From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Apr 24 4:33:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FF337B422 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3OBXbk64412; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:33:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "~/.signature" Cc: Subject: RE: the AMD factor in FreeBSD Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:33:36 -0700 Message-ID: <008f01c0ccb2$66cc8ba0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <200104231413.f3NEDwn25143@fac13.ds.psu.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of ~/.signature > >> No, what this is, is Intel sticking it to the folks that want to buy a P3 >> to support cheaper prices on the Celery. > >I don't think soo. If the Celerey were to be separately developed, >the P3 price would be higher, not lower, than it is now. The celery >might or might not exist. > >> the AMD chip. But, if those IT people catch on then the volume of P3s >> will drop so far that they won't be able to get the money from P3 sales >> to support Celery R&D and they will have to raise prices on the Celery to >> pay for the R&D and drop prices on the P3 to keep from losing the market. > >Which continues until the price of celery and P3 are the same, which >will be close to (and probably above) current P43 prices. > Which is exactly what I said earlier - Intel doesen't want this because then nobody would buy the Celery. Then they would just end up selling the P3. So, to create Celery sales they raise P3 prices. Note I never said the Celery was to be separately developed in which case you would be correct. >To this point, I"ve been speaking as an economist. But as an >economists, it's tough to explain how the price of the P3 can be above >the AMD price at all; I'll leave that for the marketing folks :) > >In a similar vein, as an economist it's quite easy to explain why a >firm would pay women less then men for the same work. I have yet to >see an explanation as to why the firm would pay men *more* than women >for the same work; Sorry, I couldn't resist: They may have a market that irrationally prefers products made entirely by men, thus will pay more for those products despite the fact that they are the same. Thus since the firm makes the same profit for the "more expensive products made entirely by men that cost more" as they make on the "less expensive products made entirely by women that don't cost as much" the firm then has a strong disincentive to equalize the pay scale. (because if they raise the women's wage they lose money and if they lower the men's wage then they lose the men employees and thus cannot make the market preference anymore) > the rational act at that point is an all-female work >force . . . > Which is self-correcting as what happens then is everyone else wants the cheaper women, competition sets in and drives up their price and you end up with both being paid the same. Or, you can bring in the unions who will then throw all economic theory into the trash. ;-) Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message