×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Governments Preparing To Bail Out DRAM Makers

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the bailing-buckets-the-new-best-conference-swag dept.

Businesses 494

An anonymous reader writes "DRAM makers are facing one of the worst downturns in their history and governments around the world are lining up to help companies through the mess. Taiwan, Germany and South Korea all appear poised to offer some assistance to their DRAM chip makers. The chip makers' problems are indicative of global woes. Easy lending terms and a bright view of the future prompted them to build too many new DRAM factories. Much of the new output was aimed at Microsoft's Windows Vista, which has higher memory requirements than XP."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

494 comments

Bailout Bandwagon (5, Insightful)

slifox (605302) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117725)

Do government bail outs happen all the time, and its only recently that the term "bail out" has become popular? Or are all industries everywhere simultaneously going broke just now?

I don't follow the financial world much, so all of a sudden I see * industry bailouts over and over again... From an outsider's perspective, it kinda seems like a bandwagon

Where do I sign up to get bailed out of my personal company's (i.e. me) financial problems by the government?

Anyways, isn't bankruptcy supposed to be the "bail out," but with accountability instead of just writing large checks and calling it a successful bail out?

If anyone gets any government money, they ought to be held accountable for its use and for making sure that this situation never happens again.

I wish politicians, CEOs, and just the general public would start looking at the long term costs and benefits rather than focusing on immediate reward. Think of all the current worldwide problems we wouldn't have to worry about! Then again, thats much easier said than done...

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (-1, Flamebait)

amorsen (7485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117745)

I don't follow the financial world much

That much is obvious. Perhaps the words "Financial Crisis" didn't make it to Fox News yet?

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117753)

are all industries everywhere simultaneously going broke just now?

You can get a pretty good idea how we got into this situation from here. [mises.org]

Not all industries are going broke, but economic activity in general is falling sharply. How long this lasts will depend on how much effort governments put into delaying and interfering with the repricing and deflation that must follow an inflationary bubble of this magnitude.

-jcr

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118169)

It's just that more businesses are eligible for getting a bailout now.

The basic rule for getting a government bailout, is that you need to be actively botching the handling of AT LEAST 1 billion dollars. Anything less than this, and you are just some nickel and dime mom and pop corner store, and don't deserve a handout. Once your company has reached the ability to loose over 1 billion dollars, you finally are in the range of handling real amounts of money, and thus, you must receive the backing of the government when you make incredibly stupid decisions about how to spend your money.

Even ten years ago, the number of companies eligible for a bailout was much lower (of course, all the companies already receiving them in the US have been eligible for decades). Now, a lot more companies have reached the billion dollar range.

10,000 small businesses, each employing 10 people can go out of business and the federal gov't wouldn't bat an eyelash, but 1 company with 100,000 just must not be permitted to fail, no matter how boneheaded the management of the company may be...

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118353)

The economies of scale offered by large businesses are what give you your comfortable lifestyle and cheap computers that you take for granted so easily.

If you don't understand that now, you will soon enough.

I should set up a microphone in the stratosphere and record the biblical whining-fest that will accompany the shattered expectations of the entitled generation.

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118211)

In the US, it's probably going to last at least two more years. Because while the Real Estate industry is trying to convince everyone the market will hit bottom any day now, option ARMs [cbsnews.com] are probably going to continue to depress the market and make financial shock waves for the next two years. Personally, I don't think we'll see light at the end of the tunnel for at least another 2 years after that. For a decade, US citizens have been running ever high debt loads and it's going to take quite a period of saving and paying off those debts before they start being comfortable spending more freely again.

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (3, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118281)

The real estate values has been inflated much by the ability to pay, which in turn is a result of the ability to get loans with low security.

Very few considers that the value of a property may have to be looked at for the long term, and not just short term.

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (2, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118253)

Could you explain why the dollar gain strength when the american economy fails? Is it just because it's so big people trust it more?

A smaller one would just crash wouldn't it?

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118313)

Dunno, the Euro appears to be pretty strong right now too.

I wish the pound was. I'm planning to emigrate in a few months, if the currency tanks any further then my savings won't be worth **** in Australia. I was going to have a year off.

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (3, Insightful)

geighaus (670864) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118371)

The dollar got stronger, because everyone is busy paying back their loans denominated in dollars. This creates a temporary demand for dollar. But rest assured with injections of trillions of newly-created dollars into the economy, little of the value dollar has left will be disintegrated. Correct me if I am wrong.

Bailout? Moar leik FAILOUT amirite? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26117907)

I buy my saline kits from Chase Union Ltd in Movi, Michigan. The cost of a 1000 cc bag of sterile saline, drip tubing, sterile wipes (to wipe down your sac and all around) and catheter needle is with shipping around $25.
You can call them at +01 (248) 348-8191 and ask for item "MF 100" a scrotal inflation kit.

To do the saline, take the bag of saline and put in a microwave for about 5.5 minutes at low heat to warm to a bit above body temperature;about 100 degrees or so. Unwrap the outer plastic packaging and put the saline bag aside. Unwrap the drip tubing which comes with the kit and move the clamping system down toward the end opposite the vial type thing and CLOSE IT SHUT. Take the larger end of the drip tubing and uncap the protective cap........open the warmed bag of saline and remove the clear cap. Insert the drip tubing nozzle into the saline bag opening. Find a curtain rod, pot rack (which i have and use in the kitchen) shower rod or something elevated above you. Hang the bag of saline with the tubing attached and shut off. THEN VERY IMPORTANT. SQUEEZE SOME OF THE SALINE INTO THE VIAL ABOUT HALF WAY -THEN OPEN THE CLAMPING DEVICE AND BLEED ALL AIR OUT OF THE TUBING. YEAH YOU LOOSE A LITTLE BIT OF SALINE BUT THIS IS A MUST. YOU DON'T WANT ANY AIR OR AIR BUBBLES IN THE DRIP TUBING! REPLACE THE CAP ON THE WORKING END OF THE TUBING.

Before hand, while the bag of saline is warming either take a hot shower, or fill a basin or kitchen sink with very warm water sit in it for 4-7 minutes. The idea is to warm your ballsac skin up and let it get loose and hang.

When you have finished warming your sac, and you have the bag of saline (BLED FROM AIR), you are ready to grow.

With your sac still very warm use the wipes provided with the kit to wipe down your cock and ballsac. By the way, you will want an adjustable leather cock ring , nylon rope, or other type of removable cock/ball ring to wrap around cock and ballsac after inserting the catheter needle.

With you sac still warm and wiped down with antiseptics, sit in a chair with a towel underneath. Open the catheter needle don't get pansy here but with one hand, take the catheter needle and the teflon sheath that covers it and WITH THE OTHER HAND TAKE YOUR BALLSAC MOVING YOUR COCK OUT OF THE WAY AND DECIDE ON THE LOCATION OF THE INTENDED CATHETER NEEDLE. YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON THE AREA EITHER TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC AND UP CLOSE TO WHERE THE COCK CONNECTS. YOU PLACE THE CATHETER NEEDLE RIGHT BELOW THE COCK OR A LITTLE LOWER BUT TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE DARKER SKIN DIVIDING SKIN WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SAC.

DON'T GET SQUEEMISH BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT HURT. BUT INSERT THE CATHETER STRAIGHT DOWN CAUTIOUSLY INTO YOUR SAC. MOVE YOUR TESTICLE ASIDE YOU ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE BALLSAC CAVITY NOT THE TESTICLE.

YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A PRICK SENSATION,THEN A POP SENSATION AS THE CATHETER NEEDLE PIERCES THE MUSCLE TISSUE OF THE SCROTUM.

KEEP PUSHING THE CATHETER NEEDLE IN. IF IT GOES IN AND YOU FEEL FROM THE OTHER/OPPOSITE SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC THAT THE NEEDLE IS THERE, THEN STOP.

Pull out the needle itself leaving the teflon sheath inserted into you sac. Tie yourself (cock and balls) off with some sort of removable cock ring or rope or robe tie or whatever.

Sit down, don' t plan to move around too much for the next 30 minutes - hour. Have your beers/soft drinks or whatever already out of the fridge. You will want to stay idle and focused while you do this.

While sitting, and close to the hanging bag of saline and the drip tubing, remove the protective cover of the end of the drip tubing, connect the drip tubing to the catheter sheath in you sac. THEN START ADJUSTING THE CLAMPING DEVICE OPEN TO ALLOW SALINE DRIPPING TO APPEAR IN THE VIAL UP BY THE BAG OF SALINE. ADJUST FOR AN EVEN DRIP DRIP DRIP FLOW AND NOT A STEADY STREAM OF SALINE.

If the saline doesn't drip at first, try pulling the catheter sheath out a bit until you at first experience a small burning sensation;it goes away almost immediately.
Work on the sheath depth and the clamp until you get a good flow of saline going into your sac.

Don't move around too much......or be cognizant of how much you move around while the saline drips into and starts to bloat out your sac. You can always shut off the flow of saline with the clamp, disconnect and move around take a p, whatever......
If you disconnect, take the small stopper thing that is still attached to the needle and plug the teflon sheath to prevent leakage.

I like to use liquid vitamin E on my sac while it stretching and expanding;you should / can put oil or handcream on your sac while it is expanding. The sac is very stretchable but to expand up to 18-20 inches within an hour or so stresses the tissues,so things need to be lubricated somewhat..

GO SLOWLY.DON'T TRY TO REACH A MAX THE FIRST TIME. GO WITH WHAT YOUR BODY/SAC IS FEELING THEN STOP.

When you have finished doing the amount of saline you want to, feel comfortable with, can accept, close off the saline bag with the clamp, and disconnect.

Over filling/stress of the sac can cause osmosis leaking/sweating.. Do an amount of saline at first that is comfortable and not stressfull/hurting by all means. I have over done before and.you don't want to walk around with your sac dripping water out of it.and the after results cause chapping etc which takes a few days to peel and recover from.

Some of the saline is going to migrate into your cock. Your cock girth is going to become much larger than you have ever experienced.

AFTER YOU DISCONNECT FROM THE SALINE BAG, SIT AND WITH "SUPER GLUE", YES SUPER GLUE ON HAND, WITHDRAW THE CATHETER SHEATH.
AND WITH A TOWEL, PLACE SOME PRESSURE OVER THE HOLE THE NEEDLE CREATED......YOU MAY HAVE SOME BLOOD OR BLOOD MIXED WITH SALINE TRYING TO EXIT YOUR SAC! THEREFORE THE TOWELS

DON'T WORRY KEEP PRESSURE OVER AND DOWN ONTO THE HOLE FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO LET THINGS REST AND ANY BLOOD COAGULATE.

REMOVE THE "PRESSURE" TOWEL AND WITH SUPER GLUE, PLACE A FEW DROPS ON THE HOLE TO HOPEFULLY SEAL IT UP QUICKLY. KEEP THE COCK RING OR EQUIVALENT ON DURING THIS AND CONTINE TO LUBE YOUR SAC.

IF ALL IS GOING VERY WELL, IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, YOUR SAC AND THE HOLE IS SEALED AND YOU ARE DONE.

IF ALL THINGS ARE NOT GOING WELL, YOU MIGHT NOT GET A GOOD SEAL THE FIRST TIME JUST PEAL OFF THE SUPER GLUE RESIDUE AND START OVER.

At first your sac will be very tight,but over the next few hours or over night, keeping the cock ring on less tightly or without a cock ring your sac will relax and begin to stretch.

The saline will take a couple of days or more to absorb into you body. That is okay,Saline is sterile water adjusted to normal body PH.

Enjoy it, flaunt it if you are inclined, watch the perm stretch and sac tissue growth that happens over time.

You will need to p a little more often than regular as the saline absorbs into your body, but just enjoy the weight and feel of what is between your legs.

I hope this helps....If your nuts and sac are normally pretty big or even small and you want more, this will blow you away with the results.

Take care
Read the rest of this comment...

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (5, Informative)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117925)

I'd gotten the same impression, but it seems that the term has been in use for a while. Here's one example from 1979 [time.com]

I hardly expect anyone to read that, so I'll summarize. In 1979, according to this article, the Carter administration offered 1.5 billion dollars to Chrysler in what was referred to as a bailout (also called, somewhat quaintly, a "tide-me-over"). Amazingly, the company was proposing a shift to fuel-efficient cars that would get them back to profitability "by 1981". This is all before my time, but I do know that if they ever followed that business model it can't have lasted very long. And so we find them today, stuck in the same ditch they'd driven into back in 1979.
We've all heard that history repeats itself, but this is one of the most startlingly clear examples that I've seen. The difference today, as far as I can tell, is that in 1979 the bailout package called for Chrysler to have a clear plan going forward, and laid out strict conditions (I won't cite them here, but feel free to click on that big ol' link up there). By contrast, I've seen snippets of the recent hearings on a present-day auto-industry bailout. Irrelevant grandstanding about jets [bbc.co.uk] aside, these execs manifestly do not have any plan, and have admitted that they really don't know if the bailout will be enough to save the industry.

We should not stand for this. The whole tired show has been seen before. The only difference, again, between the bailouts of today and those of yesteryear is that we no longer ask for any sort of accountability. That, and a couple orders of magnitude.

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118025)

The Chrysler loan guarantee is usually cited as an example of a successful intervention by the government, but that's a rather shallow analysis. The money lent to Chrysler because of the guarantee wasn't available for other uses. Even though Chrysler paid back those loans ahead of schedule, the bailout allowed them to go on to destroy tens of billions of dollars of capital since then.

-jcr

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (4, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118503)

Your assessment sounds a lot like the idea that a doctor saved a person's life is a 'shallow analysis', because the patient spent the next three decades smoking and eventually died of lung disease.

A better example of shallow analysis comes from people who simply jump to the conclusion that government intervention always turns out badly.

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (2, Funny)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118199)

From an outsider's perspective, it kinda seems like a bandwagon

merchant bankers, stockbrokers, debt traders... seems more like a conga line to me!

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118243)

Aren't they supposed to pay it back?

But yes, I wonder what is most effective of paying them out or let other companies pick up the trash and try to be more successful in the same area later on.

Also it suck that the poor people (aka people) should pay out the investors playgrounds when they don't happen to generate as much income longer. Fuck that.

Maybe you should invest all your money in stocks and if they don't fare well maybe the government can offer you a helping hand for even more investments until the market goes up again ... Would be awesome. No risk investments!

Re:Bailout Bandwagon (4, Interesting)

AlecC (512609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118485)

The problem comes with the concept of "too big to fail" due to concentration. In the general case, you are quite right, If you have a hundred bakers, and there is not enough demand for bread to keep them all in business, the least efficient ones go bankrupt and the more efficient ones thrive, thus increasing the general efficiency of the baking business.

The problem is when you have monolithic industries, or quasi monolithic industries, where the whole industry for one region sinks together. If you have one mega-bakery and that is badly run, you cannot let it go bust because there will be no bread and people will starve.

The DRAM industry has become increasingly capital intensive: a new Fab costs billions, but produces vast numbers of chips. This means that there are very few fabs in one country, probably only one. Healthy shrinkage, by a few percent, is not possible: you lose 50% of your industry or none. And, politically, that is unacceptable for any single country. Worldwide, it would be correct to close down one or two DRAM fabs at the moment. A World Government, with perhaps 12 fabs, could look at the big picture. But Taiwan, Germany, and South Korea, with two or three each, cannot accept losing such a large slice of their industry.

The same was true in the finance industry: because of their size, AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were "too big to fail". Lehmann was adjudge not to be too big - but the repercussions of its failure are turning out much larger than expected.

The same is true in cars. "Detroit", the Big Three American car manufacturers, is collectively "too big to fail". And they are so interlocked in the public mind that they would appear to sink or swim together. Mind you, their problems are basically the result of baling out Chrysler twice instead of letting it fail at a time when it could have failed on its own and brought the appropriate slimming down to Detroit.

What about bailing out people? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26117765)

Bail out people, not businesses. How about instead of spending $8 trillion or so on bailouts for businesses, just give each man, woman, and child a check for $25k?

Re:What about bailing out people? (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117795)

Bail out people, not businesses.

No.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong, whether Paul is a corporation or an individual.

-jcr

Re:What about bailing out people? (2, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117959)

But the government is *for the people*. Corporations should never get the money, people should.

Re:What about bailing out people? (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117975)

Corporations should never get the money,

Up to this point, you're correct.

people should. ..and here's where you go wrong.

There is no action that is immoral for an individual, that becomes right when done by a collective. If I take losses in the stock market, I have no right to rob you to make up what I lost. It doesn't become right if I employ a gang of thugs to rob you. It doesn't become right if I have the government do it for me.

-jcr

Re:What about bailing out people? (4, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118095)

I disagree. Moral imperatives are a function of the social system, there are no absolutes. In a democratic system where the people are sovereign, robbing corporations to benefit the people (for example) can easily be justified within the system, while the converse (for example) cannot (easily). There is a fundamental asymmetry.

Re:What about bailing out people? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118145)

Moral imperatives are a function of the social system, there are no absolutes.

If you believe that, then I certainly don't want you for a neighbor.

robbing corporations to benefit the people (for example) can easily be justified within the system

Rationalization and justification aren't the same thing.

-jcr

Re:What about bailing out people? (5, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118325)

If you believe that, then I certainly don't want you for a neighbor.

Luckily, where I can or cannot live is not up to you, so your concern is unnecessary, thank you :)

Rationalization and justification aren't the same thing.

True. Justification means proving legality within a system of laws, which is exactly what I'm claiming in this instance. However, your ideological preconceptions about right and wrong have clearly caused you to rationalize an absolute opposition to government bailouts, regardless of the circumstances.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118155)

Moral imperatives are a function of the social system
 
Beware when the (people in) government wants to impose and act out its idea of what is a morally just intervention. Note this is equally true whether it be 'for the people' or 'for god'. The true "social" system, expressed via private charities, operates FAR more efficiently to help individuals in need than any government program ever.

Re:What about bailing out people? (4, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118417)

Beware when the (people in) government wants to impose and act out its idea of what is a morally just intervention.

The usual quote "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" naturally applies. However, don't forget that intervention *is* the purpose of government. It is the official mechanism for imposing the will of the people, whatever that will happens to be.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118157)

There's no difference. You're robbing one group of people for the benefit of some unrelated group of people. Whether you want to call the unrelated group "poor people" or a "corporation" is irrelevant.

It's not justified in any case.

Re:What about bailing out people? (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118167)

It's not justified in any case.

Besides failing morally, it also fails from a utilitarian standpoint. When a company fails, the market has shown that people don't want that organization to persist. Keeping it alive misallocates capital that can be better used elsewhere.

-jcr

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118327)

So taxing corporations in order to feed poor sectors of society is wrong?

How very American.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118453)

You can say whatever sensationalist snippet you want to try and make yourself look morally superior, but the fact of the matter is that "taxing corporations in order to feed the poor sectors" is inherently prejudicial. I'd rather the government didn't have the ability to seize something from one group of people to give them to another; today it could be financially based, tomorrow it could be racially, or religiously.

Re:What about bailing out people? (2, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118499)

"taxing corporations in order to feed the poor sectors" is inherently prejudicial.

Please explain how a tax on business profits to feed the poor is "prejudicial"?

You'd rather people starve or rely on charity? Welcome to grinding poverty and people starving to death. Whatever your "moral" feelings about tax and people or corporations right to keep their profits, you have to realise that no man (or company) is an island. Without the society they are in they would not be able to get where they are. Contributing back (yes, forced contributions in the form of tax) is not immoral in that light.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118501)

I'm not robbing anyone. I'm claiming that if the government decides to redistribute money in a way that benefits the people, then it is justified in doing so because it was elected by the people, who are ultimately sovereign and highly likely to approve.

Whether you want to call the unrelated group "poor people" or a "corporation" is irrelevant.

I don't think the distinction is irrelevant at all. Poor people have the vote, whereas corporations do not. That's a fundamental distinction, and reflects a particular set of priorities for the government enshrined in constituional documents.

One could imagine a society in which corporations can vote too, or even where corporations can vote and poor people cannot, etc. In such hypothetical societies, the distinction between "poor people" and "corporation" would not matter or even be reversed.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118107)

So (assuming you're American, of not, then to all Americans reading this), what are you going to do about this. Because not only are you being robbed, is given to a very select group of people, instead of to you all (which is what a democratic government is for, the people, nothing else)? How about using that 2nd amendment for it's intended purpose for a change?

It's just so hypocritical, on the one hand handing out money to business, on the other being staunchly against helping fellow /persons/ (instead of those businesses), and using the 2nd amendment for basically playing cowboys. What is it you guys want?! When is it enough for you?

Re:What about bailing out people? (2, Insightful)

Xanius (955737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118207)

The bail outs have a very specific purpose that ideally will be held to.
I think they should be handled better than they are but the theory behind them makes sense.

Let's assume all 3 major autos go out of business. With out the manufacturer to perform warranty repairs and someone to be held accountable for defects that are life threatening people will not buy those cars.
This causes layoffs and closings of the dealerships, potentially 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.
On top of the dealerships going under you'll have the parts suppliers losing both of their major clients, the auto makers and the dealerships that do repairs for those makers, this causes them to lay off people and close down, another potential hundreds of thousands of people for just the warehouse/store work. Without the store fronts and warehouses selling merchandise the manufacturing aspect of these companies will also be shut down, another potential 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people laid off.

At this point you get the picture of how it could spiral downward from 3 companies going out of business.
They are major companies that are the backbone of a gigantic section of the US economy.
They need to fix their business model, last I heard they are losing several thousand dollars on each car sold and expecting to stay in business which is why they need another bailout, that and people not wanting to buy gas guzzling monsters when gas is $4/gallon.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1, Troll)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118329)

That's being overly dramatic. All 3 wouldn't go down - what would happen is the company's value would plummet, the Chinese would buy them, the CxOs would be booted, and the unions would be abolished (and those who disagreed would lose their jobs), and they would then be run profitably. The infrastructure would mostly survive.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118339)

Cool, remind me to buy Chrysler, Ford or GM next time I need a car. Mmmm, sweet, US taxpayer funded automobile.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

Crookdotter (1297179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118375)

There's right, and there's what we should do regardless. From a global perspective, letting companies go under due to a short term (which is becoming medium term) economic crisis is not helpful. Keeping them going is the best option, no matter if the government is helping them out. It is simply sound economic policy.

To let banks and car manufacturers like Ford and DRAM factories shut down based on some kind of 'fairness' policy is ridiculous, and would result in a massive global economic disaster.

I don't like the fact that 450+ billion pounds has been pumped into our banks from the taxpayers pocket, but not doing it would be worse for the country.

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118019)

But corporations are made up of people, so the individuals in a corporation would still benefit. A corporation itself isn't a real entity, anyway, so how can you do moral wrong against it? You shouldn't be able to have the benefits of a corporation without also having the consequences of such an arrangement.

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118043)

a) There is no robbing involved, unless you redefine robbing to fit you needs. (See piracy vs copyright infringement)
b) Even if it is clearly robbing, it is not necessarily considered wrong, especially when Peter is living in wane and Paul is starving.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118389)

"Robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong, whether Paul is a corporation or an individual."

When I'm Paul, such robbery is heinous, but when I'm Peter it seems quite moral.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117837)

*long sigh*

Ok, let's start at the beginning.

Chapter 1.
Money is a medium of exchange, a unit of account and store of value...

...and now imagine the economy as a circular graph. To force production of one commodity above it's actual demand (spike in the circle) is completely unstable. If you want to increase production then the entire circle must expand. Right now the circle is contracting, and the lame attempts to prop up only bits of it will be crushed, and could even accelerate shrinkage.

Re:What about bailing out people? (2, Insightful)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117953)

Ok, I see your point, but I still think it's flawed. If you just hand money over to corporations so they don't fail, those corporations are going to use that money the same way they used the money the earned...badly. If, however, we pay the employees (who are layed off), the companies will realize the fucked up, and change their business plans. The coporations will lose some money (short term), the layed off employees will get some money till they find new jobs and the corporations will finally learn that daddy-USA is not going to bail them out every time they screw up.

Auto Industry Poster [treehugger.com]

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118003)

What you're missing here, is that it's wrong to take what anyone earns to give it to someone else, whether the recipient is a person or an organization.

-jcr

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118079)

I will agree with you, to the point where it is wrong to cover someone elses risk taking through refinancing from public sources. However, I think it is a basic requirement of a modern civilisation for the many to take care of the few that are in that position through no fault of their own - I'm not sure whether you are including this in your blanket statement, or if you are accepting it as a given without need of mention?

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118099)

I'd like to see how your point stands in front of public education and healthcare.

keeping on the problem at hand, economy is pretty much screwed, USA could not make money out of nowhere so spending money will only require savings in other area or increase in taxes or deflation, each of which will make the situation worse.

so you're right in a kinda wrong way.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

packeteer (566398) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118433)

USA could not make money out of nowhere so spending money will only require savings in other area or increase in taxes or deflation, each of which will make the situation worse.

Are you high? The US government can and does "make money" out of thin air. They print off more money which does water down the value of existing money (inflation). You don't have to save in some area or tax more to have more money. The problem with printing off more money is that it benefits the government as they get more money to spend while hurting the people who currently have money such as the citizens. Most governments have an interesting in some rate of inflation because it reduced the true value of their national debt. The government is trying to do themselves a favor by printing off more money so they can spend their way out of problems and pay off their debt at the same time.

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118139)

Libertarian philosophy does not justify itself. You need to do better than that unless all you're trying to do here is reinforce your personal beliefs.

Re:What about bailing out people? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118153)

Libertarian philosophy does not justify itself.

Freedom doesn't require justification. If you want to use force to impose your will on someone else, the burden of proof for the necessity of doing so lies with you.

-jcr

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118255)

Libertarianism is not freedom, it is oligarchy.

Re:What about bailing out people? (2, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118349)

Pure libertarianism is a recipe for disaster, poverty, concentration of wealth and power, abuse of the weak and, before long, an aristocracy and indentured servitude for the rest.

It is a step backwards to the medieval.

Re:What about bailing out people? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118415)

And once again jcr argues for heavy metals in your ground water, no safety features in cars, no minimum wage or health and safety precautions while at work, no military force, no hospitals nor anything else that the government currently regulates and therefore enforces. In order to have any of those benefits of civilisation, you have to get the money from somewhere, and that is why we pay taxes. Sure I agree that huge corporations should not be bailed out, but what about the workers of those corporations ? They didn't make the policies that are now costing billions. In fact most large corporations didn't. They just got used to living with easy credit, which due to the fantasy financial vehicles dreamed up by the financial markets, is no longer available. In jcrs world, you have to fight for what you want, whether that be clean air, airspace that you can use without interference or food. Winner takes all, or nothing.

Here's an idea - go live on a desert island with a few friends and see how long it takes before you are forced to cooperate or fight to the death over resources.
This level of crass ignorance hasn't been seen since a certain M. Antoinette supposedly said "let them eat cake".

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118495)

Freedom doesn't require justification. If you want to use force to impose your will on someone else, the burden of proof for the necessity of doing so lies with you.

That, in itself, is a position that requires justifying, or at least explaining.

What you're missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118181)

is that life isn't an Ayn Rand novel.

Your simpleminded Libertarian certitudes don't add anything to the conversation, much like your life doesn't add anything to the world we live in.

Re:What about bailing out people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118423)

So what's your view on any social programs, like say road maintenance, hospitals, schools, public utils, organizations like PD, FD, federal orgs like NIST, the FBI, Military?

While I'm not for bailouts either, you are "robbed" or taxed [as we normal people call it] to pay for other peoples benefits already.

What happened to "risks of doing business"? (5, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117771)

It used to be that if you made a poor business decision and lost money you went out of business. But somehow in the recent past someone came up with the idea that just because someone is running a business they deserve to make a profit and stay in business.

It's not just the financial institutions - now it's the car companies (stalled for the moment), airlines - and foreign businesses are lining up for a handout now too.

Why bother with improved products or competitive pricing? Let's just build a factory, make some overpriced junk, then have the government give us a bunch of money? Seems like this is the new gold rush...

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (2, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117799)

I'm all for fair and equal, free market economics, but if it looks like a whole industry is going down, not just a single company, fair and equal bailouts are the right thing to do. If any one industry fails, it could cause a chain reaction that stalls virtually all production and maintenance, and things degenerate into the stone age or at least third world.

Without RAM we don't have new computers, without new computers we can't even sustain the infrastructure we have, let alone grow it to keep up with new demand and progress. Recycling everything can only take you so far, especially with computer parts whose MTBF is a few years.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (3, Interesting)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117875)

If RAM is so crucially important, why are all the RAM makers having such a hard time? I can't see there'd be no demand for RAM for any significant (or even insignificant) period of time, since as you say it's an integral component of crucial infrastructure all over the world.

Perhaps there actually is too much competition (i.e. more suppliers than the market can really sustain) and they're having to sell their product at prices which are unrealistic in the long term? One of the necessary side-effects of a highly competitive market is that there's lots of failures, after all. Especially if you consider the high price of setting up a factory, having a business plan that requires you to sell loads of RAM with tiny profit margins for the next few decades in order to break even is probably not a sound strategy.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (3, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117877)

It's not like there is no demand for RAM at all.
The DRAM companies would not cease to exist, as people will still want to buy RAM.

If a company fails, they usually sell their facilities to try and recover some of their debt..
Someone would buy some of the fabs since there's still a lot of money to be made... hence, you get a smaller company doing the same thing.
not a chain reaction that destroys all markets.

blame xp and crap mobos (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117971)

if every MB had 8 dimm slots as standard, and XP supported 16gig ram, more people would upgrade nicely, then again if XP used memory nicely people would too.

If MS were kinda enough to offer free XP64 for Xp32 people that too would spur demand. (Is it so hard for MS to let people download a free ISO?)

Then again, if the ram companies didnt do illegal deals, they wouldnt have had those billion dollar lawsuits payouts.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118451)

It's a little more complex than that. You're right as you say, the companies asking for bailouts wouldn't completely collapse, they'd sell off some of their factories that's true.

But not all their factories would get bought up- the whole point is there's overproduction for the market's current demands so a small company isn't going to have anymore demand for their extra supply than the big company did for it's oversupply. Essentially, whatever happens, jobs are going to be lost to cut company costs, and there's the problem.

As jobs are lost because of this sort of thing, there are a greater number of unemployed no longer available to buy products such as DRAM or whatever and so demand falls further, this has the inevitable result of further redundancies and the cycle continuous.

So, particularly in the case of the US car manufacturers where so many people have the potential to lose there jobs there could indeed be an absolutely massive impact. I don't generally subscribe to doomsday scenarios so I don't think we'll see complete melt down, at the end of the day, the guys at the top will fiddle the system and magically conjure up some more money from their magical money device as usual. If things were left to run their natural course though, then there certainly is the theoretical possibility that everything could indeed go down the drain as collapse leads to collapse.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117879)

fair and equal bailouts are the right thing to do.

And what is fair and equal? If you were to give money equally to all companies (relative to their sizes I suppose), you'd bankrupt the state many times over.

And the state's money is YOUR money. In short, you're advocating distributing fairly and equally all YOUR wealth and more.

No. Nobody should be, or have been bailed out. The banks are mostly responsible for this mess. I want to see heads rolling, where are they? instead of sticking these people in jail and seizing their assets, they're rolling in MY dough. As for the auto makers, RAM makers, etc...? though luck, that's what Chapter 11 is for.

If enough people have cars they can't find parts for, or computers they can't find RAM for, or lose all their savings, they'll start wondering who is responsible for their misfortune. And they'll demand change, probably rather vehemently and violently. That's why governments the world over line up to bail out businesses : they are trying to anesthetize people, because if said people where to suffer, they'd start asking questions. It's better to line big businesses' pockets now and raise taxes later, that way people will swallow the pill. But the truth is, you've been swindled out of your hard-earned cash, you just haven't paid yet.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117881)

I'm all for fair and equal, free market economics, but if it looks like a whole industry is going down, not just a single company, fair and equal bailouts are the right thing to do.

No, it's not. Things change, whole industries rise and fall, and that's how it should be.

-jcr

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

Crookdotter (1297179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118413)

And you think that car manufacturing has had it's day, and the industry should fail? Are you willing to give your country that much unemployment and suffering that will result?

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117885)

without new computers we can't even sustain the infrastructure we have

says the Microsoft/Dell shill

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118015)

Ha ha, sucker. Everyone knows the Giant Killer Lizard Party pays shills best these days.

GKLP 2012! This country needs leadership from outside the Beltway, and indeed outside this star system.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117979)

and things degenerate into the stone age or at least third world.

Or we could all herald the imminent arrival of Steampunk!

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (3, Interesting)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118087)

We tell children they're all special and can't fail these day so is it no wonder we treat businesses the same way?

Everyone is special and deserves a gold star.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (2, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118285)

I'm all for fair and equal, free market economics, but if it looks like a whole industry is going down, not just a single company, fair and equal bailouts are the right thing to do. If any one industry fails, it could cause a chain reaction that stalls virtually all production and maintenance, and things degenerate into the stone age or at least third world.

Come on, let's say a couple of car manufacturers go down, then the surviving car manufacturers just come in and buy up the contracts and factories for pennies on the dollar. If you don't let this natural garbage collection process occur, then you're effectively choking the entire system -- you're not releasing resources -- and you're compounding the problem even more. Keep this up, and then yes, we'll get to the stone age/third world doomsday scenario you speak of.

If you ask me, this entire mess proves that bankruptcies are taking way too long. We should fast-track the bankruptcy system (at the very least, for the people we know who purposefully lied on their loan applications, and the bankers/lenders who helped them do it). The sooner we can do these quick fire sales, the quicker we'll get the economy up and running again.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26117813)

The dram producers are too big to fail. If we allowed them to do so then, I'm afraid they would take down the entire global economy with them :~(

its the employees (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117843)

The thing is that governments now realise that if they let industry sectors fail, that makes lots of people unemployed, which strains the state and cripples the economy.

If people aren't earning, they aren't spending, and also, tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who could have had their jobs saved may well feel unhappy in a 'get rid of this useless government' kind of way.

So, its either bail out the companies, or sink into a very real and long term recession mixed with political unrest.

Re:its the employees (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118109)

To be honest though sometimes people need to fail. You'll never improve if you can't hit rock bottom. Propping up the economy is only going to make it worse in the next down turn.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117923)

It used to be that if you made a poor business decision and lost money you went out of business

That's still the case for most of the businesses in the country. It's only those who can afford to grease their politicians who get a free ride from the taxpayers when they fuck up.

A free market is a profit and loss system. By interfering with the feedback loop, government allows businesses to continue doing things they shouldn't do.

-jcr

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

John Allsup (987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118023)

These days, corporations arrange themselves like a line of dominoes. They are squeezing the bailouts because people in general can't afford for all the 'dominoes' to fall.

One or two companies going out of business isn't too much of a problem, but large chains of companies that depend on each other is. That's what's changed. That, and the general cooking of the financial books that's been going on for the last decade or two, fuelled by and fuelling the immediate results and greed culture that is prevalent today.

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118053)

jobs are important, maybe that's why?

Re:What happened to "risks of doing business"? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118263)

Governments have protected critical industries, and the industries owned by friends of those in power, since civilization began. If you read Macchiavelli, you get wonderful examples of manipulating power and industry to your advantage from the Renaissance: the interplay of government and industry during the Medici era is wonderfully fascinating material.

Bail Out Madness (2, Insightful)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117833)

These Bail outs are out of control. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd just bailed out Australian Car Dealers to the tune of $2B -- yes! That's car salesman! -- , hot on the heals of an $6B Bailout of Australia's world famous COUGH COUGH car industry. Not that America's $15B car industry is any more deserving. Oh and he just bailed out a failed child car company to the tune of $40M, but no one noticed. Hey real estate agents and IT workers are hurting too. What about bailing out us?

Now I understand bailing out banks via FIDC, but now we're bailing out investment banks too, and now of all things DRAM Makers? Because they overmanufactured? There comes a time to let nature take its course and let more efficient *smarter* companies rise from the ashes. Why are we propping up dinosaurs? With taxpayer dollars at that?

perpetual growth is a falacy (3, Insightful)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118021)

Economists have no mathamatics training.

They think the world is an infinite size with zero stoppage.

Try growing 1000 fish in a small fish tank, eventually it will get so crowded, that 90% die.

I think that 2B bailout wasnt free cash, it was just no questions asked loans, which the banks wont do anymore. Hello banks, you can keep all the billions in cash, but its useless if you cannot spend it, or loan it.

But no amount of free cash or 0% loans will save the economy. Its unsavable, it has to crash/reboot/reformat/reinstall a new system.

Re:perpetual growth is a falacy (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118057)

Economists have no mathamatics training.

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Many of them understand mathematics just fine. The problem with economists isn't one of mathematics, so much as a problem of ethics. They tend to believe that economic problems can be solved by the application of government force.

-jcr

Re:perpetual growth is a falacy (1)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118345)

They tend to believe that economic problems can be solved by the application of government force.

bullshit. the _vast_ majority of free market economists believe in the absolute authority of market forces, which when left unchecked have proved how spectacularly wrong they are.

Re:perpetual growth is a falacy (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118269)

Economists have no mathamatics (sic) training.

That's a gross exaggeration, I'm an engineering major but planning on taking a couple Econ classes for general ed credit, and the ones I'm planning on taking are upper division classes and require Multivariable Calculus. Of course, from what I've heard from other students, engineers find Econ easy because it's just math to them, whereas the Business majors who don't have quite as good a grasp on the math find it challenging, but they still have to take the calculus prerequisites before they take the class.

Re:Bail Out Madness (5, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118359)

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: '>From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)

Another Win-32 problem (1, Troll)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117849)

I think that this is just another instance of customers locked into Win32-compatibility game. Joe Sixpack never needs more then 2GB of RAM. His Vista Home/XP home wouldn't use it anyway (OK, maybe 3GB). Applications stuck with 32-bits because, well, Joe Sixpack owns Win32 computer, not 64-bit one. DRAM companies are hostages in this game.

Re:Another Win-32 problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118101)

IMO - blame drivers. It's a bitch to get my soundcards working ...

Bail outs only fuel the fire. (1)

reast (414275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117927)

Remember in the 80's the government supplied easy loans to the farmers in the US. It was only about 5 years later they were going back to the same farmers and foreclosing on their farms and auctioning off whatever they could. Giving out money to solve business problems has never worked in the long run with examples throughout history. The whole farm crash stated earlier may have been averted by helping adjust the prices they got at market instead of squeezing them until their eyes popped followed by some cash to smooth it over. This whole bail fiasco is destined to blow up in the face of the following administration and the only real victims of the short sighted solution are the tax payers. It's been write a long time since we have seen any politician who has insight or forethought beyond their term in office. The de facto thinking these days seems to be what can I get out of it without getting caught. Even the getting caught part has become secondary in many cases.

Bad news for Micron? (4, Insightful)

jerk (38494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117963)

As the only remaining DRAM manufacturer in the US, what does this mean for Micron? How will they be able to compete if the overseas companies get bailed out?

Re:Bad news for Micron? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118273)

It's entirely possible that they or the US Government on their behalf will file a complaint with the World Trade Organization, calling the bailout an illegal subsidy and/or dumping. Every couple of years the industry tends to get slammed for illegal subsidies [theregister.co.uk] or price fixing [channelregister.co.uk], so they're due.

Re:Bad news for Micron? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118437)

Micron are suffering, have laid of a lot of people, and cut down on a lot of future plans. Shame, great company, great people.

Totally off topic (0, Offtopic)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26117973)

But why do all the meta-moderations date from 2002 this morning?

It feels like I've been in a time slip (please God nobody reply and say "well it IS 2002 dumbass.")

Blowing my mind (4, Funny)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118031)

Much of the new output was aimed at Microsoft's Windows Vista

So you're telling me Vista is actually good for something, stimulating an industry? :-)

Re:Blowing my mind (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118091)

Well, apparently not because the DRAM makers have run into trouble!

To be honest, the average persona really has no need for the power that modern PC's have and RAM seems to have now hit limits where it hadn't before.

- CPU's are fast enough for anything now but even when bogged down with software on unmanaged machines, they're as fast as they can sensibly go. So instead, people are adding cores and that's solved that problem.
- Hard disks are too large for the majority of people. Most people never fill a hard disk in their lifetime.
- Network speeds etc. are too fast for the majority of people. Most people never hit the bottleneck of their Gigabit-capable motherboard, or extrapolating, hit 8Mbps on their ADSL connections etc.
- Graphics cards are too powerful for the needs of most people. And usually come loaded with up to a Gig of dedicated video RAM. There's not much that any relatively modest graphics card can't do.
- And now RAM has hit the point where every laptop comes with a couple of Gig (not including the video RAM) that you have to be a power user to fill up (unless you are using Vista and/or crappy software).

My new workplace bought me a laptop. It cost about £500. It's more powerful than the last server I worked on that managed 450 workstations. It laughs at Half-life 2 and similar programs in 60fps at super-high-res widescreen with anti-aliasing (although, I have to admit, it needs to be plugged in to do this at a decent frame rate). All I wanted was something that could run Word and ping networks.

Re:Blowing my mind (2, Interesting)

kazade84 (1078337) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118183)

Hasn't every Windows release been (at least partially) responsible for the upgrade treadmill which in turn gives hardware manufacturers plenty of business?

Re:Blowing my mind (1)

snsh (968808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118431)

32-bit Vista is the enemy here. How do you sell 4gb DRAM's when you can't use more than 3.5?

Bad Summary Here (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118069)

If you read TFA, it's the low sales figures for Vista that has their panties in a bunch. Add in another sentence or something in the summary. The thought is incomplete. It's actually not easy to guess what they were trying to get at here with it.

I thought Vista sales were BOOMING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118483)

That's what all the statistics say or said anyway. Vista sales are now a larger %of sales than any other OS. Apparently they still have 90% of the market and there are fans of MS who STILL say that Linux has 1% and Mac 4%.

MS were saying that the sales of Vista met expectations.

MS sellers were saying the same on their accounting projections.

Asus say that their Windows version outsells Linux 3:1.

How can they be doing so badly then?

Wow (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118133)

If you skip the initial ad, I've found that PCWorld allow you to read the article for about 5 seconds before redirecting you to page full of ads.

Guess I won't be buying or reading PC World now.

64 bit = elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118303)

Throughout the 32-bit generation, consumers have always needed a predictable amount of the next higher size in RAM at predictable intervals. Now we're up against the 32-bit boundary, so if you want to make use of more than 3GB you need to upgrade to a 64-bit OS. For Apple and Linux that's no problem, but Vista 64 is not ready for prime time, and it looks like SP2 is not going to revert the bone-headed requirement to have signed drivers. That means people aren't going to be able to migrate all their old 32 bit apps transparently, and it will delay the actual 64-bit transition until the release of Windows 7. That means RAM manufacturers are going to need to cool their heels for another year or two before most people are ready to take the jump to 4GB.

(Personally I just bought an OEM copy of Vista 64 and upgraded my desktop from 2GB to 8GB. It turns out I should have done a bit more research, because Vmware Server doesn't run on Vista 64 yet. Sigh.)

1st: Price Fix and Collude (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118365)

2nd: Profit

3rd: Government Bailout

4th: Profit Again

Spectacular business model, they manage to squeeze profit in twice.

If it doesn't work, stop trying to fix it (5, Insightful)

ffoiii (226358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118377)

Weren't DRAM manufacturers just involved in a huge price fixing scheme? Oh yeah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing [wikipedia.org].

So the industry that flouts the law is now requesting artificial support to help them through hard times? What's the real impact if these companies fail? Their assets get sold at a discount, their creditors take a loss, and the world moves on. The technology doesn't disappear. The knowledge of their employees doesn't evaporate. If the business can't survive without manipulating the market or government support, it doesn't deserve to exist.

If DRAM is a valuable technology, somebody, somewhere, can run a business doing it. If that's not possible, then stop doing it.

Maybe everyone should just name a new industry and then mandate that people give them money. That would be so much easier, than say, actually creating value.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...