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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (34984)	6/14/2003 12:16:59 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

walked back along the road from the creek, from where our water supply down here in Rangataua is drawn, trying to figure out whether to invest more in RoamAD, the WiFi cellular provider start-up in Auckland which will deliver cyberspace to urban areas. Don't do it, Mq. There is no business case for large scale public WiFi networks that is worth a bucket of warm spit. Please read the following with care and detachment before you even dream of putting another pence into your counter-spiraling gurgler. americasnetwork.com Out in the sticks, it's easier to have a broader perspective than while in a traffic jam trying to make an orange light on the way home from the database design centre cubicle. A clear head is the hardest thing in the world to achieve. Distractions, temptations, fantasies, and foibles abound. Even more difficult to reach is the will to act once clear headedness is achieved. On the other hand, clear headedness and perceived objectivity stifle dreams and creativity. The ones who have done the most to foster human progress have been wild-eyed dreamers and visionaries. Think of Drs. J., Gilhousen, and Viterbi. When they got CDMA going, they were violating the laws of physics, at least according to the clear-eyed, hard-headed experts who knew "better." Our system sucks money out of the poorer places and delivers it to the richer places where the brains and energy and creativity and other desirable attributes of humanity are most concentrated. I don't think it's immoral. It is just a law of nature that living things feed on each other and create the peak beings - the ultimate survivors. The fallacy in your thinking is that is that it assumes that the peak beings necessarily possess brains, energy, and creativity. It ain't so, Mq. The peak beings are often inheritors, culture and environment-destroying mass marketeers, Third World thugs or kleptocrats, corporate lackeys with not a single creative or energetic bone in their body, or simply lucky collectors of a lottery jackpot like the putrid Saudi royal family. The "peak beings" who do possess brains, energy and creativity are a small fraction of the top dogs. Many essentially clip (or steal) coupons or get enormous unearned allowances. I prefer my CDMA2000 phragmented photon cyberspace light sabres as a weapon of mass destruction. Agreed, except for the niggling point that CDMA does not destroy anything so it can't be seen as a weapon except in the most figurative sense while MacD's gut busters and Philip Morris' flechettes slowly and inexorably degrade the human condition. CDMA is instead a tool of mass benefit. It fosters all kinds of good things--creativity, efficiency, communication, Q's profits, etc. that scuttling, cunning, abstract hunter of arbitrage opportunity, Jay Chen Jay is the ultimate dung beetle. Should Jay read this, he should know that I mean this in the absolute best way and that it is one of the highest accolades I can bestow. It is a term concocted by elmat over which we've had a few laughs. I'm okay with the voluntary cannibalism aspect of Big Macs, Marlboro, CDMA2000 and Jay's cyberwarfare, but I dislike the old-style involuntary cannibalism represented by noocular weapons. Incidentally, it's a joke that Saddam's shells of sarin are considered weapons of mass destruction. A shell lobbed into downtown Noo Yawk wouldn't kill very many people. Perhaps so, but an honest-to-God non-figurative WMD exploding in NYC would halve your portfolio in a New Yawk second. It's not about the damage, it's about the perception. Not to be cold-hearted but in the big scheme of things, 9/11 didn't do too much physical damage. It did, however, put Saddam and the Taliban out of business--point being that symbols count. A bit of Sarin on Wall St. would be an unmitigated disaster even if the human losses were to be minimal.