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: Paul Engel who wrote (72752)	2/2/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Intel Investors - Dataquest has finally figured out what we figured out 6 months ago - the Year 2000 bug may be really good for Semiconductor sales & Upgrades. Paul {=============================} semibiznews.com A service of Semiconductor Business News, CMP Media Inc. Story posted 11:30 a.m./8:30 a.m., PST, 2/2/99 Year 2000 bug might be good for chip sales, says Dataquest SAN JOSE--The much discussed threat of a Year 2000 software bug will help give chip sales a shot in the arm early in the second half of 1999, according to Dataquest here today. The market research firm said it now expects worldwide chip revenues to grow 15% to $154.5 billion in 1999 after last year's 8.4% decline to $134.8 billion, according to a recently revised estimate. Firming DRAM prices and "protective ordering" by chip buyers worried about the Y2K problem will help drive semiconductor sales higher in the final two quarters this year, according to Dataquest analysts. "The third quarter of 1999 should bring good semiconductor growth -- helped in part by 'protective ordering' in advance of potential year 2000 problems -- followed by a strong fourth quarter of 1999," said Ron Bohn, director for Dataquest's Worldwide Semiconductor Research Operations. Semiconductor growth, as measured in dollar revenues, will also get a boost from a stronger Japanese yen exchange rate and firming of DRAM prices in the second half of 1999, said Joseph Byrne, senior semiconductor industry analyst at Dataquest. In a forecast presented last month at the Industry Strategy Symposium (ISS) in Pebble Beach, Calif., Dataquest predicted that DRAM revenues would rebound with a 30% increase to $31.8 billion vs. $18.5 billion in 1998. In the year 2000, DRAM sales will surge 72% to $31.8 billion, according to the forecast.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (72752)	2/3/1999 8:49:00 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul Engel, The Constitution clearly does protect the right to privacy. Re: <<Bill of rights Article the sixth [Amendment IV] (of the Constitution) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. >> There are numerous court cases in which the Constitutional right to privacy have been cited. Of interest here may be the case of the State of California vs. The FCC regarding caller-ID issues. <<State of California v. the FCC (No. 94-70197 - FCC No. 94-59 ) C. The FCC's Preemption Of The CPUC Does Not Implicate Constitutional Privacy Rights CPUC argues that the FCC's preemption of the CPUC's per line blocking default "violates the federal constitutional privacy rights of California citizens." (CPUC Brief at p. 29). CPUC has not cited any authority to support the notion that a telephone number is protected by the federal constitution. The Supreme Court has noted that "exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized society." Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). Not every "exposure" raises privacy concerns under the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has limited the constitutional right to privacy to interferences with "a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood . . . as well as bodily integrity." Planned Parenthood v. Casey, __ U.S. __, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2806 (1992). A phone number is not among the select privacy interests protected by a federal constitutional right to privacy. [FOOTNOTE 12] In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that there is no Fourth Amendment right to prevent the disclosure of the telephone numbers dialed from a home telephone. The Court explained: >> Note the reference to the fourth Amendment. This is an interesting case since it involves transmittal of the caller's ID. Are there similarities to the transmission of a PSN? Transmission of the PSN seem's to have many more implications than the transmission of a phone number. At any rate, it will be interesting to watch this controversy over time. Gene