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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (134412)	3/11/2001 11:04:11 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575738

AMD's Athlon lands slot in IBM's server line By Jack Robertson, EBN Mar 11, 2001 (7:12 PM) URL: ebnews.com Putting another dent in Intel's armor, IBM Corp. will shortly introduce a line of front-end network servers using dual Athlon processors from Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif., making it the latest OEM to break ranks and put AMD MPUs in its corporate systems. IBM will be among the first tier-one companies to design Athlon into a server line. Sun Microsystems is using older AMD K6-II chips in a low-cost front-end server offered through Sun's Cobalt division. Compaq Computer, NEC, and Micron Electronics have selected Athlons for high-end workstations and business desktop PCs. Meanwhile, in another setback for Intel, an analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., New York, has advised investors against buying shares in Intel Corp. as a "core long-term holding." The recommendation came because of continuing weakness in the PC microprocessor market and the likelihood that the Santa Clara, Calif., company may be unable to protect its average selling prices from pressure as high-end server and desktop PC sales decline further. "Owning Intel as a trade makes sense, but this stock is not a long-term core holding," said Joseph Osha, a Merrill Lynch analyst, in a research report. "Intel's MPU business is worse than the company is admitting." Additional reporting by Bolaji Ojo Ouch run for the hills! That didn't take long did it! Milo

To: tejek who wrote (134412)	3/11/2001 11:46:53 PM
From: jbkelle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575738

Tejek, We agree that what I (and others) accept as reasonable judgements by the Supreme Court, you (and others) reject as not reasonable. However, your statement that you are in the majority is not factual. There was too much fraud in Florida and across the country to be certain of who was the majority. Since neither Gore nor Bush was interested in the truth in Florida or elsewhere, we'll never know the outcome of the election, the tally of legitimate votes cast by properly registered voters. As I've looked into parallels in other elections, it's clear that this wasn't the first time, and given the approach to reform that's been taken by both parties, it won't be the last time. I was disappointed that Bush didn't ask for a complete recount in Florida, but I understand why he didn't. I was equally disappointed that Gore didn't ask for a complete recount, so when he asked for a very narrow recount, and then wanted to change the rules only in those specific precincts, he lost my confidence. Bush's reasoning was very narrow and self-serving, but no more narrow and self-serving than the logic and behavior of Gore and the Democrats. None of them put the best interests of the country first. You say the system was not permitted to work. My view was that the system worked reasonably well. Each party went to court to explore the options as they saw them. Arguments were made and issues were explored. I read most of the decisions and as much of the transcripts as possible. If any court was guilty of making decisions outside of legal precedent, it was the Florida Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. It's interesting that your perception was that the media was biased towards Bush and the Republicans because my take was that the media was heavily biased towards Gore and the Democrats. I'm aware that discussion of the election issues continue. I have conversations with my politically active friends and colleagues nearly every week. I'm not fooling myself, but neither am I trying to convince others that the election result was illegitimate. It was as legitimate and accurate as it could be given the rules and ballots and voter validation procedures that were in place across this country on election day. The thing that annoys me most as I flip through the political arguments here and on other boards and threads is the statement that Gore won the election. He didn't, and no amount of saying he did will make it true. It was a tie, but under the rules in place at the time, Bush was declared the winner by the most non-partison group we have in this country. That's good enough for me. I would have accepted the alternative outcome with an equal amount of cynicism. I hope that this election serves to mobilize people locally at the state level to register voters, change the way elections are held, and ensure accurate voter verification for the next election. That seems more productive to me than flapping my lips at work or typing out arguments on a discussion board. jbk