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: carl a. mehr who wrote (174280)	4/29/2003 11:36:04 AM
From: fingolfen	Respond to of 186894

You work for Intel, right? Nope... but I do have some friends that do... That was very hard question for you to understand, sorry... You used to post a lot of valuable stuff here from time to time... but lately you really seem to have been on a rant... shrug

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (174280)	4/29/2003 1:05:13 PM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

You work for Intel, right? That was very hard question for you to understand, sorry...humble carl LMAO! Keep on 'em h. carl Can anyone see an analogy to below? ;-) In scientific thought we adopt the simplest theory which will explain all the facts under consideration and enable us to predict new facts of the same kind. The catch in this criterion lies in the world "simplest." It is really an aesthetic canon such as we find implicit in our criticisms of poetry or painting. The layman finds such a law as dx/dt = K(d^2x/dy^2) much less simple than "it oozes," of which it is the mathematical statement. The physicist reverses this judgment, and his statement is certainly the more fruitful of the two, so far as prediction is concerned. It is, however, a statement about something very unfamiliar to the plainman, namely, the rate of change of a rate of change. Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson (1892-1964)