Maybe Intel Isn’t As Bad As I Thought

“Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has become the third top business leader to step down from President Trump’s manufacturing council on Monday.
 
He follows the chiefs of Merck (MRK) and Under Armour (UA), who announced their decisions earlier Monday amid the fallout over Trump’s response to violence over the weekend at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.”
 
See Intel CEO is the latest to leave Trump’s manufacturing council
In the beginning, Intel wasn’t a bad company, but when they tied their wagon to M$’s to form the Wintel monopoly they certainly left the fold of humanity. At their low point in morality they paid folks not to buy competitor AMD’s products. This week they have partially redeemed themselves by speaking and acting out against the insanity of Trumpism.

Trump’s talk of lowering taxes and regulation should be good for businesses like Intel but when the package is wrapped up in incompetent management of government, both executive and legislative, blatant inhumanity and the face of a POTUS utterly incapable of moral behaviour, the potential benefit clearly does not match the real harm done to USA, the world and humanity. Businesses do understand that there’s no free lunch and there is a cost of having a government to regulate chaos. Unfortunately, Trumpism doesn’t balance budgets and its benefits are not obtainable by the force of the will of a tyrant.

I’m still not inclined to pay monopolistic prices for CPUs even if they are the best on the market. I’d rather have inferior equipment at reasonable prices and I don’t have any use for silicon hair-driers. Intel can choose to do the right thing from now on but they can’t undo history. They can fight Trumpism because it is the right thing to do and it’s not too late to be a positive influence on the world going forward. The solution to a lot of problems comes when people realize they are not alone and Trumpism can be defeated simply by doing your job to the best of your ability.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Maybe Intel Isn’t As Bad As I Thought

  1. oiaohm says:

    You care you idiot Grece because you are posting.

  2. Grece says:

    No one cares what you say HamDong.

  3. oiaohm says:

    http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Businesses/Specific_industries_and_businesses/Hairdressers.page
    Because, you know, there is nothing more dangerous than an unlicensed hair-dresser on the loose.
    Deaf Spy this above is in fact so close true its not funny and this shows how little you know. When incorrectly handling hair a hairdresser can transfer nits from person to person also the process can result in blood to blood transfer between people if tools are not cleaned properly. So hair-dressers are required to be licensed and trained to prevent disease spread.

    Big businesses can cope with these regulations. For small businesses, these regulations are doom.
    Australian hairdressers are quite heavily under regulation. Yet 90+ percent of them are solo traders yes the smallest of small businesses and it not effecting them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax

    Deaf Spy the Sugary Drink tax has been interesting. Since it was applied to pre-made drinks like soft drinks places selling locally made cordials and other drinks like it profited from it. So small businesses at times have gained from different sugary drink taxs.

    Or to rent out properties.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire
    Maybe that is a good idea. Unregulated renting has lead to a lot of deaths.

    If a regulation is harmful to small business or large business comes down to how it written. If a regulation is high cost to implement this is normally beneficial to big business over smaller. If a regulation is low cost to implement like hairdressing or private rental in Australia its not really beneficial or harmful to big or small business.

    If it like the sugary drink tax its a disadvantage to big business because they are paying it and small business get to offer other things so avoid it. So regulations are either neural to all parties, benefit large or benefit small.

    Grece the hamdonger no one should care what you say because you have information wrong all the time.

  4. Deaf Spy says:

    It’s not about “knowing” it’s about removing factors

    Again, it boils down to “I know better which factors to remove” and then it easily goes to “let’s put tax on food that contains sugar” or “let’s introduce licensing for all hair-dressers, even though to braid dreadlocks”. Or to rent out properties. Because, you know, there is nothing more dangerous than an unlicensed hair-dresser on the loose.

    Big businesses can cope with these regulations. For small businesses, these regulations are doom.

    If this means being free to make choices that lead to negative externalities for others, no.

    Who speaks of others? I speak of myself. I want to be free to buy a product I want, not a product that bears the decision of a bunch of cabinet rats who have never seen the sun.

  5. Grece says:

    No cares what you think or say HamDong.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy
    Currently my Volvo has a safety measures that exceed everything regulated, and does so many times more. Bigger brands follow suit. Now, Kurks, tell me why this happens?
    Why are you asking Kurks he did not point out that you Volvo one is crap.

    You will notice that Bigger brands mostly follow suit on features that end up in the global regulations. Basically Volvo submits what they have done it come proposed update to standard then the other vendor implement it then it comes standard. Once it become standard if you do not have those features you cannot import you car into a large number of countries.

    What makes Volvo (and quite some others) increase the cost of their vehicles by adding things that no regulator insists of?

    Its the 1968 global car regulations at play. Any new safety feature need to exist in production cars before it becomes part of the regulation. So to be able to write the regulation Volvo has to release extra features. Adding new safety features to write the regulations reduces the odds of Volvo not having a feature that results in them not being able to sell in particular markets.

    There are a few places in the regulation where Volvo does it one way and every other car maker does it another but Volvo is not forced todo it the other way because theirs was written first and it marked as a alternative method.

    So the the 1986 car regulation is an example of how regulation can be crafted to drive companies to exceed it by rewarding the companies that do.

    Regulation can be good or bad all depending on how it worded and implemented.

    I gave you perfect examples how the market regulates and balances itself.
    No you did not. Deaf Spy. You were using an example item of where regulations can direct and cause actions in the market.

    You also used radio that cannot function correctly with out regulation forbidding particular types of transmitters.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-gap_transmitter
    There is a intentional treaty/regulation forbidding using first generation Spark gap transmitters.

    Radio and cars are both good examples of why we need regulation. China fatal food like fake eggs and milk made from chemical waste is a good example of why we need food regulation by the time you could work out that someone has conned you the result might be you are already dead.

    Deaf Spy I will give you at times regulations go wrong. But that is when the regulation needs correction in most case. The old saying don’t through the baby out with the bath water. Most regulations start with a idea to counter some bad behavior that is common. The UN rights of children is part of the regulation that make it illegal to use children soldiers. It has saved more children lives than a few that have had medical conditions and end up on the wrong side of it and died. I will not say that the regulation cannot be improved.

    Of course, as a typical leftist, you also quietly avoid the fact that most regulations are dictated by corporate lobbies.
    Interesting part is how many of those regulation like radio corporate companies could not do business in that area without it because infighting between companies would make that space not usable. Its something that is never considered how important regulations are to make products.

    A simple one the min width of a car lane on a road is regulated. It does go all the way back to two horses ass and that regulation effects the width of rail line and that effects the side of NASA booster rockets. Now if all the roads around the world was unique widths this would make car/truck production a lot more tricky and costly.

    Safety regulation also means it limits how many features you can skip as well materials you can use to make item. So limiting cost cutting so making more level competition. So improves end user safety and makes market more balanced. This starts explaining why you see corporate lobbies pushing for some of this stuff.

  7. Kurkosdr says:

    putting a stop to absurd roaming fees = putting a stop to absurd roaming fees inside the European single market.

  8. Kurkosdr says:

    As a typical leftist, you assume that some elite and the State always know better than common people.

    It’s not about “knowing” it’s about removing factors (“are the wires inside this power supply properly insulated?” or “will this device cause harmful interference?”) so the question doesn’t have to be asked in the first place.

    Of course, as a typical leftist, you also quietly avoid the fact that most regulations are dictated by corporate lobbies.

    Maybe, but this didn’t prevent regulation from forcing companies to compensate passengers being denied boarding or regulation putting a stop to absurd roaming fees.

    Or all the other useful regulations I mentioned in previous posts.

    And suddenly we find ourselves in extremities like this:
    Appeal to Extremes

    Everyone should be free to make his own choices and bare their consequences.
    If this means being free to make choices that lead to negative externalities for others, no. Which is the reason even non-leftist government provide the regulations I mentioned in my previous posts.

  9. Deaf Spy says:

    People don’t necessarily have all the information to decide on such matters

    This is exactly what I speak of, Kurks. As a typical leftist, you assume that some elite and the State always know better than common people.

    Of course, as a typical leftist, you also quietly avoid the fact that most regulations are dictated by corporate lobbies.

    …and even if they did they have no right to create negative externalities

    And suddenly we find ourselves in extremities like this:
    http://iwf.org/blog/2804312/A-U.N.-Convention-Is-Hindering-Charlie-Gard's-Parents'-Efforts-to-Seek-Experimental-Treatment-for-their-Sick-Baby

    Everyone should be free to make his own choices and bare their consequences. This is something the left can’t possibly live with.

  10. Kurkosdr says:

    Aha, clear. Instead of letting people decide whether they want to pay for a safe car, lets force all people to pay more cars, because people are idiots and we know better.

    People don’t necessarily have all the information to decide on such matters, and even if they did they have no right to create negative externalities such as interference or electrical fires or insurance liabilities as a result of their gross negligence.

    Are you having a debate exercise right now? Because I cannot believe you really believe the crap you write.

    If you do, go and live in international waters. You will not be missed.

  11. Deaf Spy says:

    Aha, clear. Instead of letting people decide whether they want to pay for a safe car, lets force all people to pay more cars, because people are idiots and we know better. Replace car with food, drinks, anything, and there you go.

    Regulation is not leftist, ri-i-ight. It is so typically left to be sure that you know better than the unwashed masses and you should tell everyone what to do and to think.

    Gee, I wonder how humanity survived until late 1970s.

  12. Kurkosdr says:

    obvious = obviously

  13. Kurkosdr says:

    BTW, regulation is not leftist, the government acting as a regulator of a service (via their lawmaking branch) and as a supplier of a service ( for example by owning state pension funds, electricity companies and other state-owned businesses) at the same time is.

    For example, in Greece, the government regulates electricity companies via the lawmaking process and at the same time owns 51% of the monopolistic Public Power Corporation (DEI S.A), acting as a regulator and supplier at the same time. We pay more for our electricity compared to the rest of EU, because the government uses their regulatory powers to impose price hikes in order to cover the loses of the horribly mismanaged state-owned power corporation. This is leftist. Fortunately, the EU is breaking up the company and privatising it. The government should regulate electricity but not provide it. This would not be leftist.

    Also, the state of Illinois acting as a regulator of pension funds and acting as a pension fund provider is leftist, because they use their lawmaking powers to divert tax income to their failing state pension funds (Greece is doing the same obvious.). This is leftist. The government should regulate pension funds but not provide pensions. This would not be leftist.

    Regulation is not leftist.

  14. Kurkosdr says:

    I’m still not inclined to pay monopolistic prices for CPUs even if they are the best on the market.

    The x86 CPU market is not a monopoly but an oligopoly (with the various x86 parents acting as the barrier to entry).

    ARM is not an oligopoly because they have a licensing procedure for all the essential patents, so any competitor can enter the market.

  15. Kurkosdr says:

    What makes Volvo (and quite some others) increase the cost of their vehicles by adding things that no regulator insists of?

    Their target clientele (premium buyers).

    Unfortunately, that’s not the entire buying public, so a baseline needs to exist to protect customers from all the things I mentioned in my previous post.

    That destroys your entire “leftist regulations” argument, not that there was much of an argument to begin with (how do you define a “leftist regulation” vs “non-leftist regulation”?)

  16. Deaf Spy says:

    Kurks, you’re amazing. If one would listen to you, the sole reason for humanity to exist is the leftist regulations brought forward in the last few decades…

    I gave you perfect examples how the market regulates and balances itself. You keep talking bullshit about regulations.

    Lets take cars. Currently my Volvo has a safety measures that exceed everything regulated, and does so many times more. Bigger brands follow suit. Now, Kurks, tell me why this happens? What makes Volvo (and quite some others) increase the cost of their vehicles by adding things that no regulator insists of?

  17. oiaohm says:

    Not true. For example, Volvo has always been a pioneer in car safety, without any regulations.
    Deafspy LOL complete wrong.
    But the rest of the industry languished, resulting in major loss of life before regulation stepped in.
    kurkosdr don’t trust Deaf Spy to have time lines right. Volvo starts getting serous after regulation not before so it regulation that drove Volvo into car safety.

    Deaf Spy really no. If you follow Volvo history it gets interesting and its another case of being a total idiot.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_safety
    Volvo in their own paperwork attempts to claim 1944 steal safety carriage as their own its even the wrong date. The first safety carriage is 1949 SAAB.

    When did Volvo get serous on developing safety stuff 1958 “World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulation” yes after the introduction of global regulations on cars. Ever since then Volvo has been invent stuff so they are writing the rules instead of having to follow them.

    Every sane employer wants the employees being healthy and safe, so that they can work.
    This is wrong. Every sane employer wants employees healthy and safe or disposable. There is a repeated history where even regulations don’t exist to protect employees companies expose them to toxic chemicals and the like who cares how many die if there is no financial cost to the business because they are only disposables.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
    Its not a new thing Deaf Spy.

    On electrical regulation. I remember seeing the china made before regulations wooden core arch welder. Yep wooden box with wires wrapped around it with wing nut terminals to connect to 240AC on one side and wing nut terminals on the otherside. Worked well as a arch welder if you did not mind the idea that if you run it for too long it would over heat and catch fire. After one burnt down a high official home China decided they need some regulation..

    Wireless interference will directly translate to low quality, same as lack of warranty.
    Deaf Spy not low quality. The 4000 mW or 36 dBm limit on wifi is to limit possible interference. So you could have some high quality gear and because it high quality gear its transmitting way to strong so squashing everyone else signals into background noise. So in radio its very important to have regulation on who can use what freq and how much power they legally can use on that freq. Radio as wild wild west would be not very usable.

    I do remember when amateur radio was allowed to use the 5Ghz that wifi uses without power limits they would turn their gear on and basically flatten any usage of 5Ghz wifi in a 20km radius. Why were they using so much power they were broadcasting up to satellite without a guided dish. Ommi-directional broadcast is a lot simpler than unidirectional to hit satellite. Yes tracking satellite dishes do cost and they are harder to connect to sats so no regulation limit equaled just consume the complete band as most amateur radio operators were not inside 20kms of each other. Remember this is not no regulation this is just a flaw in regulation. You don’t want to think how bad radio will be if it had no regulation. Maybe some people start using the old arc transmitters that basically transmit on all freqs at once.

  18. kurkosdr says:

    Not true. Warranty is part of the product.
    It wasn’t before warranties became mandatory by law.

    And it is not insurance because it doesn’t cover damage or malfunctions caused by the user or third-parties, aka what insurance does, it only covers damage or malfunctions which were a result of manufacturer’s sloppiness. I would suggest reading what a Lemon’s market is to understand why this is good.

    Every sane employer wants the employees being healthy and safe, so that they can work.
    I was talking regulations relating to electrical safety of home appliances, which keeps the worst of Chinese and Indian electrical appliances from being sold legally in North America and the US (and most of the world actually). Without such regulation, the buyer would have no way of knowing whether the wires inside the power supply are properly insulated, and you know that the Chinese industry (responsible for bringing you lead paint in toys and melamine-poisoned milk) is ruthless enough to do that kind of cost-cutting. In fact, many grey market A/V systems sold from the back of trucks have poor electrical safety. There is what lack of regulation causes.

    Which brings me to:

    Lack of toy safety regulations (no PVC and no lead paint) would result in health hazards.

    Lack of food safety and food cleanness regulations would result in health hazards.

    Are these regulations good for you?

    Moving on:

    Wireless interference will directly translate to low quality
    If the equipment affected by the interference is not yours and the resulting interference doesn’t hurt you directly, no it won’t. For example if an electrical device interferes too much with truckers’ CBs and you are not a trucker, or interferes too much with vending machines you don’t plan on using or with medical equipment you do not depend on, it won’t necessarily translate to lower quality, because from your perspective, the product works A-OK. In fact, you wouldn’t even be able to tell whose device is causing interference without specialized equipment because all devices would be unregulated and free to interfere with other devices as much as their manufacturer desires.

    Really? Do we see wars between VHS and Betamax? Market decided.

    Because unlike electricity, you don’t have every electric appliance in the house depending on VHS or Betamax standards.

    Not true. For example, Volvo has always been a pioneer in car safety, without any regulations.
    But the rest of the industry languished, resulting in major loss of life before regulation stepped in.

    To start with, the State enforces small ISPs to make sure their fibre optics meet certain requirements, like being underground.
    Oh, the humanity! Enforcing good practices when deploying on public land to avoid problems like tons of overhead wiring or poorly buried cables.

    In my country, we enjoy very cheap and high quality internet (at home I have fibre cable with 1Gbps , TV + HBO and phone for 20 EUR / month), because the State was too late to start controlling the small ISPs.

    You just got lucky that the companies owning the infrastructure (which goes through public land and public land cannot accommodate and infinite number of companies’ infrastructure) happened to form an oligopoly instead of a monopoly in your area (Comcast).

  19. Deaf Spy says:

    Kurks, I am sorry to disappoint you, but pollution is the only area where you are correct (provided, of course, that the State is being professional in assessing actual risks, and not going on a green jihad).

    Lack of warranty regulations would result in a lemon’s market.
    Not true. Warranty is part of the product. Enforced warranties increase prices, as they form an insurance premium to be paid for every product sold. Market will balance between high quality expensive products with insurances and low quality cheap ones without.

    Lack of electrical safety regulations would lead to injuries and fires.
    Every sane employer wants the employees being healthy and safe, so that they can work.

    Lack of wireless interference regulations would result in other equipment malfunctioning, putting investments at risk.
    Wireless interference will directly translate to low quality, same as lack of warranty.

    Lack of electricity regulation (voltages and frequency) would result in another War of the Currents.
    Really? Do we see wars between VHS and Betamax? Market decided.

    Lack of regulation for utilities would result in monopolies that can basically do anything they want … we have regulation forcing ISPs having wires or fibre optics running under public land to sell their lines to other ISPs at wholesale prices, which is why we have cheap internet).
    Not really. To start with, the State enforces small ISPs to make sure their fibre optics meet certain requirements, like being underground. This makes it difficult for small ISPs to come to the market. Then, to fix the damage, the State enforces investors to give away their investments cheap.
    In my country, we enjoy very cheap and high quality internet (at home I have
    fibre cable with 1Gbps , TV + HBO and phone for 20 EUR / month), because the State was too late to start controlling the small ISPs. They managed to accumulate means to grow and invest in their own fibre channels.

    Lack of automobile safety regulations would result in horrible deathtraps such as the Solo being the norm (instead of a loophole-exploiting novelty).
    Not true. For example, Volvo has always been a pioneer in car safety, without any regulations.

  20. oiaohm says:

    Kurkosdr there is a lot more possible death. Lack of wireless laws would remove broadcast strength limits that could result in more radio cooked humans.

    Food labeling laws and Food quality regulation are kinda very important if we want to remain healthy. Dark ages bread common ingredients saw dust and lead.

    Something to remember the Dark ages had government regulation to the point. No regulation would make the Dark ages look like a good and the dark ages is bad.

    https://www.criminalelement.com/blogs/2011/08/law-and-disorder-in-the-dark-ages

    Dark ages is a pure example of regulation 100 percent bias to big business/lords and the small guys can be killed exterminated …. So we don’t want our regulations looking those of the dark ages. Its a part wrong idea that Dark ages is unregulated.

    No regulation makes the dark ages look good. There are true times of no regulation and that is all out war by all parties totally impossible to-do business when stealing by force is called legal business for everyone that no regulation allows.

  21. Kurkosdr says:

    Finally, I recall I asked you to describe how lack of government regulations will bring Dark Ages upon us. Would you please explain what exactly do you mean?

    For once, lack of environmental regulations would allow some corporations to create negative externalities such as water pollution or air pollution which would destroy smaller agriculture-related and tourism-related businesses and also destroy the health of locals.

    Lack of warranty regulations would result in a lemon’s market.

    Lack of electrical safety regulations would lead to injuries and fires.

    Lack of wireless interference regulations would result in other equipment malfunctioning, putting investments at risk.

    Lack of RoHS regulation would lead to pollution when a product is discarded.

    Lack of electricity regulation (voltages and frequency) would result in another War of the Currents.

    Lack of regulation for utilities would result in monopolies that can basically do anything they want, much like Comcast (which monopolizes the internet access utility in some areas of the US, in the EU we have regulation forcing ISPs having wires or fibre optics running under public land to sell their lines to other ISPs at wholesale prices, which is why we have cheap internet).

    Lack of automobile safety regulations would result in horrible deathtraps such as the Solo being the norm (instead of a loophole-exploiting novelty).

    Dark ages for most of the public indeed.

    Government regulation is not bad. It is part of what the government is supposed to do. It is when the government tries to provide services (beyond security) that is the problem. Because then you have an obvious moral hazard where the government is the provider and the regulator of a service at the same time. It is the reason why all state pension funds are mismanaged and corrupt pension funds but private ones are generally not. It is also the reason why Socialism and Communism are doomed to fail every time btw (the government is the provider and regulator of everything).

  22. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy
    Regulations kill small businesses and help the big ones. Now I give you three guesses which of the two drive the economy.
    This is not black and white.
    https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/information-for/small-business
    There are regulations in different countries laws that protect small-businesses from bigger ones.

    So claiming regulation kills small businesses without clearer define is a sign of an idiot. Regulation is neutral thing depending on what it is it can have no effect on small or large business it can also have a bias to small or a bias to large all depending on how it written.

    Btw, one of the reasons for Intel to keep high prices is to let AMD live, and thus avoid being prosecuted for monopoly.
    The risk of Intel being prosecuted for monopoly actions is only exists due to regulation. So remove all regulation remove this threat off Intel neck.

    So protective regulation for small business can be benefit
    .
    With Qualcomm becoming the Intel in the ARM world, we will see a surge of prices there, too.
    Qualcomm is not the largest Arm vendor. The largest arm vendor is TSMC but they sell what they produce under many different brands like HiSilicon.

    The only thing that makes Qualcomm the Intel of the Arm world is the deal with Microsoft. Now Microsoft/Qualcomm joint deal has not been as profitable to Qualcomm as they expected. So it comes a question can Microsoft come competitive on arm if Microsoft cannot HiSilicon and others from TSMC will kick Qualcomm to death. Do remember Qualcomm currently cannot support PCIe x16 where the groups working with TSMC and HiSilicon can. So Qualcomm has a catch up problem.

  23. Deaf Spy says:

    Businesses do understand that there’s no free lunch and there is a cost of having a government to regulate chaos.

    Regulations kill small businesses and help the big ones. Now I give you three guesses which of the two drive the economy.

    Big businesses all swear in free market until they have to live in one.

    Btw, one of the reasons for Intel to keep high prices is to let AMD live, and thus avoid being prosecuted for monopoly. With Qualcomm becoming the Intel in the ARM world, we will see a surge of prices there, too.

    Finally, I recall I asked you to describe how lack of government regulations will bring Dark Ages upon us. Would you please explain what exactly do you mean?

  24. Deaf Spy says:

    You got even history wrong. Intel’s dominance on the PC arena has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft, but with IBM, its idea to license out the PC architecture, and Apple’s moronic decision to license both their hardware and software.

    To call a 8W CPU a “hair-drier” only demonstrates how little you know of modern hardware.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *