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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (162504)	3/19/2002 11:51:12 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Alice, you seem unable to comprehend Tony's point. In your link, Tony wasn't saying that the past is irrelevant, as albert so succinctly put it. Rather, he said that you can't assume that things that happen in the past will continue to happen in the future. More specifically, Tony thinks that AMD is falling behind in process technology, allowing Intel to set up a huge advantage in the future (and indeed, the advantage is already here with Intel's fast transition to .13u manufacturing, while AMD is still struggling). If Tony is ignoring AMD's past achievements in process technology, then of course he deserves your ridicule. However, I think it's the other way around. Your decision to write, "and Intel must be in trouble?" tells me that you are assuming that things will always stay the same, and that AMD will always be ahead in process technology, since they were in the past. Frankly, I think assuming that the past is constant is just as bad as ignoring the past. I hope you are as good at embracing dogmas as you hoped for Burt to be, because you seem to find yourself in a similar situation. Take care, wbmw