Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (37738)	7/25/1999 7:33:00 AM
From: John Hunt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116915

OT - Can We Buy Back Our Supercomputer, Please? << They are hoping Congress never finds out -- and in the wake of the damning Cox report on Chinese espionage and the recent flurry over major security lapses at U.S. nuclear labs, it is hardly surprising. But soon officials at the Sandia nuclear laboratory are going to have to explain to lawmakers how they managed 10 months ago to sell a $9 million surplus supercomputer for $30,000 to a California-based Chinese national who specializes in exporting advanced U.S. goods to Beijing. According to classified Department of Energy reports leaked to news alert!, the October 1998 sale by the New Mexico lab of the early 1990s Intel Paragon XPS system is of "significant national-security concern." Federal sources say the supercomputer could be a major addition to the Chinese nuclear program -- that is, if the system finds its way to Beijing. Now DOE officials are engaged in a standoff with the purchaser and endeavoring desperately to persuade him to sell the system back to Sandia for $2.5 million. However, he is proving intransigent ... more ... >> insightmag.com Richard, They don't have to steal the stuff ... The US sells / gives it to them. They didn't even wipe the hard drive before selling it!!! Incredible. John

To: long-gone who wrote (37738)	7/25/1999 9:42:00 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116915

Richard, I guess I ought to have used the oft-used code name of "Chet Atkins" instead of "C---ks" which was used by me, not in a derogatory sense, but to emphasize what/how the WCOTC regard the Chinese, a so-called "mongrelized" sub-par species! (BTW, no offence meant to namesakes of, and Chet Atkins himself, a talented guitarist). Yes, I agree that mongrelization does give advanced or improved characteristics but there is also a risk of producing sub-par characteristics. As with most things in life, there are risks and there are risks! (Gee! It's interesting that, in advanced chemistry, quantum-mechanical "hybridization" of atomic and molecular orbitals produces more stable orbitals as well as less stable/degenerate orbitals!!!) If anything, the ongoing Cox investigation reminds us that 1. money talks!!! 2. practical-minded businessmen are always out to make short/long- term profits whenever/however they can!!! 3. BTW, the Chinese have always been a highly pragmatic people: they certainly don't believe in reinventing the wheel, do they??? To be sure, they are beginning to realise that whilst money can buy them anything, it can't buy them LOVE, as the song goes.