On Oct 1, 8:30=A0am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > That's unusually astute for you, although you haven't got it
> > quite right. =A0I moved the discussion into areas where I have
> > strong credentials (fluid mechanics, writers of whom I have
> > extensive knowledge) to show that Robert would follow and
> > claim superior knowledge no matter where I want. =A0He obliged.
>
> You are confused. =A0Where did I claim superior knowledge (other
> than of the french language)? =A0I just bring up points and watch you
> fail to address even the simplest. =A0Even in areas you claim to know.
> I do not mistake my ability to criticise for superior knowledge.
>
You attempted to correct me about invoking the Navier Stokes equation
as being unnecessarily complex. for the study of aerodynamics You can
introduce vorticity in the Euler equations by some kind of deus ex
machina and do aerodynamics, but without viscosity there is no
vorticity and without vorticity there is neither lift nor drag. That
obviously isn't a useful engineering approximation.
You never said it, but I assume that you base your false argument on
the Bernoulli equation explanation of lift. That argument explains
nothing, as it offers no explanation of the contradiction it entails.
The absence of vorticity is an explicit requirement for the validity
of Bernoulli's equation, and yet, without vorticity, there is no
lift. You (apparently) took one little factoid that you knew and
tried to use it as a way of demonstrating your superior knowledge,
when, in fact, you only demonstrated that you didn't know what you
were talking about. And you did this with your customary level of
dismissiveness and self-assurance.
You also attempted to tell me how to read Rimbaud. If you understood
anything about Rimbaud that isn't related to French grammar, I'll
faint.
> > My real concern is the capital to do "big" technology.
> > Companies like AMD siphon off capital without making a
> > commensurate contribution. =A0
>
> Oh dear, more Marxist "wasteful competition" fallacy. =A0First,
> for the actual capital (fabs), basically the same number are
> needed whether they're AMD or Intel. =A0They've gotten about as big
> as they can. =A0Run out of economies of scale, or more precisely,
> economies of scale are balanced by diseconomies of scale.
>
And who here is the master of the smear? I should say, rather, who
are the masters (pl) of the smear? For one thing, I do all my own
thinking. For another, I have so little exposure to actual Marxist
thought (as opposed to derivative thinking, like Chomsky) that I
wouldn't know most Marxist ideas if I stumbled over them in broad
daylight.
My concerns come from my experience and knowledge of the long haul
commercial airplane business, which has ended in a monopoly (Boeing)
with subsidized competition (Airbus). I've talked about this subject
here before. If you weren't interested or paying attention then, why
should I assume that you'd do any better now?
> Second, for the "human" capital, things like developing masks and
> other unique items: =A0this is "duplicated effort", but also increases
> reliability (second source for Pentium FDIV) and spurs competition.
> Intel and AMD are constantly chasing each other. =A0The competition
> improves everyone -- Intel (who would otherwise grow lazy). AMD
> (who would otherwise not exist in this space), employees (who are
> better trained by vigorous business) and consumers (who get better
> products less expensively).
>
When I look at the literature, all the good work is sup****ted by
Intel. That doesn't mean that AMD is bad. It means they don't have
the money. Similarly, IBM contributes a great deal to the common fund
of knowledge. You're telling me that my argument doesn't work because
you don't understand my argument.
"Competition" has resulted in the destruction or gutting of many
im****tant commercial research efforts, most notably Bell Labs, which
was once a factory for Nobel prizes. I favor the companies that can
afford and do pay for a Bell Labs. In the case of the airplane
business, BSRL (Boeing Scientific Research Labs) is gone. What are we
left with? The hothouse world of university research, "national"
labs, most notably the bomb labs, and whatever companies like Intel
and IBM (which still has the Thomas J Watson labs) can afford.
Given those stakes, I really don't care if anyone here gets a
processor at a price they like. The microprocessor revolution, which
materially changed the availability of high-power computation,
depended in no way on AMD, which is a camp follower, and, as far as
I'm concerned, a leech. I similarly loathe Dell.
> Go look at some references for the benefits of competition.
> Read especially the University of Chigago, since this appears
> to be a new idea for you and so you need to be shocked.
>
I'm already shocked by the University of Chicago, to the point of
being frightened. They are scary people.
Robert.
|
