The Intel thread...

To be fair, launching an astronaut is 50’s tech, and building a genomic institute is imported american gear - but at least china spends their cash a bit more sensibly than our lot.

It might be 50’s tech or more accurately 80’s to 90’s tech but there’s only been 3 countries that have been able to do it so far! The Chinese are publishing and doing world-class research in their ‘imported’ American gear institutes in Beijing. There’s a constant downgrading of Chinese technical ability and also suspicion of China in Ireland which is ridiculous.
Anyway the mistake from the incubator above is a classic one. Once a technology is ready you’ve got to go to market and sell it, as I’m sure you know well Yorkie, otherwise it quickly becomes obsolete. The Chinese have plenty of cash, they might have pumped in some capital to get it off the ground in time. If you don’t join the game you don’t have a chance of winning.

That’s because it’s damned expensive and largely pointless.

True, but genome work using current gear is a simple matter of money. Spend a million (or 10, depending), sequence an organism. There’s maybe another 2 years of high-impact publications in the game though.

I’d disagree on this to a point. Ignoring the astronaut side of things, you can see by the news stories of failed military rocket launches by North Korea, Iran, etc. plus the big-ish news when India and Pakistan both managed it, that even short- to medium-range rocket technology is notoriously difficult to perfect.

Damned expensive, yes. Largely pointless? Well the technology certainly isn’t if you feel threatened by an antagonstic neighbour (or feel like being antagonistic yourself, depending on your Dear Leader’s mental health!).

Now you can argue how pointless militarisation is, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that there are customers lined up to buy Chinese rocket technology, no?

Which was rather central, since it was referring something that 3 countries could do. Naturally there are lots of reasons to develop other space tech.

That’s because it’s damned expensive and largely pointless.

I’d disagree on this to a point. Ignoring the astronaut side of things…
Which was rather central, since it was referring something that 3 countries could do. Naturally there are lots of reasons to develop other space tech.

there are so many consumer goods developed off the back of the space race

Was the head of Intel on the radio this morning complaining about the decline in educational stardards in the country? Anyone else hear that new work is being sent to other facilities rather than Leixlip?


The reference to the head of Intel this morning was to a couple of talks/interviews with Craig Barret former CEO of Intel last year and earlier this year

Had to laugh at the comments txted in to Newstalk in response.

“What right has Craig Barrett to citicise our educational system? That’s like me watching United from the couch on a Sunday and giving out.”

Never knew Alex Ferguson was a big Newstalk fan.

The advanced space launch abilities of the Soviet Union and the US were very costly. However in the US case one can argue that is was largely beneficial, leading to faster development of advanced computers, materials, systems, weapons systems (the US is the world’s largest arms exporter) and consumer services such as GPS.
It didn’t benefit the Soviets as much because their whole economy was in tatters and they couldn’t afford it. It could be argued that the Chinese certainly can afford it, it will be useful for them so as not to rely on American/European/Russian systems such as GPS and satellite launching, they require more advanced weapons systems to reach true world power status and their economy is much bigger and stronger than the Soviet Union ever was. The astronaut development program is more about patriotism but it does prove a point, namely advanced technological capabilities and economic power.

To show up ignorance regarding science from China…and other countries for that matter (you may need to refresh to view the page).

To get back to the point about Intel, would a 700 million dollar grant make sense in terms of economic benefits?

Well if the Fuckwits in FAS were spending a Billion a year & creating no jobs, then I think keeping a cutting edge technology firm in the country is in the best interests of the country.

Of course, we still have the minor problem that the EU, which we so recently gave a vote of confidence in, will most likely try to prevent any money in grants be given to Intel.

If the choice is between Ireland and some ex-EU country, the EU will find a way…

More like Pratt O’Keefe :angry:

Over 100 laid off at Intel site.

They are not actual Intel staff. They are the contractors who were de-installing the equipment in the now obselete fab. This is an obvious sign that the new investment will not be happening then.

If things were that obvious at the moment, I’d guess they’d layoff more than 100. That said, I think it will go to Israel

I was surprised by how many people I spoke to this week who had noted and were stunned by Craig Barrett’s comments about the decline in our Educational standards - seemed like they had never heard any rumblings about this before! 2 of them were lecturers - they then went back to discussing where they would holiday during the July to mid September period when their Union would not allow them to be anywhere on campus or speak to thesis-writing students etc.

Intel are due to open their first Chinese Fab shortly. It’s a 12inch Fab based on 64nm technology which is not latest generation but not far off (as good as AMD do anywhere). They will be making chipsets for latest generation processors which is what they normally use previous generation equipment for (as in Fab10 & Fab14 in leixlip). i reckon there are 2 key factors to viability of older fabs - Margin on products (IFO Leixlip was making flash memory which is now seriously commoditized and low margin so a no brainer) and write down/ depreciation / lifecycle of equipment & facilities (this is a multi-million dollar investment and the equipment is not easily portable due to set up & process stabilisation). I would reckon that any significant Fab investment has a life cycle of 5-10 years min which says Fab24 & Fab 24-2 have quite a way to go. Up to now Intel have only had final assy and test houses in Far East but this is changing. China are also fast becoming world leaders in independent foundry business so things are changing and they are fast building up the key skills for a mature Fab business.
See table half way down this page for China Fab stats

China is not in any shape or form a world leader in independent foundry business. Taiwan is and has been for the last two decades, chances are that the chip in your electronic gadget was made by a Taiwanese company, not Intel or others. The number 4 in the chart, SMIC, lost a lawsuit to one of the major Taiwanese companies who they stole technology and people from, now it is at least 25% owned by that company. It also failed to make real headway in market. Taiwan also has restrictions on moving the latest chip tech to China fabs but it is relaxing these rules slowly.

Back to the rumours again but unfortunately these do not appear to be dodgy. Fab 10 (the original chip factory in Leixlip from 1992) is due to cease operations by the end of 2010. Now considering this was the other half of IFO with the now defunct Fab 14 this is not unexpected. The major downside is that there is no word or indeed even unsubstantiated rumours about upgrades or new contracts.

The unrelated upside is that other multinationals in the region have have not engaged in major downsizing and layoffs although I really hope that the rumours I am hearing about Pfizer turn out to be the usual false scuttlebut.

Sadly, sources have told me the same about Intel’s IFO operation and that no new contracts are in the pipeline. You would have to ask why then did Intel chief Jim O’Hara get millions from the corporation last year to spend on advocating a Yes vote in the Lisbon treaty when it looks like that our friends in Europe are itching to raise the corporation tax here.
See here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=29697