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: Mary Cluney who wrote (65063)	9/18/1998 10:30:00 AM
From: L. Adam Latham	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary: Re: It maybe that your idol Kurlak will base his forecasts using knowledge gained from these two pages of journalistic fluff and then try to fool people with his "expertise" - but investors with limited resources should try to exercise better judgement. I was listening to some Billy Joel on my way into work this morning, and the lyrics to "She's Always a Woman" seemed to capture the feeling many on this thread feel about Tom Kurlak. If you replace "she" with "he", "her" with "him", and "woman" with "Kurlak", you get the following (my apologies to Billy Joel): [He's] Always a [Kurlak] ======================== . . . [He] will promise you more Than the Garden of Eden Then [he'll] carelessly cut you and laugh while you're bleeding But [he'll] bring out the best And the worst you can be Blame it all on yourself Cause [he's] always a [Kurlak] to me Oh-[he] takes care of [him]self [He] can wait if [he] wants [He's] ahead of [his] time Oh-and [he] neve gives out And [he] never gives in [He] just chages [his] mind [He] is frequently kind And [he's] suddenly cruel [He] can do as [he] pleases [He's] nobody's fool But [he] can't be convicted [He's] earned [his] degree And the most [he] will do Is throw shadows at you But [he's] always a [Kurlak] to me Adam - My opinion only, not Intel's (I think)

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (65063)	9/18/1998 12:38:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Mary - Re: " My question is, if the software doesn't work in the computer - how will it work any better in a speicalized device? Imagine going around with hundreds of devices (and lose the economy of scale) for your computing needs." This is an excellent observation - and a rebuttal of the "uber appliance" model. Imagine going into a meeting and the guy at the Super WhiteBoard asks: "Does anyone know how to set the Clock on this thing? It keeps flashing 12:00 . Many who portend to see the future make the blatant and nearly-always erroneous assumption that doing things completely differently will be easy and 100% flawless. The trouble with these predictors of the future is that none of them have been to the future to see what it will really be like. Paul

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (65063)	9/18/1998 12:40:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary - RE: They claim whereas the PC is the generalist, the strength of the myriad appliances will lie in specialization A good rule to keep in mind is one of Gordon Bell's business guidelines - 'General Purpose MIPS are always cheaper than special purpose MIPS to do any given job'. It's an economy of scale and related technology issue and while not 100% true it correctly predicts results of most design decisions over the years.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (65063)	9/18/1998 4:13:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Respond to of 186894

Mary Cluney. Re: "I do not claim to know what the future of computing will be, but I can guarantee you that it will not be as predicated by the Economist." Amen to that. I read the article and found it's thesis flawed for the reasons you state plus some others. I remember reading a true story about an early developer of the refrigerator who went from door to door interviewing early buyers. Every woman had a host of complaints about the thing being too noisy, not working well, etc., etc. After all the interviews he felt so bad he went back to each one and offered to take it back and return their money. NOT ONE took him up on the offer. THEY JUST WANTED THE THING IMPROVED. This story illustrates how users of radical new technologies think IMHO. The Economist in their intellectual arrogance failed to understand that, and for a normally perceptive magazine they have allowed themselves to fall under the sway of the Ellison/McNeely cabal. HL