <d965tt$1tm$1@news-rocq.inria.fr>, from the wonderful person
Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> said
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
>> Personally I'd suggest you leave planet Earth for somewhere you'll be
>> less disappointed. Triton is nice, this time of year..
>
>I hear it's rather chilly this time of year 🙂

Cr&p .. how am I going to fill my quota of deep-frozen Trolls if you go
round giving them hints. 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> Bitstring <d965tt$1tm$1@news-rocq.inria.fr>, from the wonderful person
> Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> said
>
>> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I'd suggest you leave planet Earth for somewhere you'll be
>>> less disappointed. Triton is nice, this time of year..
>>
>>
>> I hear it's rather chilly this time of year 🙂
>
>
> Cr&p .. how am I going to fill my quota of deep-frozen Trolls if you go
> round giving them hints. 8>.

Well, you were too obvious... You should have recommended the red-sand
beaches near the polar cap in Mars... It would have been more credible
;-)

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote:
> David Wang wrote:

> > Fortunately "my correspondent" does not realize that there's a
> > more authoritative indicator of Intel's greed.
> >
> > http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/
> >
> > 3.33 GHz Xeon with 8 MB L3 sells for $3,692, and a piddly
> > 1.6 GHz Itanium with 9 MB of L3 sells for $4,227.
> >
> > IIRC, AMD is no better in that regard. It apparently wants ~$3000
> > for the top-of-the-line Opteron.

> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html

> Dual-Core Model 875 $2,649

> I didn't know Intel had a similar price list, thanks!

> Do you know where one can purchase an Itanium 2 CPU?

For the entire line of Itanium 2's?

I do not. Best bet is to call Intel and ask where you can source
one or two single Itanium 2's.

There are however, some companies that do carry one or two grey
market units.

Something like this.

http://www.store.yahoo.com/glob2000/1init26mbl34.html


--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Greed, as we've come to know it, must eventually be annihilated. One
way or another, it must be destroyed. It will be destroyed. Now, when I
speak of greed, it's the aforementioned individuals who are
multi-million and billionaires. You can have a 'free' society without
such individuals.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

David Wang wrote:
>
> Except we do not have "law of the jungle" anywhere.
>

You mean that, becaue you don't actually have to see the oppression,
violence, and exploitation that undergird your lifestyle, they don't
actually exist?

Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
to come.

It's a situation that is sufficiently appalling that, if my own ethical
beliefs did not forbid it, I might believe that violence would be
justified as a means to an end of correcting the situation.

As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > David Wang wrote:
> >
> >>Except we do not have "law of the jungle" anywhere.
> >>
> >
> > You mean that, becaue you don't actually have to see the oppression,
> > violence, and exploitation that undergird your lifestyle, they don't
> > actually exist?
> >
> > Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
> > at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
> > to come.
> >
> > It's a situation that is sufficiently appalling that, if my own ethical
> > beliefs did not forbid it, I might believe that violence would be
> > justified as a means to an end of correcting the situation.
> >
> > As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
> > we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
> > and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.
> >
> >
>
> Golly, please tell me that this doesn't mean what it appears to mean
> about your philosophy. Are you implying we should all live in equal
> poverty?

"As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all." How could I be
more clear?

Even the barest exploration of the possible causes, consequences, and
possible remedies for economic inequality would take us much too far
afield and probably not be very productive.

> Are you doing anything personally to help those who we are
> allegedly living at the expense of?
>

Yes.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Everyone, whether consciously or subsconsciously, understands that this
current system cannot long last. You can't continue to see .01% of the
population accumulate more and more of the wealth, which they are. (the
multi-billionaires) Eventually, be it by force or voluntarily
(unlikely), their wealth must be reduced greatly. Killing them off
seems the best bet.

Star Trek is a good example of the sort of society we must eventually
have -- if we are truly to progress.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> David Wang wrote:
>
>>Except we do not have "law of the jungle" anywhere.
>>
>
>
> You mean that, becaue you don't actually have to see the oppression,
> violence, and exploitation that undergird your lifestyle, they don't
> actually exist?
>
> Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
> at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
> to come.
>
> It's a situation that is sufficiently appalling that, if my own ethical
> beliefs did not forbid it, I might believe that violence would be
> justified as a means to an end of correcting the situation.
>
> As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
> we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
> and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.
>
> RM
>

Golly, please tell me that this doesn't mean what it appears to mean
about your philosophy. Are you implying we should all live in equal
poverty? Are you doing anything personally to help those who we are
allegedly living at the expense of?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Some very small part of the world's population lives
> > extravagantly well at the expense of the rest and possibly
> > at the expense of generations to come.
>
> Respectfully, might this not apply to you, Mr. Myers?
> Or might there be people that consider it does?
>
Well, of course it applies to me. There are people living in the world
on less than a dollar a day.

> Extravagance is a value judgement, and "at the expense of"
> is alluding to violence or manifestly unfair trade.
> But "unfair" is also a value judgement.
>
Of course I'm making value judgments. It's not a value judgment,
though, to acknowledge that much of the world's population lives in
brutal, demeaning, grinding poverty.

> We are all living at the expense of future generations, especially
> WRT easily extractible fossil fuels. Our only hope to avoid their
> condemnation is to leave behind other things (technology?) that
> alleviate that loss. We are selling the farm. That's OK if we
> get a good price for it and put the proceeds to work.
>
I don't know whether it's okay or not. It is what it is.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

aether <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Greed, as we've come to know it, must eventually be annihilated.
> One way or another, it must be destroyed. It will be destroyed.
> Now, when I speak of greed, it's the aforementioned individuals who are
> multi-million and billionaires. You can have a 'free' society without
> such individuals.

Unfortunately no.

Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

You're seeking to deprive some individuals of the first item. I
would suggest that it's a fairly important item.

How can you have a "free" society when you go around killing
people you deem to be "undesirable" for the random reason you
choose? What is there to stop you from killing off all of the
rest of the people for the other sins? There are six more
after greed.

Greed, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Wrath.**

I think this means that if you're envious of those with fast
processors, you'll have to eliminate yourself right after the
overweight people are eliminated.

** Yes, I enjoyed the movie.

--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

David Wang wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > David Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > Except we do not have "law of the jungle" anywhere.
>
> > You mean that, becaue you don't actually have to see the oppression,
> > violence, and exploitation that undergird your lifestyle, they don't
> > actually exist?
>
> Yes, I misspoke.
>
> What I should have specifically written (and I believe that it was
> clear from the context, but apparently not) was that we do not
> have "law of the jungle" anywhere as pertaining to the free
> market system that is generally established throughout much of
> this world. The powers to tax and regulate exist to constrain
> the free market system that we've established.
>
> In parts of the world where slavery still exists, these
> comments obviously do not apply.
>
People living and sometimes working, sometimes not, in the U. S. often
live with absolutely minimal protections against exploitation of the
most extreme kind. How many cases there are of the the law of the
jungle, as in kill or be killed, is arguable perhaps, but let's not
waste time on it. Not everyone living even within the borders of
industrialized countries has reasonable protection for their most basic
human rights.

> > Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
> > at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
> > to come.
>
> Sadly, there are situations where things like agricultural subsidies
> that make "natural" agricultural activities in third world countries
> non-competative. Such issues goes against my fundamental belief of
> "fairness". However, it is also an extrenched system that needs a
> process of being worked out and addressed. It is my hope that as
> we evolve, issues such as these can be addressed so that we can
> continue to improve ourselves and the imperfect society that we
> live in.
>
That's one disruption to the economies of third world countries, but
not the only one, by any means.

> Still, I take issue with this claim of "lives extravagently well
> at the expense of the rest".
>
Look at how a factory worker in the US lives as compared to a factory
worker in China.

> Lest we forget, there are still people living in extreme proverty
> that is the result of well meaning social theories, while those
> living in the less perfect society have far better lives, and
> those living the better lives most decidedly do not live their
> livestyle at the expense of the former. i.e. Korea.
>
North Korea is appalling. You will not find me saying positive things
about totalitarian Communism.

> Moreover, countries such as India and China are showing that the
> imperfect free market system can work for everyone, not just those
> currently "living extravagently well at the expense of the rest".
>
You and I have different perceptions of what is happening in China. I
don't have good numbers, but news stories stick in my head: a rural
policeman armed only with an iron bar killed by auto thieves lying in
wait (story about rural lawlessness), a children's school that blew up
because children were making firecrackers to supplement the school's
income, factories that won't hire workers that wear glasses (why should
they? there is apparently an endless supply) and that fire workers for
almost no reason (work hard today or look hard for a job tomorrow).
This is a system working for everyone? I'd say it's a star candidate
for poster child for exploited workers.

> > It's a situation that is sufficiently appalling that, if my own ethical
> > beliefs did not forbid it, I might believe that violence would be
> > justified as a means to an end of correcting the situation.
>
> The danger has always been well meaning people with power to kill
> and destroy.
>
I don't believe that violence would work even if it were ethically
acceptable.

> > As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
> > we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
> > and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.
>
> The "current state of affairs" is always in flux. Society as it exists
> now is very different than as it existed 50 years ago, and 50
> years ago is very different as it existed 100 years ago. As we
> progress, we hope to "advance" in some way. We have to constantly
> redefine what is "fair", make our own rules and abide by them.
> The hope is that we can achieve "more fairness", and "better"
> society as time goes on.
>
My purpose in stepping into this snake pit was not to let the
overreaching claims of the wonderfulness and inevitability of free
market capitalism go unchallenged. Free market capitalism harms many
people, and it is not inevitable. We can at least aim to do better.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

David Wang wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > David Wang wrote:
> > > Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
> > > > at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
> > > > to come.
>
> > > Still, I take issue with this claim of "lives extravagently well
> > > at the expense of the rest".
>
> > Look at how a factory worker in the US lives as compared to a factory
> > worker in China.
>
> How is the factory worker in the US living extravagently well at
> the expense of the factory worker in China? Is he/she exploiting
> this worker in China, and what should he/she stop doing to stop
> living extravagently well at this other worker's expense?
>

The US could work toward accepting only made by workers in conditions
meeting minimal standards for human rights. The natural place to start
is with imports from Mexico.

> I do not see a correlation.
>

It doesn't bother you at all to wear an article of clothing made by
workers in deplorable conditions? And, if you didn't violate the
worker's rights yourself, you don't see any connection at all between
his circumstances and your behavior?

<snip>

> > > Moreover, countries such as India and China are showing that the
> > > imperfect free market system can work for everyone, not just those
> > > currently "living extravagently well at the expense of the rest".
> > >
> > You and I have different perceptions of what is happening in China. I
> > don't have good numbers, but news stories stick in my head: a rural
> > policeman armed only with an iron bar killed by auto thieves lying in
> > wait (story about rural lawlessness)
>
> Nothing about this story is about Capitalism, Communism, or anything
> at all. I was just reading yesterday about the sexual killer in
> Canada who served up her own 15 year old sister to her husband,
> not to mention 2 other girls who were also killed. She is about
> to be released after only 12 years in jail. It seems that one can
> conclude about just as many unsubstantiated things about the
> country of Canada from this story as the story of the rural
> policeman killed by two random thugs. Do such thugs not exist in
> Cuba? US? Germany?
>
No, there is not rural lawlessness in the US and Germany. I know
nothing about Cuba, except that people seem to have a desperate desire
to leave.

While the story has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, it's an
example of China's deep infrastructure problems. As a society, it
barely works. To say, though, that an imperfect free market system is
working for everyone in China just isn't correct. Rural life in China
has, if anything, gotten worse.

> > , a children's school that blew up
> > because children were making firecrackers to supplement the school's
> > income, factories that won't hire workers that wear glasses (why should
> > they? there is apparently an endless supply) and that fire workers for
> > almost no reason (work hard today or look hard for a job tomorrow).
> > This is a system working for everyone? I'd say it's a star candidate
> > for poster child for exploited workers.
>
> 1. Things were worse before the current industrialization phase.
> The centrally planned "great leap forward" were anything but.
> Millions starved to death. The current system is "less evil" than
> the pure evil system that existed immediately previous to it.
> That much is clear.
>
It is?

> 2. You don't seem to recall that stories of muckraking in US's own
> industrialization experience. Child laborors were crammed in
> factories. Thousands were killed or maimed each year while they
> were working in appalling conditions. Public outcry forced new
> laws and regulations to be imposed. (usually after some horrible
> event where ten's of workers were killed or maimed, or after
> publication of the muckraking articles) Today, some 70~100+ years
> after that experience, host of rules and regulations exist to
> protect child workers, and workplace stafy regulations are in
> place to at least try to protect workers from the worst of the
> abuses.
>
But we've already had that learning curve. Why should workers in China
have to go through it, and why should workers elsewhere (textile
workers in other third world countries losing their jobs to China) be
impoverished by workers selling even more cheaply? And why should the
US be facilitating this race to the bottom?

> The difference here is that there is a history to follow, and
> we can see that *if* we all push together, the same sort of rules
> and regulations that make sense will be imposed in China (and
> elsewhere), but we can't tell when a totalitarian communist
> state will stop killing people and transition to a utopian
> society, because that has never happened.
>
I have no interest in defending Communism. Socialism, on the other
hand...

> > > > As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
> > > > we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
> > > > and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.
> > >
> > > The "current state of affairs" is always in flux. Society as it exists
> > > now is very different than as it existed 50 years ago, and 50
> > > years ago is very different as it existed 100 years ago. As we
> > > progress, we hope to "advance" in some way. We have to constantly
> > > redefine what is "fair", make our own rules and abide by them.
> > > The hope is that we can achieve "more fairness", and "better"
> > > society as time goes on.
> > >
> > My purpose in stepping into this snake pit was not to let the
> > overreaching claims of the wonderfulness and inevitability of free
> > market capitalism go unchallenged. Free market capitalism harms many
> > people, and it is not inevitable. We can at least aim to do better.
>
> Perhaps you can go back in this thread and point out where
> overreaching claims about the wonderfulness and inevitability
> of free market capitalism have been made. I do not recall
> having made any. I don't even recall anyone else making any
> such claim either. So I am quite puzzled as to what the basis
> of this claim is.

No, thank you. I don't recall your being so tendentious.

> I recall making the claim that Capitalism
> appears to be the least bad thing to do,

That you did.

and I even liked the
> part where it doesn't require that millions of people be killed.
>
> I find it particularly ironic that the claim here is that "Free
> market capitalism harms many people", when this sub-thread
> started with the desire by a poster to seek lower prices
> for processors, and that some wealthy/greedy individuals
> should be killed for the betterment of society. Was it okay
> that we just seek to kill a few people, particularly if they're
> wealthy and disgustingly greedy?
>
Mass killings by every conceivable means: bombing, executions, warfare,
terrorism, deliberate starvation, extermination camps, hacking people
to death with machetes, whatever, seem to have taken place more or less
constantly since, say, the beginning of the Twentieth Century. While
some of the killings that have been attributable to Communism have been
particularly egregious, I don't think they come close to dominating the
totals. I could be wrong, but I don't think they do. I don't like
*any* of it, and to keep harping on mass killings as a peculiar defect
of Communism strikes me as (a) misleading about what's really wrong
with Communism (central planning just doesn't work, apparently) (b)
major-league denial about how human beings treat one another, even
after the industrial revolution. And free market capitalism *does*
harm many people.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

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)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some very small part of the world's population lives
> extravagantly well at the expense of the rest and possibly
> at the expense of generations to come.

Respectfully, might this not apply to you, Mr. Myers?
Or might there be people that consider it does?

Extravagance is a value judgement, and "at the expense of"
is alluding to violence or manifestly unfair trade.
But "unfair" is also a value judgement.

We are all living at the expense of future generations, especially
WRT easily extractible fossil fuels. Our only hope to avoid their
condemnation is to leave behind other things (technology?) that
alleviate that loss. We are selling the farm. That's OK if we
get a good price for it and put the proceeds to work.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Wang wrote:
> >
> > Except we do not have "law of the jungle" anywhere.

> You mean that, becaue you don't actually have to see the oppression,
> violence, and exploitation that undergird your lifestyle, they don't
> actually exist?

Yes, I misspoke.

What I should have specifically written (and I believe that it was
clear from the context, but apparently not) was that we do not
have "law of the jungle" anywhere as pertaining to the free
market system that is generally established throughout much of
this world. The powers to tax and regulate exist to constrain
the free market system that we've established.

In parts of the world where slavery still exists, these
comments obviously do not apply.

> Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
> at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
> to come.

Sadly, there are situations where things like agricultural subsidies
that make "natural" agricultural activities in third world countries
non-competative. Such issues goes against my fundamental belief of
"fairness". However, it is also an extrenched system that needs a
process of being worked out and addressed. It is my hope that as
we evolve, issues such as these can be addressed so that we can
continue to improve ourselves and the imperfect society that we
live in.

Still, I take issue with this claim of "lives extravagently well
at the expense of the rest".

Lest we forget, there are still people living in extreme proverty
that is the result of well meaning social theories, while those
living in the less perfect society have far better lives, and
those living the better lives most decidedly do not live their
livestyle at the expense of the former. i.e. Korea.

Moreover, countries such as India and China are showing that the
imperfect free market system can work for everyone, not just those
currently "living extravagently well at the expense of the rest".

> It's a situation that is sufficiently appalling that, if my own ethical
> beliefs did not forbid it, I might believe that violence would be
> justified as a means to an end of correcting the situation.

The danger has always been well meaning people with power to kill
and destroy.

> As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
> we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
> and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.

The "current state of affairs" is always in flux. Society as it exists
now is very different than as it existed 50 years ago, and 50
years ago is very different as it existed 100 years ago. As we
progress, we hope to "advance" in some way. We have to constantly
redefine what is "fair", make our own rules and abide by them.
The hope is that we can achieve "more fairness", and "better"
society as time goes on.

The alternative is to give power to a single person or an oligarchy,
and let him/her/them start killing off undesirables as he/she/they
define them, and reshape society according to yet another social
theory. We've seen where that road leads to.


--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote:
> I didn't know Intel had a similar price list, thanks!
>
> Do you know where one can purchase an Itanium 2 CPU?

INTEL ITANIUM 2 1.5GHZ/6MB SL6XF $1,000.00
1.3GHz Intel Itanium 2 3MB L3 400MHz SL6XD CPU $99.99
....both buy it now on eBay.
(sorry about the caps on the first, it's cut and paste.)

On the other hand, 1st-gen 800mhz Itaniums are $15-$20 on eBay although good
luck finding a motherboard for one.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

aether <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone, whether consciously or subsconsciously, understands that this
> current system cannot long last. You can't continue to see .01% of the
> population accumulate more and more of the wealth, which they are. (the
> multi-billionaires) Eventually, be it by force or voluntarily
> (unlikely), their wealth must be reduced greatly. Killing them off
> seems the best bet.

Do you kill people right before they reach the second billion?

Do you kill them off even after they give away their fortune?

Why stop at the top 0.01%? Why not lop off the top 0.01%, and
while we're at it, remove the bottom 10% too. When society is
"more equal" to start with, it's easier to manage.

> Star Trek is a good example of the sort of society we must eventually
> have -- if we are truly to progress.

The Star Trek universe has replicators that run on non-polluting and
abundant energy sources. We do not. We have neither the former nor
the latter.

Perhaps if we can simply aspire to lose our corporal form and
become beings of pure energy, that would be an even more ideal
society, indicating true progress.

--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:42:26 +0000, David Wang wrote:

> aether <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Everyone, whether consciously or subsconsciously, understands that this
>> current system cannot long last. You can't continue to see .01% of the
>> population accumulate more and more of the wealth, which they are. (the
>> multi-billionaires) Eventually, be it by force or voluntarily
>> (unlikely), their wealth must be reduced greatly. Killing them off
>> seems the best bet.
>
> Do you kill people right before they reach the second billion?
>
> Do you kill them off even after they give away their fortune?
>
> Why stop at the top 0.01%? Why not lop off the top 0.01%, and
> while we're at it, remove the bottom 10% too. When society is
> "more equal" to start with, it's easier to manage.

What the hell, lop off the bottom 50%. They don't contribute anyway.

>> Star Trek is a good example of the sort of society we must eventually
>> have -- if we are truly to progress.
>
> The Star Trek universe has replicators that run on non-polluting and
> abundant energy sources. We do not. We have neither the former nor
> the latter.

Um, not to belabor the obvious, but ST is SF. Even Russia had it's
fiction.

> Perhaps if we can simply aspire to lose our corporal form and
> become beings of pure energy, that would be an even more ideal
> society, indicating true progress.

I'm all for converting aether into pure energy. The onse that decry the
human condition should volunteer to leave first.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Wang wrote:
> > Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Some very small part of the world's population lives extravagantly well
> > > at the expense of the rest and possibly at the expense of generations
> > > to come.

> > Still, I take issue with this claim of "lives extravagently well
> > at the expense of the rest".

> Look at how a factory worker in the US lives as compared to a factory
> worker in China.

How is the factory worker in the US living extravagently well at
the expense of the factory worker in China? Is he/she exploiting
this worker in China, and what should he/she stop doing to stop
living extravagently well at this other worker's expense?

I do not see a correlation.

> > Lest we forget, there are still people living in extreme proverty
> > that is the result of well meaning social theories, while those
> > living in the less perfect society have far better lives, and
> > those living the better lives most decidedly do not live their
> > livestyle at the expense of the former. i.e. Korea.
>
> North Korea is appalling. You will not find me saying positive things
> about totalitarian Communism.

No other form yet exists. If you can even remotely come up with a
plan that shows how we can reach a utopian society without the
murder of millions, I'm willing to hear it.

I spoke to a few devoted communists once, and they seem to believe
that the "totalitarian phase" is just a transitory phase that would
lead to the ideal society. . . eventually.

Unfortunately, no one has yet come up with a way to reach an ideal
communist state without killing a lot of people to get there, and
no one has yet come up with a timetable that shows when the killing
should stop and the utopian society should begin.

> > Moreover, countries such as India and China are showing that the
> > imperfect free market system can work for everyone, not just those
> > currently "living extravagently well at the expense of the rest".
> >
> You and I have different perceptions of what is happening in China. I
> don't have good numbers, but news stories stick in my head: a rural
> policeman armed only with an iron bar killed by auto thieves lying in
> wait (story about rural lawlessness)

Nothing about this story is about Capitalism, Communism, or anything
at all. I was just reading yesterday about the sexual killer in
Canada who served up her own 15 year old sister to her husband,
not to mention 2 other girls who were also killed. She is about
to be released after only 12 years in jail. It seems that one can
conclude about just as many unsubstantiated things about the
country of Canada from this story as the story of the rural
policeman killed by two random thugs. Do such thugs not exist in
Cuba? US? Germany?

> , a children's school that blew up
> because children were making firecrackers to supplement the school's
> income, factories that won't hire workers that wear glasses (why should
> they? there is apparently an endless supply) and that fire workers for
> almost no reason (work hard today or look hard for a job tomorrow).
> This is a system working for everyone? I'd say it's a star candidate
> for poster child for exploited workers.

1. Things were worse before the current industrialization phase.
The centrally planned "great leap forward" were anything but.
Millions starved to death. The current system is "less evil" than
the pure evil system that existed immediately previous to it.
That much is clear.

2. You don't seem to recall that stories of muckraking in US's own
industrialization experience. Child laborors were crammed in
factories. Thousands were killed or maimed each year while they
were working in appalling conditions. Public outcry forced new
laws and regulations to be imposed. (usually after some horrible
event where ten's of workers were killed or maimed, or after
publication of the muckraking articles) Today, some 70~100+ years
after that experience, host of rules and regulations exist to
protect child workers, and workplace stafy regulations are in
place to at least try to protect workers from the worst of the
abuses.

The difference here is that there is a history to follow, and
we can see that *if* we all push together, the same sort of rules
and regulations that make sense will be imposed in China (and
elsewhere), but we can't tell when a totalitarian communist
state will stop killing people and transition to a utopian
society, because that has never happened.

> > > As it is, I don't have any proposed answers at all. I only hope that
> > > we do not have to accept the current state of affairs as mankind's best
> > > and final offer to itself as to how it shall live.
> >
> > The "current state of affairs" is always in flux. Society as it exists
> > now is very different than as it existed 50 years ago, and 50
> > years ago is very different as it existed 100 years ago. As we
> > progress, we hope to "advance" in some way. We have to constantly
> > redefine what is "fair", make our own rules and abide by them.
> > The hope is that we can achieve "more fairness", and "better"
> > society as time goes on.
> >
> My purpose in stepping into this snake pit was not to let the
> overreaching claims of the wonderfulness and inevitability of free
> market capitalism go unchallenged. Free market capitalism harms many
> people, and it is not inevitable. We can at least aim to do better.

Perhaps you can go back in this thread and point out where
overreaching claims about the wonderfulness and inevitability
of free market capitalism have been made. I do not recall
having made any. I don't even recall anyone else making any
such claim either. So I am quite puzzled as to what the basis
of this claim is. I recall making the claim that Capitalism
appears to be the least bad thing to do, and I even liked the
part where it doesn't require that millions of people be killed.

I find it particularly ironic that the claim here is that "Free
market capitalism harms many people", when this sub-thread
started with the desire by a poster to seek lower prices
for processors, and that some wealthy/greedy individuals
should be killed for the betterment of society. Was it okay
that we just seek to kill a few people, particularly if they're
wealthy and disgustingly greedy?

--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com