In the name of national security, China is restricting export of certain drones and computers:
From August 15, manufacturers of certain powerful drones and computers will have to give technical details to the authorities to obtain a licence prior to export, Xinhua news agency says.
[...] In the first five months of 2015, China exported some 160,000 civilian drones, a jump of 70 per cent year-on-year, worth more than $120 million, the official China Daily newspaper reported in July.
[...] The tightening of regulations comes two weeks after an incident in disputed Kashmir in which the Pakistani army claimed to have shot down an Indian "spy drone", reportedly Chinese-made.
China is also likely tightening controls on exports of powerful computers as it looks to maintain its edge in the global supercomputer battle long dominated by US-Japanese rivalry.
Starting August 15th, drone and supercomputer manufacturers will have to present technical details to the authorities in order to get a license to export.
takyon: Intel Launches New Chips in China as US Bans Sales to Supercomputing Centers
U.S. Export Restrictions Lead to Chinese Homegrown Supercomputing Chips
Related Stories
According to VR World and HPCwire, the U.S. government has blacklisted "high technology" shipments to the National Supercomputing Center Changsha (NSCC-CS), National Supercomputing Center Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ), National Supercomputing Center Tianjin (NSCC-TJ), and the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) in China. This effectively means that these major supercomputing facilities can no longer purchase Intel Xeon chips. Tianhe-2, the world's fastest supercomputer since June 2013 according to Top500, is located at the NUDT in Guangzhou and uses a total of 32,000 Intel Xeon and 48,000 Xeon Phi chips.
The main claim of the Bureau of Industry and Security's End-User Review Committee (ERC) is that NUDT, which used US-manufactured parts to produce the Tianhe-1A and Tianhe-2 supercomputers located at the National Supercomputing Centers in Changsha, Guangzhou, and Tianjin, is believed to be engaged in activities related to nuclear explosives.
The U.S. also uses supercomputers for nuclear weapons research.
The news coincides with the Intel Developer Forum 2015 in Shenzhen, China, at which the company announced new Braswell, SoFIA, and Cherry Trail chips, among other products. VR World speculates that the move could cost Intel $1 billion on lost Broadwell-EP Xeon E5v4 sales and accelerate the development of homegrown Chinese processors.
The Platform reports that CPU export restrictions to Chinese supercomputing centers may have backfired. Tianhe-2 has remained the world's top supercomputer for the last five iterations of the TOP500 list using a heterogeneous architecture that mixes Intel's Xeon and Xeon Phi chips. Tianhe-2 will likely be upgraded to Tianhe-2A within the next year (rather than by the end of 2015 as originally planned), nearly doubling its peak performance from 54.9 petaflops to around 100 petaflops, while barely raising peak power usage. However, instead of using a new Intel Xeon Phi chip, a homegrown "China Accelerator" and novel architecture will be used.
A few details about the accelerator are known:
Unlike other [digital signal processor (DSP)] efforts that were aimed at snapping into supercomputing systems, this one is not a 32-bit part, but is capable of supporting 64-bit and further, it can also support both single (as others do) and double-precision. As seen below, the performance for both single and double precision is worth remarking upon (around 2.4 single, 4.8 double teraflops for one card) in a rather tiny power envelope. It will support high bandwidth memory as well as PCIe 3.0. In other words, it gives GPUs and Xeon Phi a run for the money—but the big question has far less to do with hardware capability and more to do with how the team at NUDT will be able to build out the required software stack to support applications that can gobble millions of cores on what is already by far the most core-dense machine on the planet.
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:28PM
I don't see how these restrictions help maintain dominance. One of the reasons manufacturers want to create better products is because they want to be able to recoup their costs and make a profit. That's what justifies making their investments into these advancements. Limiting exportation of these products makes it less likely manufacturers will recoup their costs and so they now have less incentive to invest. Countries that have no such limitations will be the ones to advance their technologies and become dominant players. In fact a lack of restrictions has contributed to the dominant countries being so dominant. As they start imposing restrictions they will simply lose that dominance to those that don't have them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:57PM
Lets also not forget that these advancements aren't cheap. Some of the revenue that a manufacturer makes could be reinvested back into advancing their products. Limiting exportation reduces revenue and hence reduces investments to create advancements causing a country to fall behind those without such restrictions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @07:00PM
Prisoner of the capitalistic mode of thinking, aren't you?
Now, as a motivation for advancements, suppose a state has domination ambitions: what's the difference for the researcher/engineer that works on discovering/implementing the new advancement? S/he will be paid anyway and receive the same recognition as the one working for a "private initiative enterprise".
In fact, many such discoveries are paid by govt grants to universities in US. And all NASA discoveries are also done by public funding.
Care to think how come the former USSR/current Russia managed to have better rocket engines than USofA for more than 30 years now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:11PM
and the country that exports products can receive more tax revenue from manufacturers to fund more government investments as well. Advancement requires capital and countries that export more make more revenue and can use that revenue to invest back into more advancements. A country that wants to be isolationist will be poorer and will be less able to afford making more advancements.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @07:26PM
Can they now? Aren't you forgeting the "duty of tax minimisation" the corporation have to their shareholders?
Just have a look on the major country beneficiaries of the USA technological progress: they are named Cayman Islands, Seychelles, Bermuda and all those tax havens that exists; their efficiency of revenue generation is infinite: invested nothing and gained something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:37PM
You seem to be changing the subject. We were discussing whether or not allowing exportation will help a country stay dominant. We weren't discussing companies that take advantage of tax code loopholes. That's something that governments need to address separately.
A company that can't make a profit can't pay taxes. A company that can only make a little profit can only pay a little in taxes. A company that can make more in profits can pay more in taxes. Allowing exportation allows more profits and hence more taxes. Shortcomings in a government's tax code are a separate issue from that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @07:56PM
It may seem so to youy. We were discussing* the efficiency of various means available for a country to become/stay technologically dominant. And I pointed the fact that setting a base on private initiative to do it has it's own inneficiencies.
And a state-owned company can have the entire profit directed to technological advance, because the "proprietor" wants technological dominance rather than money. My point: the "private initiative" is not necessarily the only engine for technological advance.
(in fact, once private enterprise reaches dominance, it becomes a hindrance to techonological progress - it loses motivation in sustaining the cost of further developments because it eats from its profits. See the current ISP market in US).
---
* an offtopic line of discussion - currently, TFA is about China tightening the control of its drone export because they were used for military/spying purposes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:03PM
Free market capitalism implies competition. The problem with ISP's is that they lobby to restrict competition. Yes, this harms advancement. but, again, that's a separate issue and you are once again changing the subject. I am not advocating that private companies should receive special monopolies. They should be forced to compete like anyone else. In fact your example is another example of how government interference harms advancement.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @10:09PM
And yet, it is exactly a common government that defines a country as a geopolitical entity.
So, if you want the best for private initiative, don't speak about countries, much less "technological dominant countries".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:23PM
"In fact, many such discoveries are paid by govt grants to universities in US. And all NASA discoveries are also done by public funding.
Care to think how come the former USSR/current Russia managed to have better rocket engines than USofA for more than 30 years now?"
and where does that money come from? Taxpayers. The private market. The private market supports the government, if it weren't for people that work to keep government employees paid (and to provide them with goods and services for the money they are paid with) the government couldn't exist. So having a strong private sector by allowing exports serves two purposes: it helps support advancements within the private sector and it helps the private sector support government functions.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @07:38PM
Private market in USSR? Do you think the taxes on (subsistence) farmers market* funded - in the '60-ies - the most powerful rocket engine [wikipedia.org]?
---
* I guarantee you, the only somehow private markets of those times were the farmers' markets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:00PM
So, what, do you advocate for a self sufficient government? Are you advocating for communism (and I know China is communist)?
and, yes, Russia did make advancements. As have many other countries. It is not being argued that being isolationist will result in no advancements just that more advancement can be achieved when a country receives more revenue to invest back into making them.
If a government really wants to invest into a specific technology (at the expense of other investments) they can direct resources into developing it. No argument there. But with more revenue the government can invest more into that same technology and it can also make investments into other technologies. Whether it's the government generating the revenue through exportation or whether it's the private sector; more revenue equals more money a country has to invest back into making even more advancements. and the country that's ahead of the curve is most qualified to receive that money and to invest back into pushing the curve forward even more. but if it chooses not to then it will be more impoverished and it (its people) will focus more of its resources on overcoming poverty and will have less resources for advancement allowing for other countries to make investments into advancements.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @10:06PM
I don't advocate for anything, just pointed out that other solutions for "technical dominant countries" existed and still exists. Each one with its own pitfalls and advantages.
If you set forward the idea that "private initiative for technical dominance is the best approach for a nation", then I'll ask you to demonstrate.
Mind you, private initiative and "national interest, including technical dominance on a country base" are diverging lately, if not already at conflict - globalisation and whatnot. So thread carefully in your argumentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:57PM
no minimum wage, so everyone was motivated to succeed rather than only those that didn't feel cheated by a wage hike driven by politics rather than actual talent
if the united states eliminated the minimum wage, it might see a boost in workforce ambition also, but your government is 'too big to fail' now so never gunna happen
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @10:20PM
Huh! Don't delude yourself. I grew nearby, under a "communist" regime: everybody was getting their apartment for free when they'd establish a family (on waiting lists, granted). And extra social support for newborn kids. And free public health and education.
Yes, all of the above of a rather shitty quality (except the education), but the motivation for technical progress was never "because... oh no... no minimum wage!? How am I going to survive?".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:57AM
it's not about money. it's about fairness
dipshit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:35AM
(oh, I see, a principled AC... so deep into the principles that s/he's blind to the realities of the former USSR - where either you complied and give to the state everything you own and the state gives you back enough to survive; or you didn't comply and the state sends you to Siberia).
What does it mean fair?
(Score: 1) by chrysosphinx on Monday August 03 2015, @07:18PM
This is not about market, this is about global strategy. I still remember a COCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoCom [wikipedia.org] export restrictions on mainframes and PC's. And yes, I did smuggling computers, some 30+ years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:02PM
Indian spy drone?? Look, I've been around here from almost Day One and one thing I've taken away from all the comments is that it is patently clear, from pretty much every story, that the US is the only one who uses drones and is the only one who spies. NOW you're going to tell me this isn't so?
I feel as if my World View has been shattered. Well, India, China, I guess that's ok. I'm sure none of the EU countries would act in such an uncouth manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:02AM
Google '5 eyes' and feel lucky.
It doesn't include India, but last I heard Australia and Great Britain weren't a part of the US... yet.
All countries spy on each other to some degree. The US has just turned it into a perverse art form.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:39PM
China isn't doing anything that the US isn't doing also. Nothing new under the sun here. Back in the day, you couldn't export a Mac G3 or G4 because it was used in running simulations for nuclear bomsb.
Look at what doing these things ("If you export shit, you've gotta give us the blueprints") gave the US: they could intercept network devices on their way to , open them up, inject an eavesdropping implement and send them on their way.
I think this is another major reason that China too is getting in on this action. Expect the next *big* global surveillance story to involve Chinese hardware.