Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #60387 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-03 00:54 -0400 |
| Last post | 2024-11-04 18:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 77 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-03 00:54 -0400
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-03 08:48 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-03 19:15 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-03 15:25 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-03 22:58 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-03 15:24 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-03 22:56 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-04 08:35 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-04 16:40 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-04 18:14 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-04 10:25 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-04 18:41 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 00:32 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-03 23:10 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-03 23:24 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-03 18:30 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-04 02:49 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-03 22:25 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-04 06:27 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-04 01:51 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-04 07:03 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-04 02:35 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-04 18:10 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-04 19:30 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 20:07 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-05 12:24 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-06 00:16 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Harold Stevens <wookie@aspen.localdomain> - 2024-11-04 02:02 -0600
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-04 17:47 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 19:00 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 00:02 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-04 16:46 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 18:59 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 00:17 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-05 07:33 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 20:15 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-04 13:01 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-04 10:20 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-04 18:30 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-04 10:45 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-04 19:57 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-04 13:15 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-04 19:57 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-04 20:08 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 20:18 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-05 20:31 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-05 23:38 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-06 00:26 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-06 01:29 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-06 11:12 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-06 11:24 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-06 11:11 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-06 17:49 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-06 18:38 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-06 16:46 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-07 10:37 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-07 17:12 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-08 01:13 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-08 02:43 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-06 16:41 -0500
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-07 10:36 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-06 00:19 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-05 21:46 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 18:58 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-04 11:29 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 19:40 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-05 00:25 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-05 07:47 -0800
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 18:56 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 05:05 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-03 20:50 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-03 22:58 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-03 23:25 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-04 04:57 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 05:06 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-04 13:09 +0000
Re: Nvidia Replaces Intel on DOW Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-04 18:53 +0000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-07 10:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vgi572$2jrrb$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60707 |
On 06/11/2024 21:41, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 11/6/24 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 06/11/2024 00:26, rbowman wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to >>>>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files >>>>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite >>>>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_ have unlimited >>>>> memory. >>>> >>>> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on >>>> gigantic matrices. >>>> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure >>>> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB. >>>> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land. >>>> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to >>>> suit >>>> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain. >>>> >>>> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the >>>> computer is >>>> about 500W. >>>> >>>> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers. >>> >>> AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are >>> trying >>> to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers. >>> >> Frankly I regard that as pure serendipity. >> The world needs nuclear power in unheard of quantities, and if AI is >> the trigger to start that avalanche, I dont care if in the end its >> utterly pointless. >> >> The nuclear power stations will still be there. and usable >> >> >>> It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually >>> becomes >>> heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can >>> use the >>> Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building >>> Seabrook one >>> of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes. >>> >> >> Yes. There is a distinct change in species near the outfalls of >> coastal reactors - but its the same for any thermal power plant - >> aside from CCGT.. >> >> 60% of the energy ends up as low grade heat. (Its more like 30% on a >> CCGT but no one is talking about efficient uses of Uranium via a tow >> stage gas/steam turbine setup yet). Its dirt cheap and plentiful. So >> waste heat it will be. >> >> But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a >> cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of >> polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate. >> >> De-salination plants for fresh water. >> >> Thermodynamics tells us that in a thermal plant, 100% effeciency is >> not available, and its a balance between efficiency and cost. No one >> is comfortable mixing extremely hot high pressure steam and nuclear >> reactors, so they run at safer temperatures and pressures. > > > An insane amount of energy goes into just HEATING WATER > for whatever uses. > > If yer nuke plant has pre-heated the water, as you said, > there are many uses for it, recover an extra percentage of > the heat. > Yes. The phrase is 'low grade heat' - so near to ambient that very little mechanical energy can be extracted, but sill enough to heat [green] houses. > They keep trying to get more electricity from 'lower' > quality heat sources ... but from what I can tell it > may not be worth it except maybe in a space station > or similar. Easier to just use "warm" for what it is. > Basically yes. Uranium is cheap. The power statins are expensive. Just use more uranium > Anyway, thermodynamics is The Law and no kind of power > plant is gonna be close to 100% efficiency. Thermal plant, anyway. -- “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de M. de Voltaire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-06 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lovr05F40feU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60635 |
On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 20:31:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > When a PPOE upgraded its Univac 9300 from 16K of memory to 32K, > we wondered what we would do with all that space. (We soon figured that > out.) The System 360/30 did have 32k but for some operations you had to write partial products to tape, rewind, and take another pass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-05 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vge3o9$1nfmk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60627 |
On 5 Nov 2024 20:18:34 GMT, rbowman wrote: > ... 'Assume you have unlimited memory...' ... The paradox of today’s computer architectures is that, while memory is cheap, accessing that memory is expensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vgb5g1$12umd$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60528 |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 10:20:13 -0800, John Ames wrote: > i.e. "eighteen inches is a nanosecond" For suitably small definitions of “inch”, I suppose ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20241104112947.00006ac6@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #60544 |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:58:09 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > i.e. "eighteen inches is a nanosecond" > > For suitably small definitions of “inch”, I suppose ... Well damn, I was misremembering from accounts of Grace Hopper's famous "nanosecond" wires. I guess another fundamental principle is "double- check yer dang constants..." ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vgb805$13ba2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60548 |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:29:47 -0800, John Ames wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:58:09 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> > i.e. "eighteen inches is a nanosecond" >> >> For suitably small definitions of “inch”, I suppose ... > > Well damn, I was misremembering from accounts of Grace Hopper's famous > "nanosecond" wires. I guess another fundamental principle is "double- > check yer dang constants..." ;) 1 light-nanosecond is close enough to 12 inches, or almost exactly 30cm. The speed of light is officially defined as 299 792 458 m/s exactly. But remember, that’s for light or radio waves in a vacuum (or a close enough approximation, like Earth’s atmosphere). Electrical signals through a wire travel much slower -- I believe half the speed of light or even less. And the actual charge carriers (electrons, in a metal wire) move even slower; I remember a book that said they can take several days to go completely around an electrical circuit. By the way, the speed of sound under normal Earth atmospheric conditions is very close to 1 millionth of the speed of light. Coincidence? You be the judge. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-05 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lot6vjFmibqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60528 |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 10:20:13 -0800, John Ames wrote: > I've long held that necessity will ultimately force a serious rethink of > programming practices w.r.t. resource-efficiency once Moore's Law runs > afoul of pesky real-world physics principles, i.e. "eighteen inches is a > nanosecond" vs. "you can't cram an arbitrary amount of stuff into a > finite space without creating a black hole." Gonna be real interesting > when we finally hit the wall. That giant sucking sound is the lights going out... Meta's plan to acquire a nuke ran into a problem. There was a program to create bee friendly environments around the disused nuclear plants. It happens the one Meta had their eye own is populated by a rare sort of honeybee. Amazon's plan to splice into an operating nuke hit a more prosaic block. Two power companies sharing the plant's output sued claiming Amazon would be the preferred customer and they might get short-changed in a pinch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-05 07:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20241105074731.00002248@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #60579 |
On 5 Nov 2024 00:25:23 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > That giant sucking sound is the lights going out... Meta's plan to > acquire a nuke ran into a problem. There was a program to create bee > friendly environments around the disused nuclear plants. It happens > the one Meta had their eye own is populated by a rare sort of > honeybee. Couldn'tve happened to a nicer sociopath!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vgb5dl$12umd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60493 |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:01:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > For a given clock speed, which is limited by the physical dimensions of > the chip, the smaller the transistors the less power it takes to run the > chips. > > However fabrication limits are getting stuck at 10nm and below ... Why? Because each transistor is being made out of fewer and fewer atoms, and they are simply not working so well as transistors any more, because of quantum leakage effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 05:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vg9kmu$q2fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60474 |
On 4 Nov 2024 02:49:58 GMT, rbowman wrote: > Arm Holdings doesn't fabricate devices. True, but they do have core circuits that licensees can incorporate into their chips if they don’t want to create the entire design from scratch. I wonder how you test such core circuits without at least doing some test fabrications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-03 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vg8nn9$hevu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60388 |
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:48:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > A gentler more commercial form of communism... “Communism” is when the Government does it. What do you call it when a private company does it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-03 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <loqdfqF9hvtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60432 |
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:48:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> A gentler more commercial form of communism... > > “Communism” is when the Government does it. > > What do you call it when a private company does it? Corporatocracy. The government plays its part. C Wirght Mills wasn't very far off in his 1956 'The Power Elite'. Eisenhower warned about it as he was walking out the door and other politicians havetalked about it when it was safe to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-03 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vg90po$j4vj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60450 |
On 3 Nov 2024 22:58:02 GMT, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:48:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> A gentler more commercial form of communism... >> >> “Communism” is when the Government does it. >> >> What do you call it when a private company does it? > > Corporatocracy. The government plays its part. It mainly happens when the Government doesn’t do enough of its part. Namely, regulating against anticompetitive practices. Yes, it takes rules, and enforcement of those rules, to keep a free market free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 04:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZuYVO.781485$_o_3.765086@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #60432 |
On 2024-11-03, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:48:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> A gentler more commercial form of communism... > > “Communism” is when the Government does it. > > What do you call it when a private company does it? I've heard the term "corporatism". IMHO that's a contraction of "corporate fascism". -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 05:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vg9kp7$q2fi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60476 |
On Mon, 04 Nov 2024 04:57:29 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2024-11-03, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:48:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> A gentler more commercial form of communism... >> >> “Communism” is when the Government does it. >> >> What do you call it when a private company does it? > > I've heard the term "corporatism". IMHO that's a contraction of > "corporate fascism". Yup, “fascism” sounds about right ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vgah1o$ul44$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60476 |
On 04/11/2024 04:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2024-11-03, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:48:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> A gentler more commercial form of communism... >> >> “Communism” is when the Government does it. >> >> What do you call it when a private company does it? > > I've heard the term "corporatism". IMHO that's a > contraction of "corporate fascism". > Mmm. It is a rather new phenomenon - the collusion of state and big capital to capture markets by diktat, rather than by competition. It is very similar to the way Russia is run, although there, with no democracy, they don't even bother to pretend its anything but a mafia supported oligarchy. I don't think it has any good name. We knew who the Fascists were in the 1930s because they called themselves Fascists, and they competed with the communists for control of totalitarian regimes. Today both right and left are leaning towards totalitarianism again. With the full support of global megabucks. -- “Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,” – Ludwig von Mises
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-04 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vgb57u$12umd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60494 |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:09:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Mmm. It is a rather new phenomenon - the collusion of state and big > capital to capture markets by diktat, rather than by competition. Nothing new about it. All it takes is weak regulatory authorities that sit by and do nothing. Cf the 19th-century robber barons in the USA. It takes effective and ongoing regulation to ensure that free markets remain free.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web