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 : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21611)	8/3/2004 1:09:33 PM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 57684

The 9/11 Commission Report, for what it's worth, said that the initial motivation for the 9/11 attacks was our support for Israel, even before Bin Laden and Al Queda got involved. I understand there were other motives, and you're right to point them out. It's no secret that Al Queda wants to overthrow moderate muslim regimes, and also that they wanted to prove the U.S. wasn't invincible. The 9/11 attacks were certainly directed pyschologically at the arab world. But, the fact remains that our threat of terrorism is heightened by our support for Israel. Kerry can and should propose using our support for Israel as a means to force a peace settlement, to ensure our own safety and reduce our terror threat. This is typical Democratic advocacy of protectionsim/autarchy, reminiscent of the synfuels project of the Carter era. It won't work for the same reasons it didn't work then I understand your cynicism, but that was a good 25 years ago that President Carter tried to do something like synfuels. A hell of a lot has changed since then. Alt.energy has come a long long way, and would probably be a lor further developed if we weren't subsidizing oil via our military and other means. Wind energy is now in the 4 to 6 cent per kWH range, competitive with other forms of energy, which is why it's exploding all over the place. Hybrid cars are now available, saving on fuel. Electric cars can get 100 miles per charge and are powerful enough to drive around on our highways. Fuel cell cars aren't too far off. Biofuels are a real alternative. The fact is when John Kerry talks about energy independence, it can really be acheived in this modern era. The technologies are in place or are being developed. It's not pie-in-the-sky anymore, and it would be a sensible direction to persue if we're concerned about terrorism.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21611)	8/3/2004 1:09:39 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 57684

Oh, and could somebody please give me some solid info on the Nanosys IPO and when it might happen?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21611)	8/3/2004 1:16:16 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

reminiscent of the synfuels project of the Carter era. It won't work for the same reasons it didn't work then, and it will make everyone worse off. Well, I know 2 people that own hybrids while the rest of my neighborhood looks like that commercial where all the parents are driving construction equipment like caterpillars and cranes and steamrollers to school. The hybrid people are paying less than $20 to fill up their tanks per week to commute in SV, and other people with these huge gas guzzlers are paying $80. I can't see how that makes anyone "worse off". We didn't have any technology to get off oil in the 70s and now we have working prototypes and some released products like hybrid engines. I'm not really satisfied to drift into 70s style economic hardship for everyone just because a few unimaginative politicians say "theres nothing we can do".