Intel Inks Deal with Department of Defense To Support Domestic Chip-Building Ecosystem (techcrunch.com) 28
Intel has signed a deal with the Department of Defense to support a domestic commercial chip-building ecosystem. The chipmaker will lead the first phase of a program called Rapid Assured Microelectronics Prototypes - Commercial (RAMP-C), which aims to bolster the domestic semiconductor supply chain. From a report: The chipmaker's recently launched division, Intel Foundry Services, will lead the program. As part of RAMP-C, Intel will partner with IBM, Cadence, Synopsys and others to establish a domestic commercial foundry ecosystem. Intel says the program was designed to create custom integrated circuits and commercial products required by the Department of Defense's systems. "The RAMP-C program will enable both commercial foundry customers and the Department of Defense to take advantage of Intel's significant investments in leading-edge process technologies," said Randhir Thakur, president of Intel Foundry Services, in a statement. "Along with our customers and ecosystem partners, including IBM, Cadence, Synopsys and others, we will help bolster the domestic semiconductor supply chain and ensure the United States maintains leadership in both R&D and advanced manufacturing."
Finally.. (Score:1)
The first step towards a Berry Amendment for semiconductors. Chips are a much bigger national security issue than socks.
Re: (Score:2)
Not China, Taiwan (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Finally.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd rather see the beating of an irresponsible bigmouthed dumbshit "conservative" like Tucker Carlson.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny to listen to them cry about how China subsidizes their industry, but at the same time it's totally OK to give our guys tax breaks and bailouts. As if those weren't subsidies for all those "Rugged Individualists".
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny to listen to them cry about how China subsidizes their industry, but at the same time it's totally OK to give our guys tax breaks and bailouts. As if those weren't subsidies for all those "Rugged Individualists".
Never mind the fact that the Blue states (and Texas) which fuel 2/3rds of the US economy subsidise the entire palette of Red, "Rugged Individualist" states with their federal tax money. None of the Red States (except Texas) turn an actual profit. Democratic districts had their median household income climb over the last decade from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. Meanwhile, the income level in Republican districts has declined from $55,000 to $53,000.
Re: (Score:3)
Democratic districts had their median household income climb over the last decade from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. Meanwhile, the income level in Republican districts has declined from $55,000 to $53,000.
People living in high taxation districts (that is, Democractic districts) HAVE to make more money just to keep up with the bills. Meanwhile, people in Republican districts don't make as much because they simply don't need as much, since they aren't getting taxed to death.
Back when I used to travel through California, the difference was striking. Everything costs way more in CA, and the people were so high strung. As a tourist, I was in no big hurry, but damn, those CA farmers and CA city slickers were always SO pushy and anxious to get where they were going.
When driving through red states like Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming, wow, what a difference. The gas, food, clothing, etc is all noticably cheaper and the people are all so relaxed/friendly. I especially liked how the police aren't out to get everybody like they are in CA. About the only time I even SAW police in Wyoming was when someone crashed into a deer or bison and they were helping to get the wreck off the road.
The only thing better about California is the weather. Those other states get damned cold in the winter, whereas California is pretty mild all year round, thanks to be being so close to the ocean.
Paying lower taxes comes at a price. Just take a look at the 'Kansas Experiment', even the Republicans eventually admitted it was unsustainable and rolled it back. Despite their lower taxes red staters still pay 1st world taxes for 3rd world public services. When your population's income is declining instead of growing the only way to maintain living standards is to chop away at public services. Eventually communities can't even spare the cash to fix potholes. Everybody wants an organised state and the infr
Re: (Score:2)
Will they be forced (Score:4, Insightful)
Will they be forced to use all the Fed $ to build Plants and hire real workers ? With nothing going to pay of debts or stock buy-backs.
Or is this just a give-away like the the Major ISPs got that were used just to pad the stock price ?
If a company gets this $, it should be forced not to buy back any stocks for 20 years
Re:Will they be forced (Score:4, Insightful)
If a company gets this $, it should be forced not to buy back any stocks for 20 years
Is this the dumbest idea ever?
So companies generate profit. There are 3 things they can do with it. Invest it, Give it to the owners (pay a dividend), Buy back shares
You want to remove 1 of those ways of returning money to shareholders - why? It is one of the most tax efficient ways of returning money to your shareholders...
Oh wait, I just got it - you want more of my money in taxes don't you
So you get rid of method 3, then a company can invest internally, not really effective at a huge scale, it can buy something external - currently becoming more difficult at the multi-billion scale, or let their cash pile grow
Do you really want these companies amassing huge amounts of cash that just sit and have no useful purpose?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To put your comment in perspective, stock buybacks were considered to be a form of illegal manipulation by insiders, right up until the Great Pretender (Ronald Reagan).
Are you telling me company officers and shareholders weren't making good money before that? Or was it just not good enough?
Remember, there is no law saying the company has a duty to shareholders. That is a line of BS that was pushed by Milton Friedman (the one who was shocked that his theory was wrong in 2008...) and all the B-schools pushed
Re: Will they be forced (Score:2)
Amen. Glad to see others in the Slashdot community push back against this bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
you want more of my money in taxes don't you
No.
He's saying if a company is given a government handout from HIS taxes
...and if the company doesn't need that handout after-all
...the company should return that money to the government rather than give it to you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What are you talking about? Haven't you heard about the new capitalism? Free market only when it suits us and always to privatize profits while socializing losses.
That's the conservative way. It's not even a free market anyway. That's the joke that keeps on giving.
"Intel's significant leading-edge technologies" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Department of Defense to take advantage of Intel's significant investments in leading-edge process technologies
Re: (Score:2)
Joak?
Re: (Score:1)
I think everyone knows it's really to address and clarify their OTA and "Management" systems.
Project Pork. (Score:1)
Now I know how Intel's planning to save itself.
As usual: Not with quality products. But with pork and anti-competitive backstabbing with a serrated knife.
(Thanks for that admission of a long-term inability to compete.)
Thugs gotta thug.