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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Gilder who wrote (330)	2/19/1998 7:57:00 PM
From: Stewart V. Nelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

George <<This rule does not usually apply to machines exerting a physical force or performing a physical function. >>> Would the rule apply to VCEL's, vertical cavity lasers, as well? Ask Uniphase to show you some when you visit them in Europe this year. Regards Stewart V. Nelson

To: George Gilder who wrote (330)	2/19/1998 10:26:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

In defence of jfred's steam engine, "physical" force and "physical" function are as abstract as "time" and "solid". They are fake human inventions to deal with our stationary macro world. Sure, the primary manipulations by people have been in pushing electrons and photons around, but the "physical", "solid" and "material" are as much a function of the quantum world as photons and electrons. They all disappear into a fuzzy world of distant interaction. I don't think there is any reason to differentiate between "physical", "electron" and "photons" when you get really small. There is just a greater need for more cunning. How big is a "mind". Brain sized? Or can it be smaller? Please don't be too tempted by that anyone = no personal comments!! Or I'll send over a BIG thing and blow you up. It is hot today, and I just made it up, but it sounds good. But a steam engine for power supply in my cdmaOne phone doesn't sound good. Maurice

To: George Gilder who wrote (330)	2/23/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Puzzled re your removal of Ciena from your list. Many others on these boards and elsewhere are too. Lucent has no rpt no competitive product to Cien 40 channel product. The LU 80 channel announcement was just that - an announcement of vaporware. The 80 channel product is in the lab not in the market and will not even begin to be available in the real world until the end of this calendar year at the earliest. Ciena in fact has no market competition IMO. So are you thinking about next calendar year as a "Futurist" ? If so Ciena has new products which will again be way ahead of any competition for short distances next year. No one else even comes close. This is an example of new products coming from Ciena. All this is just IMO and may be flawed or simply wrong of course. I use your newsletter for the trends but also, being human, do check the companies in your list. Don't understand this call on Ciena. Please let us know your thinking on this. The explanation in the letter simply doesn't track with my knowledge of situation. I am probably wrong, please tell me how. Chaz