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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (20368)	12/21/2000 8:56:58 AM
From: Geoff Goodfellow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

this "application" is ideally suited to be marketed to the prospective Globalstar customer base, don't you think: people away from the urban areas, remote, isolated, alone, lonely and horny. i just wonder what the "elasticity" of the price point "curve" is for this to "take off"?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (20368)	12/21/2000 1:57:32 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

qualcomm.com Jon, suppose Tahoetech emails you that address while you are flying to a CDMA negotiation to buy a network. You figure, having a big brain, that you should check it out. Good luck with the Globalstar download - you'll need it. I think that link needs reasonable bandwidth and would be slow. Anyway, many of us know, from miserable experience years ago when 9.6 Kbps was considered 'high-speed', that it is horribly slow. Even loading the Globalstar home page, coverage maps and so on would be a pain in the neck. Webcasts with interviews and images would not be fun to watch. <real reason for high data downloads -- Ha ! I had the same thought, but was wondering if it was just my "warped" mind at work. I really see no other logical source for bandwidth "hogging."> Jon, you need to examine your brain. Sure, it is big, but as Tahoetech intelligently pointed out, size isn't everything. She says male brains are the biggest sex organs around. Maybe if you look around in some disused corner of your pixilated brain, you'll find something more mathematically-oriented to fill your pixelation capacity than high-resolution pornography. [There are funny pictures around of how brains store things and what is stored, with women's and men's brains being quite different]. Women obviously don't need such big brains because they save their brain for more useful things [from their point of view with a small sex-organ]. I bet males download a LOT more pornography than women do! But if you check the magazines which women look at, there are a LOT of pixels in them, but not many words and zero mathematics. Male magazines [I hear tell] have high resolution pictures, lots of words to make 'the articles worthwhile' and some mathematics - statistics and graphs on engine capacities, drive-train torque versus power output and third order partial differentiation to derive tyre wear rates when squealing the tyres. Women's magazines [note the cool plural and apostrophe there] have makeup, clothes, high-resolution pictures of women in various states of undress [almost NONE of males] but NO maths. I'm not sure that I've completely solved the issue - a few graphs would help. But I notice that those with statistically small brains didn't answer the vital question of the best time for growing human brains to form neuron connections to learn languages such as mathematics, talking or reading. My hypothesis was that women aren't so [statistically and with equal IQs] good at mathematics because their brain has fully grown before they get to see any of it. That's why women say 'we need to talk' to their husbands. You never hear them say 'we need to do mathematics'. They could solve relationship problems much better with mathematics. Imagine saying to a CDMA phragmented photon, about to transmit from a cdma2000 gadget, 'we need to talk'. It would NOT get the message and would go off half-cocked - ending up in a bar or something instead of showing up at the right place at the right time, shaved, dressed and ready for communication. Size doesn't matter! [As men and women with small sex organs proclaim] Allocation of brain-space and education do. Would you rather have a big 1985 IBM 286 or a little 2005 cdma2000 one, with all mod-cons, such as SnapTrack, Eudora, that new surface acoustic wave filter replacement qualcomm.com , GaAs ASICs, etc, and mobile to boot? Maybe even in a Globalstar phone [with Guy-sized aerial]. I hope this helps. Mqurice PS: I also hope that nobody uses this discussion about brains to lower the tone of the neighbourhood. I also notice I got my bits and bytes mixed up and sums wrong in the Globalstar cost calculation, but that didn't affect the concept that people have to wait hours and pay a lot to Get It from Globalstar when they could wait a short time and Get It from their cheap and very, very fast, ADSL or WiLan or AirFiber or cdma2000 link when they are back on the ground. They could 'read' magazines while in the air. Or do mathematics with their wives. [Edit...I notice 'the Winns' are awake ... next post = Tarken. I see he is doing a lot of maths early in the morning. Hi TK! That i-mode analysis makes sense. So we would be rich if Globalstar charged by the pixel rather than the minute]