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: brushwud who wrote (176379)	1/3/2004 1:57:40 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 186894

Hi brushwud, The point I was trying to make by posting those two articles is that the same author first implies that AMD 64, which has already been released, is almost irrelevant and then 3 mos later says there might be some roadblocks ahead for Intel due to the AMD 64 line (mobile release causing possible price cuts etc). My view is that this woman is not in the industry so she had to wait for the mainstream media to start buzzing on AMD 64 which took a few weeks. THEN, she realized she couldn't discount it.

To: brushwud who wrote (176379)	1/5/2004 12:34:58 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Brushwud, OT OT OT Congratulations, you've just insulted every communications startup in the Valley, except for the single one comm company that went public this year. And that company has been in business for 8 years, and lesser known is, it was previously formed thru a spin-off from Sea Change. You've also proven you have a lack of modest information on startups. Estimates for all comm IPOs was reported by the venture capital industry to be ten years, not four years. RE: "They're a leftover from the excesses of the late 1990s and seem to be in the 40% of "walking dead" investments that VCs talk about" You'll have to explain then why a Raza VC was trying to get a job at our startup. You've also demonstrated an unusual amount of hostility, that actually reflects poorly on you. RE: "Just because her CFO can spring for a 3 GHz Pentium 4" Why don't you buy a 3GHz Pentium 4 rather than displaying jealousy of one. RE: "her stock options" I'm a founder of the company and own shares. RE: "she seems to think that encouraging "startups" like her employer is what might make California and the U.S. great." As a group, small businesses employ more people than large businesses. I get concerned about retirees when I see a person such as yourself display hostility to any entrepreneur including myself, because it is the investment gains in companies that sustains retirees. As a society, we need to encourage entrepreneurs so we have more companies going public to feed retirees, rather than display hostility to them. You also are displaying a sense of entitlement that is disturbing - what is unfortunately news today is there are other capital markets for entrepreneurs who we are losing at an alarming rate to other capital markets, to the potentially great peril of future retires. Your hostility towards entrepreneurs is a drag on the system, on future well-being of retirees. RE: "my daughter's when she looks for the pony on the lawn on Christmas morning." I hope you encourage your daughter to lead, rather than assume she cannot. Regards, Amy J

To: brushwud who wrote (176379)	1/6/2004 4:55:41 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Intel was founded in '68 and went public in '72 when they were already profitable and highly successful. Your argument sounds a lot like Hueyone's argument, which is basically that it is "too easy" for startups these days, due to 1)stock options, 2)lenient capital markets etc. Intel had a few gifts bestowed upon it that newer companies don't have. The proposition 13 tax scam for one. And in the 70s, the luxury of a huge pool of desperate engineering talent laid off from the space program.