SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cactus Jack who wrote (56893)2/1/2003 1:31:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Wall Street Pines for Tech Recovery

BY HERBERT LASH
Reuters
Posted on Sat, Feb. 01, 2003

NEW YORK - Something funny is happening on Wall Street. Companies are slashing their capital spending budgets due to a dicey economic outlook, yet tech stocks have shown some light on hopes of a recovery in technology spending.

The tech-laced Nasdaq Composite Index has lost ground since the new year's rally peaked two weeks ago. But its drop has been less than that of the Dow Jones industrial average and runs counter to its usual wider swings than the Dow.

There are several reasons this could be happening:

++ The Nasdaq -- which was once over 5,000 -- has been battered the worst in the past three years and the rest of the stock market might just be catching up;

++ Tech spending has all but disappeared in the past three years. Eventually, people will need new computers;

++ Investors often feel the need to buy something, and the bull market in the late 1990s was a tech-driven phenomenon. Some may think now is the time to get ahead of the next rally.

Behind the tech stock push are hopes the bear market has bottomed and expectations information technology will pick up at the end of the year, or by early 2004, as companies replace equipment bought during the year 2000 build-up.

"My sense from everything you read is the rate of decay has slowed. The news hasn't been getting incrementally worse," said Donna van Vlack, director of trading at Brandywine Asset Management, which oversees $7 billion. "How many shipwrecks have you seen? The world's not going to be in hell forever."

But the bet on tech may be dead wrong, as some say the bear market, the deepest since World War II, isn't over yet.

"The watchword is spend as little as possible," said Erick Maronak, research director at NewBridge Partners, about corporate IT spending. "We're past things deteriorating quarter after quarter, but the issue is when will companies return to revenue growth?"

Many tech shares shot up 40 percent to 60 percent after the Nasdaq hit multiyear lows in early October, on hopes the rout in technology had run its course. Worries the latest rally will be just another in a series of bear market bounces has made some investors question the likelihood of a tech recovery.

"There's an inability to reconcile what we saw in stocks (during the October rally) with the fundamentals," Maronak said. "At this point, given all the head fakes investors have bought into, they're being a little leery."

TECH DREAMS

After three years of decline on Wall Street, and with warnings of a fourth down year, investors can be forgiven for not buying into the call for a tech recovery.

But rising revenue forecasts can easily be found on Wall Street, even though many companies have said they will not provide forecasts this year because the economic outlook is clouded by a possible war with Iraq.

SG Cowen said on Wednesday that it recently spoke to a high-level official at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Federal IT spending budget is expected to increase 20 percent in 2003, up from a 5 percent increase last year, the brokerage said.

Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO.O) is expected to be the primary beneficiary, said SG Cowen analyst Christin Armacost.

Getting a handle on how much companies will spend is difficult because of particular company needs and the wide spectrum of what can be bought.

UBS Warburg said it expects global wireless capital spending of about $68 billion in 2003, though it said its estimate could be reduced after AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (AWE.N) announced on Wednesday spending would be slashed almost 40 percent to $3 billion.

U.S. Bancorp Jaffray said even the most optimistic forecasts for PC components call for barely half the 17 growth range of several years ago when Y2K spending was on a tear.

"Many observers, justifiably so, see this as a largely saturated market hamstrung further by a worldwide economic slump," said Bancorp Jaffray analysts Ashok Kumar in a report.

VALUATIONS STILL TOO HIGH

To be sure, technology earnings will increase 31 percent in 2003, following a 22 percent decline last year, said Ed Yardeni, Prudential Securities' chief investment strategist.

The view is in line with Wall Street consensus, Yardeni said, and though it seems high, it will only put the sector back to what its earnings were in 1995, he said.

"I'm not real enthusiastic about tech," Yardeni said. "Overall, I think this is going to be a distressed sector for awhile. You can have an earnings rebound, but not enough to justify current valuation multiples."

On a 12-month forward-earnings basis as of January, tech stocks were trading at price-to-earnings ratios of 30, whereas prior to 1998 they traded at about 16, he said.

Tech will continue to be a trading vehicle, sparking great rallies that last a few weeks, only to give back most of their gains, Yardeni said. Since the Nasdaq peaked in March 2000, there have been seven rallies that turned out to be duds.

"We have to get over this tech obsession," he said. "We have to get on with life."



To: Cactus Jack who wrote (56893)2/1/2003 4:44:12 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 65232
 
My sincere condolences & prayers goes out to the families
of the crew of the Columbia :-(

'A Tragic Day for the Nation'

Space Shuttle Disintegrates; Seven Astronauts Killed

Saturday, February 01, 2003

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Space Shuttle Columbia blew up and disintegrated in flames over Texas Saturday morning, killing all seven astronauts aboard and scattering debris over four states and the Gulf of Mexico.

The seven crew members -- six Americans and the first Israeli to go into space -- were just 16 minutes from landing at Cape Canaveral, Fla., when the shuttle broke up at 200,000 feet. The astronauts had been orbiting the Earth for 16 days.

"Columbia is lost. There are no survivors," President Bush said in a televised address from the Cabinet Room. He said the day had brought "terrible news" and "great sadness" to the country, and that "our entire nation grieves."

The first indication of a potential problem occurred minutes before 9 a.m. EST, when there was a loss of temperature sensors on the shuttle's left wing, said Ron Dittemore, the program manager. During Columbia's liftoff, a piece of insulating foam from the fuel tank was believed to have hit that wing.

Dittemore said the loss of the sensors on the left wing was followed seconds later by several other problems, including a loss of tire pressure and indications of excessive structural heating.

NASA put all future shuttle flights on hold until the cause of the disaster has been determined. The crew aboard the international space station will have enough supplies to last through the end of June, Dittemore said. The Russian Space Agency said a Sunday launch of a Progress cargo ship to the station would go forward as planned.

Bush praised the Columbia crew for their courage and daring in an age when space travel seems so routine, but is anything but.

"These men and women assumed great risk in the service to all humanity," Bush said. "The astronauts knew the dangers and they faced them willingly."

Still, he said, "our journey into space will go on."

Earlier, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe told a press briefing: "This is indeed a tragic day for the NASA family, for the families of the astronauts, and likewise for the nation." He said Bush was speaking to the families of the astronauts, and "we trust the prayers of the nation will be with them and with their families."

"A more courageous group of people you could not have hoped to know."

NASA lowered its flags at Cape Canaveral. Flags also were lowered at the White House and the Capitol in Washington.

"Sadly, from the video that's available, it does not appear that there were any survivors," said Bill Readdy, NASA's associate administrator for space flight.

He said it was too early to speculate about the exact cause of the disaster.

White House officials said there were no indications that terrorism was involved. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said no threat was made and the shuttle was out of range of a surface-to-air missile.

O'Keefe said there was "no indication that the mishap was caused by anything or anyone on the ground."

Bush was alerted to the disaster at Camp David and then was taken to Washington in a motorcade. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge went to the White House to monitor the situation.

Columbia was at an altitude of 200,000 feet over north-central Texas at a 9 a.m., traveling at 12,500 mph, when Mission Control lost all data and voice contact with the shuttle and crew. The shuttle was aiming for a Florida landing at 9:16 a.m.

The final radio transmission between Mission Control and the shuttle gave no indication of a catastrophic failure.

Mission Control radioed: "Columbia, Houston, we see your tire pressure messages and we did not copy your last."

Columbia responded: "Roger, uh ..."

Then the transmission broke off.

At the same time, residents of Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana reported hearing "a big bang" and seeing flames in the sky.

• Map: Witness/Debris Sightings

Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking diagonally through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into separate balls of light as it continued downward.

Military satellites with infrared detectors recorded several flashes as Columbia broke apart, according to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity. It was unclear whether those "spikes" of heat indicated an explosion, the burning of pieces of debris re-entering the atmosphere or something else.

NASA declared an emergency after losing contact with the crew and within minutes said search teams had been sent to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Ron Dittemore, NASA shuttle program manager, warned that very delicate and often toxic materials are aboard all shuttles, and people should be careful not to handle any debris.

In Nacogdoches, Texas, residents found bits of metal strewn across the city. Dentist Jeff Hancock said a metal bracket about a foot long had crashed through his office roof.

"It's all over Nacogdoches," said barber shop owner James Milford. "There are several little pieces, some parts of machinery ... there's been a lot of pieces about 3 feet wide."

Two hours after the shuttle had been expected to land, the giant screen at the front of Mission Control showed a map of the Southwest United States and what should have been Columbia's flight path. The U.S. flag next to the center's countdown clock was lowered to half-staff.

"A contingency for the space shuttle has been declared," Mission Control somberly repeated over and over.

In another room at Kennedy Space Center, O'Keefe met with the astronauts' families, who had been waiting at the landing site for the shuttle's return, spokeswoman Melissa Motichek said. Six of the seven astronauts were married, and five of them had children.

NASA officials, meanwhile, warned people on the ground to stay away from any fallen shuttle debris. EPA spokesman Joe Martyak said he didn't know what toxic chemicals could be amid the debris because the shuttle can undergo reactions from the intense heat of reentry.

The shuttle flight was the 113th in the shuttle program's 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle.

In 42 years of U.S. human space flight, there had never been an accident during the descent to Earth or landing. On Jan. 28, 1986, space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff.

The shuttle is essentially a glider during the hour-long decent from orbit toward the landing strip. It is covered by about 20,000 thermal tiles to protect against temperatures as high as 3,000 degrees.

On Jan. 16, shortly after Columbia lifted off, a piece of insulating foam on its external fuel tank came off and was believed to have hit the left wing of the shuttle. Leroy Cain, the lead flight director in Mission Control, assured reporters Friday that engineers had concluded that any damage to the wing was considered minor and posed no safety hazard.

Gary Hunziker in Plano, Texas, said he saw the shuttle flying overhead. "I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," he told The Associated Press. "I just assumed they were chase jets."

"The barn started shaking and we ran out and started looking around," said Benjamin Laster of Kemp, Texas. "I saw a puff of vapor and smoke and saw big chunk of material fall."

Former astronaut John Glenn and his wife were watching on television at their home in Maryland.

"Anytime you lose contact like that, there's some big problem. Of course, once you went for several minutes without any contact, you knew something was terribly wrong," Glenn said.

The Columbia crew was relatively inexperienced. Only three of the seven had flown in space before: the shuttle's commander, Rick Husband, Michael Anderson and Kalpana Chawla. The other four were rookies: pilot William McCool, David Brown, Laurel Clark and Ilan Ramon.

Security had been extraordinarily tight for their 16-day scientific research mission because of the presence of Ramon, the first Israeli astronaut.

Ramon, 48, a colonel in Israel's air force and former fighter pilot, had survived two wars. He became the first man from his country to fly in space, and his presence resulted in an increase in security, not only for Columbia's launch, but also for its planned landing. Space agency officials feared his presence might make the shuttle more of a terrorist target.

"The government of Israel and the people of Israel are praying together with the entire world for the safety of the astronauts on the shuttle Columbia," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said in a statement.

Dr. Yael Barr of the Israeli Aerospace Medicine Institute was waiting at the landing strip for the astronauts' return.

"When the countdown clock, when it got to zero and then started going, instead of counting down, counting up and they were still not there, I told my friend, 'I have a bad feeling. I think they are gone.' And I was in tears," Barr said.

Columbia's crew had completed 80-plus scientific research experiments during their time in orbit.

Just in the past week, NASA observed the anniversary of its only two other space tragedies, the Challenger explosion, which killed all seven astronauts on board, and the Apollo spacecraft fire that killed three on Jan. 27, 1967.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
foxnews.com



To: Cactus Jack who wrote (56893)2/2/2003 5:10:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
<<...Jesus, whom Bush named during the 2000 presidential campaign as the political philosopher who has influenced him most, counseled his disciples to love their enemies. Granting that even a devout Christian may regard war as justified under some circumstances, a Christian ought still to be the most reluctant of warriors. So long as there is any reasonable chance to spare innocent lives (and remember that soldiers of a dictator are typically helpless conscripts), it is the duty of a Christian to seize that chance. As a Christian, I cannot wish my country to do anything less...>>

We should not initiate military action until we're ready for a war at home

Countdown to War
By Jack Miles
Editorial
The Los Angeles Times
February 2, 2003

"If war is forced upon us," President Bush said in his State of the Union address, "we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent." Commendable intentions, about which more below, but first a word about the innocent who most deserve the president's protection -- namely, the people of the United States. On the eve of war, this nation is lamentably unprepared for the counterattack that terrorism experts regard as ominously likely.

The Al Qaeda terrorist network has not been defeated. Its leadership escaped the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and has regrouped in Pakistan, where it has reportedly received nuclear training. If the Bush administration is right that there has been active cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq, then we must expect Al Qaeda to respond when Iraq is attacked.

That danger would remain, however, even if there were no active cooperation between the two. This is so because on the terms of its own Islamist ideology, Al Qaeda is fighting for the Umma, the Muslim world as a whole, and may rightfully avenge an infidel attack against any country within the Umma, even one whose ruler it abhors. Al Qaeda despised (and despises) the Saudi royal family. Yet the group's Sept. 11 attacks sought to punish the United States for daring to station its infidel soldiers on sacred territory within Saudi Arabia.

The likeliest time for an attack is immediately after the fighting begins in Iraq. With nothing to lose, Saddam Hussein may strike back. As for Al Qaeda, Muslims around the world will interpret a second, post-invasion 9/11 as a counterattack in their defense. The opportunity for Al Qaeda to score a propaganda bonanza by attacking at just this moment is, alas, uniquely good.

Yet on the eve of war with Iraq, fear of Al Qaeda seems in eclipse in this country. In anticipation of a major tax cut, the Senate has cut $8 billion from increased security at ports, $362 million from border security and $500 million from the strengthening of police and fire department preparedness -- and these cuts are from appropriations that are already shockingly low given the character of the threat we face. We seem to have forgotten that Al Qaeda did not employ weapons of mass destruction to destroy the World Trade Center. Its weapons on that occasion were major unprotected civilian assets in the United States, and such are likely to be its weapons on this occasion as well.

Unfortunately, we have failed to prepare serious civilian defense against even the worst risks of this sort -- namely, the risk of a Bhopal or a Chernobyl induced by Al Qaeda sabotage. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified 873 chemical plants where sabotage could kill from 100,000 to as many as 1 million. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has testified that serious security deficiencies exist at many of these plants. Yet the Senate has just killed legislation to defend them. Are we at war or not? The Senate seems to think not.

Similarly, American nuclear power plants are still required to defend against no larger a terrorist team than four, all operating on land, none by air. (Contrast France, where nuclear power plants are protected by antiaircraft installations.) Republican Gov. George E. Pataki of New York has just released a study showing that the Indian Point nuclear power plant outside New York City is vulnerable to terrorist-induced meltdown, yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission resists all calls for an emergency wartime shutdown of the plant. Again, are we at war or not?

In the 1950s, the United States did not shrink from subjecting even impressionable children to air-raid drills. However little practical protection these drills may have afforded, they provided invaluable psychological preparation for those of us who were put through them. They reminded us, adults as well as children, of what we were up against in our nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the Bush administration fears that requiring anything similar of the public in the hope of reducing the loss of life from a second or third 9/11 will undermine support for the Iraq invasion. But the grim fact is that we face in Al Qaeda an enemy capable of inflicting Chernobyl- or Bhopal-size damage upon us. The time to prepare for the worst is always before it happens.

Does this mean we should not invade Iraq? Not necessarily. But given the stakes here at home, timing matters enormously. Two hundred inspectors have been at work in Iraq for about two months. Why not 2,000 for a period that will be deliberately left indefinite? So long as a date certain for the withdrawal of the inspectors is announced beforehand, no Iraqi dares to come forward.

But as inspections drag on and incriminating details leak out, stonewalling becomes more difficult and the likelihood of defection grows. The defection of an insider made a gigantic difference in the last round of inspections. Another such defection could do the same in this round. Why squander this time advantage by rushing forward?

If and when the hoped-for intelligence breakthrough comes, the Iraqi dictator will not suddenly display a willingness to disarm. But military action at that point will be more focused because we shall better know where Iraq has hidden its weapons.

Moreover, it will not come at the huge diplomatic cost that the same action undertaken today will exact. The Atlantic alliance will have survived a major test. But there is, finally, another, deeper motive for delay, and it is that delay holds the greater prospect for sparing the innocent whom the president so wants to spare. Some will see this motive as humanitarian. For me, frankly, it is religious. Like President Bush, I am a Christian; and for Christians, the lives of soldiers and civilians, Iraqi and American alike, are infinitely precious.

Jesus, whom Bush named during the 2000 presidential campaign as the political philosopher who has influenced him most, counseled his disciples to love their enemies. Granting that even a devout Christian may regard war as justified under some circumstances, a Christian ought still to be the most reluctant of warriors. So long as there is any reasonable chance to spare innocent lives (and remember that soldiers of a dictator are typically helpless conscripts), it is the duty of a Christian to seize that chance. As a Christian, I cannot wish my country to do anything less.

American soldiers are reportedly freezing their sperm in anticipation that Hussein will use sterilizing chemical weapons against them. Who can blame them? His ruthless use of these terrible weapons has already saved him from two defeats -- one at the hands of the Kurds, the other at the hands of the Iranians. Kenneth Pollack, author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," and certainly no dove, predicts that American casualties in the coming war could be as many as 10,000. But beyond the battlefront casualties that delay may spare us, and beyond the home-front casualties that civilian defense can prevent, there remains the question of a potentially staggering loss of civilian life in Iraq.

Power failures that no one repairs, fires to which no fireman responds, water pollution for which there is no remedy, food shortages to the point of starvation; these consequences of war -- so grimly familiar to older Europeans, Chinese and Japanese -- are known in the United States only in the mild form in which they follow an earthquake or hurricane. May God grant that our ignorance of such horrors should continue! But if we can disarm the pitiless Iraqi dictator without inflicting comparable horrors on his people, it is our moral duty to do so. And if we cannot avoid war with Iraq, then let us commit ourselves now to binding up that poor nation's wounds when the war is over.

If, as seems likely to everyone, an invasion will begin about a month from now, we must all hope for a swift American victory and an ensuing Pax Americana in the entire region. But what I confess I find myself thinking about almost obsessively is the difference between the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and World War I. In 1870, Prussia defeated France in a matter of weeks. In 1914, Prussia thought it would do so again. But the power equation had changed in the intervening years and would change further, with disastrous consequences for the invader. Has it changed for us as well? I have never felt as intensely as I do today -- not even during the Cuban missile crisis -- that the violence of war may soon descend upon our land.

I don't doubt that the American Army can occupy Iraq and change its regime. But what will happen here at home while that regime change is underway? The whole country is talking about our going to war. Scarcely anyone is talking about war coming to us. But war could come to us -- or come again, counting 9/11 as its first visit. We must all hope it does not. Meanwhile, we must all pray that an invasion that spares our bodies will not cost us our souls.
______________________________________________________

Jack Miles, recently named a MacArthur Fellow, is senior advisor to the president of the J. Paul Getty Trust. He is the author, most recently, of "Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God."

latimes.com