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: Windsock who wrote (173836)	3/27/2003 10:59:55 AM
From: advinfo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Question for the thread...I'm trying to decide between two very similar notebook models and my decision boils down to their respective cpu's. Battery life isn't an issue for this purchase. I'm concerned which machine/cpu would be the best workhorse: Pentium 4 M 2.2ghz or Pentium 4(non-M) 2.6 ghz, both @ 400mhz? I haven't been able to find any good performance benchmarks between these two chips so any help would would be much appreciated...

To: Windsock who wrote (173836)	3/28/2003 9:51:08 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Windsock, I think our media is hiding the details of the civilian killings - look what I found: arabnews.com Meanwhile, our media is showing a photo of a US soldier "saving" an Iraqi child (who was injured by a US attack.) I think our media should just show us what war truly is - ugly. Today's media could do a better job of presenting all the material - so we aren't forced to run off to foreign ezines, which is obviously counter-productive to the military's propaganda campaign. Is there really freedom of speech if the military blocks immediate info to journos that don't act as the mouth-piece of the military? Is there freedom of speech, when USA government legislators in South Carolina move into legislation to vote on requesting the Dixie band apologize for saying they are ashamed of Bush over the war? Why would the gov't demand an apology for a patriotic wish for a less risky solution that's more effective and less costly to our citizens and our budget? There was an actor that "quietly" wished for a peaceful solution, only to find out United Way cancelled her appearance for this wish. So, freedom of speech comes at the cost of huge revenue losses. People are controlled. There's no such thing as true freedom of speech in this country. Even the media appears to be controlled - does CNN or SJMN lose their access to immediate information from the gov't or do they lose their readership if they report on the specific details of casualties from both sides. They are probably financially more afloat if they present the propaganda photo of the soldier "saving" the Iraqi child. Is that their fault or ours as readers? I think as the Internet proliferates, cultures will become more capable in our ability to see the damage of war from both sides. On another note, I personally find it a bit scary that our leaders would send our innocent citizens into battle on what almost appears to be a pretext of fighting terrorism. It's possible I missed reading about any connection Iraq might have with terrorism, but 15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia - a specific providence too where extreme poverty conditions reside. I checked out a Saudi ezine and discovered they are trying to essentially hide their high unemployment rate - it's apparent they know the world is pointing a finger at their country for cause/effect of unemployment, poverty & repression. US ezines report their unemployment rate at 15-20% while their gov't claims only 8%. And according to their ezine they even have a gov't program to disprove a media report claiming their unemployment rate was as "high as 13%." I think they would be better served to work on fixing their unemployment rate, rather than trying to disprove media claims. But our approach to fighting terrorism - using war which is highly visible and might possibly incite even more anger for terrorism to spawn - concerns me because I believe it could increase terrorism at home. I feel concerned for my friends in NY & family in DC. I'm not confident in our leaders' approach to fixing this problem at all. I mean, these terrorists seemed to be highly isolated engineers. I can't help but wonder what's going on in our engineering schools - allowing such a high degree of isolation. They were trained in the USA and reportedly none of them went to a Saudi university or collge, but only attended USA/GR/western colleges. They all became isolated from friends & family just immediately prior to engaging in terrorism. I think the guy the FBI is currently looking for should scare all of us because he fits the profile - isolated - reportedly hasn't talked to his family or friends for 5 months to 2 years. For preventive measures, we should beef up our third & fourth-tier engineering schools' integration programs so no immigrant is isolated. Isolation seems to be a common denominator for facilitating an environment for isolated students to be more easily plucked by terrorist groups for violence. Such seemed to be the case for the Hamburg terrorist students. But we're not a preventive society, we're a reactive one. We're a data-driven society that by virtue of being data-driven, is backwards looking, so we're not able to engage in the intuitive, forward looking preventive measures. We can justify expenses to fix visible problems, but not those that avoid what's currently intangible. We're a society where we're heroes if we solve a visible problem, but we're not heroes when we avoid problems - because one can't understand what one can't see. We lack international vision and international awareness. We'd rather watch "Friends" than read about international countries. And it's too bad Rumsfeld doesn't understand that blocking out information just spirals more lack of awareness that's counter-productive. On a separate note that's obviously less important than concerns over loss of life, I'm concerned our gov't is risking our relations with many Asian countries, as well as risking our ability to use a UN chip with NKorea. Nearly every F500 USA company and its stock is going to be dependent upon China's future growth market and a stable Asia. The Iraq gov't was about ready to topple on its own due to the financial sanctions imposed, according to I believe a BBC or CNN radio-cast by a lady whom they called an Iraqi freedom fighter. If our gov't is attacking Iraq without any viable terrorist link but is doing so because of a vision of terrorists taking over Iraq, well then, I'd give them credit for having vision, but I wouldn't credit them for their approach - I think Intelligence could have been used to tag terrorists without the extreme costs to life or budget. And what about Africa and certain SAsian countries - the Philipines have become training grounds for terrorists? For $100B (cost of war), we instead could have had 100,000 CIA or FBI types. For reducing terrorist incitement due to the ME conflict, we could have worked with our Israeli business leaders to launch 100 startups to help or keep the 100,000 problem-people in Palestine out of trouble and productively employed, back when that rational was a viable option. Does the gov't really think that starting a company is that difficult? Doesn't the gov't realize how many good viable business ideas there are? Doesn't the gov't realize how tired Israeli businesses are over terrorism? I find it hard to believe there weren't better alternatives to the issue than war, war has the risk of inciting terrorism. I think launching companies & getting people productively busy & employed is a much easier preventive alternative to war. And if that option is no longer viable, then Intelligence could have been the better option than war. But now, the worst thing the USA could do, is a repeat of GWI, where the other Bush turned his back on those that supported him by uprising against Saddam - only to find their lives in danger when the USA backed out of its promise, allowing Saddam to kill 1,000 of the people from the town that trusted the USA. And then apparently, the USA implemented a Highway of Death on surrendered troops. This war is going to be long & horrible and highly risky to us. If it secures a stable Middle East region and doesn't incite more terrorism, we'll be very lucky. I hope we are. It's too bad the USA gov't likes to take a hammer/crisis approach rather than a more gently intuitively preventive approach. Regards, Amy J