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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMD who wrote (31579)	6/3/1999 2:54:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

<The official also cast the argument in broader terms, stressing the benefits of free trade to the world economy. He said the White House would make the case ''that we have a responsibility to shape an international economy that promotes open and prosperous markets and that leading China and other nations toward more openness is in our interest.'' > dailynews.yahoo.com Hay, [to coin a phrase] it sounds from that as though they are going to allow New Zealand to sell sheep meat in the USA in a free trade environment. This is more fun than waiting for the chip rate for W-CDMA to be announced. But really, I expect that Clinton will do his usual and say how much he loves his wife and the bible while sinning some more. That is, he will say he is all for free trade and he loves China and Japan and they should open their markets while fiddling on the side in a sinful way with NZ, which will end up looking like Monica - slightly ruffled and disappointed that we won't get to play free trade too. No worries say I, as long as he gets my CDMA into China. It's nice having the USA and the President working for me like this. I'll be able to eat all the lamb I like, except that China will buy it and the price won't drop significantly. The USA will miss out and will have to buy the high-priced USA product. Life's great! It seems the losers will be the USA sheep meat eaters and Motorola and Lucent. I'll sell the cdmaOne to China via NEC, Samsung, Ericy. No skin off my nose if Motorola and Lucent go bust! I'm glad to see that you now understand that the Chinese are not believing Slick Willie after being lied to about WTO being in the bag, then having their embassy bombed. How many times can they be expected to believe the guy? I was amused to see you bumped into other 'heavy dudes' while 'gamboling in Washington'. I think of springtime daffodils in the parks, and these large figures [well, you were the one talking about harpoons and the like] prancing gaily about under the stern gaze of Lincoln. Mqurice

To: JMD who wrote (31579)	6/3/1999 3:26:00 PM
From: EepOpp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

*OT** abcnews.go.com ______________________________________________________________________ Errors Mar Cox Report Mistakes Can Undermine Conclusions A closer look at the Cox report finds some glaring errors. Do they affect its conclusion? (A.Shepherd/ABCNEWS.com) By James Oberg Special to ABCNEWS.com The Cox report on Chinese nuclear spying inundates readers with detail — about history, missiles, payloads and so on — all to buttress claims of widespread Chinese espionage against America's strategic weapons programs. Trouble is, many of those details about space technology are simply wrong. While the evidence for the illicit transfer of American aerospace technology is broad and persuasive, such critical conclusions depend on details. How credible is the Cox report? Since the report's release, experts and hard-core amateurs around the world have taken a close look. The result: dismay and concern over the large number of factual errors. “Evidently,” says one expert, “the committee never had its final report edited by real experts.” Aside from the factual errors is a bigger question: Are these erroneous facts the basis for the report's conclusion? Or are they just window dressing to make the report seem more credible? Either we must consider the conclusions questionable or be told the true basis for the report's conclusions. Mistakes range from substantial misrepresentation of Chinese aerospace technology, to minor mistakes in dates and hardware designations. Other errors span from long-ago events to future plans. For example, we know that China is preparing to launch astronauts into space in the next year or so. The Cox report states that these astronauts “will use Soyuz capsules purchased during Yeltsin's visit” to Beijing in 1996. This is dead wrong. The Chinese are building their own manned spacecraft, with some systems such as the escape tower, spacesuits, docking mechanisms purchased from Russia. The report spends several pages on the career of rocket scientist Qian Xuesen (once spelled Tsien Hsue-Shen), who worked in the U.S. rocket program in the 1940s. After he expressed sympathy for the new Chinese regime in the early 1950s, his security clearances were cancelled. He left for China in 1955, where he headed up the Chinese rocket and space effort for the next several decades. The report alleges he tried to bring “classified documents” with him, including secrets of the Titan missile program he had been working on, which the Chinese later copied. But Qian Xuesen's story is much less criminal than the report suggests. Space historians laugh at the allegation he “copied” the Titan missile for China. “The contract for the Titan was not even let until October 1955,” noted space historian Matthew Bille, citing the Encyclopedia Astronautica, the authoritative Internet space history reference. “(That was) over five years after Tsien's security clearance was revoked, on 6 June 1950.” Dubious Allegation Fred Durant, former deputy director of the Smithsonian's National Air & Space Museum in Washington, knew Qian personally. He says the “classified documents” that Qian allegedly tried to steal were papers Qian himself had written before his security clearance was suspended. A Chinese engineer named Chen Lan, who lives in Singapore and runs a highly-respected Web site on the Chinese space program, has also criticized the Cox report. “These low-level errors should have been avoided if they did the work a little more seriously,” he posted recently. Chen Lan reported that flight statistics and payload capabilities were often in error. One “fact” about the U.S. Delta 3925 payload (in pounds) gets attributed to Encyclopedia Astronautica, which cites it in kilograms. But it differs by 60 percent, which makes one wonder if the report's authors know how to convert kilograms to pounds. Blatant Boo-Boos Jens Lerch, a German amateur space historian, also posted criticisms on the Internet. “I've easily found a few more blatant mistakes,” he wrote. Lerch listed half a dozen cases in which missile and spacecraft designations were erroneous. He concludes, “It's quite disturbing that such a report contains dozens of factual errors, which are easy to spot by amateurs.” Some mistakes are unimportant to the report's conclusions, but reveal that the authors didn't have any deep understanding of the historical and technical issues they wrote about. Chen Lan pointed out that the report gave 1971 as the date of the first Chinese satellite launch (it was 1970), and 1963 as the date of the “Great Leap Forward” campaign (it was 1958). The report refers to the Challenger shuttle disaster in 1987 (it was 1986). This kind of nit-picking has often been dismissed as “fly specking,” making minor marks on an overall report. Still, if so many other “facts” turn out to be erroneous, the question must arise as to how these errors may have affected the report's conclusions. Copyright ©1999 ABC News Internet Ventures.

To: JMD who wrote (31579)	6/4/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 152472

Your gambol along the Potomac had a hauntingly familiar timbre to it: thinking about the scene in the Oliver Stone movie about the New Orleans prosecutor Garrison who was trying to get under the covers of the Warren Commission findings of Goldilocks (darn, I just can't remember the name of the film, maybe as simple as "JFK"). Anyway, Garrison (the befuddled Kevin Costner) has just about run into a brick wall when he bumps into an ex-Company man (the sinister Donald Sutherland)and, sitting on a bench (along the Potomac, I think), Sutherland lays out the whole convincing military/grand old poohbahs/protect the strawmen conspiracy, replete with quintessential Stone b&w footage of old, bald suits in plush Washingtonian offices divvying up the days take, as it were. Yours in purity and stirring up the pot, Steven