Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 9:45 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 15 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Intel Corporation Message Board

marsavian 373 posts  |  Last Activity: 1 hour 38 minutes ago Member since: Jun 15, 2005
  • Reply to

    2 new jobs posted

    by bespoke2013 Jul 24, 2013 12:47 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 11:18 AM Flag

    'At least you agree that the govt will ensure the payload facilities will be bought by someone who would operate them as such which indicates their relative importance in the US rocket ecosystem on both coasts. I think SpaceX would be interested as it would both increase their throughput and advanced payload capability and the constituent parties of ULA, LMT and BA would work to prevent that and of course SSI would love to come out of the processing cold and get in on the act. I suspect they would be sold for well over $50m if push ever came to shove.'

    Tell me I'm wrong again Jim. Notice constituent parties of ULA defined i.e. LMT and well over $50m price tag.

  • Reply to

    Release the hounds!

    by wel_to_the_rescue May 29, 2014 9:58 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 11:14 AM Flag

    Idiot to the end.

  • Reply to

    50K shares just bought at 1.101 at 12:14:18

    by marsavian Nov 5, 2010 12:18 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 11:12 AM Flag

    ' FWIW anyway these assets would be of use to any large Space Company or US Govt itself. So Orbital, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and NASA itself.'

    Tell me I am wrong again Jim.

  • Reply to

    SELL ASTC to LMT or BA

    by buyastc Oct 17, 2011 1:06 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 11:11 AM Flag

    No it is not absurd unlike your continual stalking like behavior of your ex-employer.

  • Reply to

    Come on LMT,buy SPAB

    by spgbobnopants Aug 16, 2005 10:20 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 11:09 AM Flag

    Yes, why would they Jim ? Because it's a profitable lean business and they get guaranteed payload facilities regardless of rocket congestion volume. You have only been wrong about this for a decade now, good job misleading shareholders of this company for all these years.

  • Reply to

    Release the hounds!

    by wel_to_the_rescue May 29, 2014 9:58 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 10:45 AM Flag

    You asked me the same question about a year back and I bothered to get all the PRs detailing the sales but I am not going to bother to repeat the exercise. Spacetech 1stdetect sales are detailed every quarter in the 10-Q/Ks.

  • Reply to

    Release the hounds!

    by wel_to_the_rescue May 29, 2014 9:58 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 10:25 AM Flag

    Several have been sold and you know that already.

  • Reply to

    mi2also

    by pa1702 Jun 28, 2013 2:56 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 10:23 AM Flag

    Do you really want me to dig out a post where you said LMT would not buy it either ? You was wrong, continually on this stock and its assets.

  • Reply to

    New Market Value ?

    by wel_to_the_rescue May 29, 2014 9:01 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 10:19 AM Flag

    I always said the real value of those facilities were much higher than the nominal book value and of course the ASO business is fundamentally profitable even more so now LMT will use it more themselves.

  • Reply to

    mi2also

    by pa1702 Jun 28, 2013 2:56 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 10:14 AM Flag

    No I am right because you gave me the same answer when I mentioned LMT specifically too so many times so stop using semantics to hide and anyway LMT is a part owner of ULA and of course would allow its facilities to be used by its other ULA partner BA for ULA launches. You owe everyone a huge apology for consistently downplaying this company's assets for years and of course your ridiculous stock predictions about returning to 60c speak for themselves. Just hope no-one was misled by this bitter ex-ASTC contractor.

  • Reply to

    mi2also

    by pa1702 Jun 28, 2013 2:56 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 9:39 AM Flag

    "ULA would buy it in a heartbeat if it came on the market. ASTC is the default payload processor of ULA and someone like SpaceX could really screw ULA around by buying ASO and jacking up prices for ULA to force more rocket business SpaceX's way. LMT and BA, the mighty rich companies behind ULA, would not put up with this adverse possibility happening and find the spare pocket change for them to buy ASO and secure their payload processing facilities. "

    Jimmy boy aka mi2also was continually wrong on this as I was continually right.

  • marsavian marsavian May 29, 2014 3:49 AM Flag

    Andorid can run native x86 code too but legacy applications have to be ported and that is the issue Intel is trying to address with its aim to have the 80% top apps being x86 native soon. Intel build an ARM emulator for the rest but of course you do get a performance hit as with all emulators. This of course will be less of an issue at 64-bit when everyone starts with a clean slate. This deal should please getanid61 as Intel is finally teaming up with some of the 'rest of the world' in this deal and I would not rule out Intel building ARM chips for Rockchip in the future as foundry is still a good 40-50% margin business.

    As for WinRT I think we all know who won the kill battle on that one. The fact that the new CEO in conjunction with Elop decided not to release the new Qualcomm tablet means it is dead and Surface 3 will have a 14nm Cherry Trail Atom in it within a year. Surface 2 Pro was outselling Surface 2 in the end and it should not be like that for a more expensive tablet. It maybe that some of the software work involved in WinRT i.e. Office port will be moved to Windows Phone eventually. WinRT died because nobody was prepared to do the hard work and spend the big money in porting *all* the Windows software fully on to ARM e.g. the kind of work Intel is doing now with Android. MSFT did not help by not allowing the ARMy to have a full desktop software experience by its greed to get everyone to use Metro. It also peed off any OEM partners it originally had with its Surface endeavors. MSFT was a clumsy monopolist who failed and lost money on WinRT because of its excessive greed.

  • marsavian marsavian May 28, 2014 5:18 PM Flag

    So many ANALyst opinions and yet all are basically spewing irrelevant wrong nonsense. how they get paid so much for being so wrong most of the time staggers belief.

    This is the deal, Intel had a dual-core + 3G Sofia and a quad-core + LTE Sofia on its roadmap all on TSMC's 28nm but it did not have a 28nm quad-core + 3G Sofia. The reason the first Sofias will use TSMC 28nm is that is the process Intel aka Infineon modems are built on and it was easier to port Silvermont to 28nm than the modems to Intel's 22nm. The next generation Sofias/modems will all be on Intel's own 14nm.

    Now the deal appeals to Rockchip as it means it gets an integrated modem on one of its own SoCs, a powerful power-efficient quad-core and 3G is still big in China which is the biggest market. Intel here is basically acting like ARM and licensing the Silvermont core and modem IP to Rockchip who then add a licensed gpu and get the SoC built at TSMC on 28nm. Intel would get under a dollar profit for this like ARM does but what it gets is more x86 direct into the Chinese volume market. This is a marketshare ploy by Intel and builds a good relationship with Rockchip who may choose to do this again in the future but with Intel as the foundry at 14nm so Intel will at least pick up foundry as well as licensing margin next time. The Silvermont core is faster than the A12 in Rockchip's current quad-core so this is not a step down as some have wrongly asserted.

  • Reply to

    Why Smith is irrelevant

    by primenumerist May 23, 2014 4:19 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 27, 2014 4:21 PM Flag

    Primenumerist invited me here you big bag of wind if you had bothered to read the header post and he reiterated why he did in a follow up post. Are you naturally this stupid or does it takes years of conscious practice to be that dense ? ASTC attacked 3, 4 when I said it did, it did not reach the 52-week high of 4.05 from 60c by instant magic teleporting idiot ! I predicted the future breaking of 2,3,4 from 1 and I posted the links when I did weeks before the event but you never replied to that post you cowardly charlatan did you ? You on the other hand have been predicting sub 1 for ASTC for years and over 1 for IMSC for years too. How completely and utterly useless are you with those #$%$ predictions ?! This stock is never going to blow past ASTC you idiot, DMRJ will rain down shares on you to make sure of that. You will be lucky to ever hit 1.30 again from here.

  • Reply to

    Wall Street's Tech Bash Strategy Backfires

    by wallisweaver May 27, 2014 10:40 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 27, 2014 10:50 AM Flag

    It was only the Ukrainian crisis that gave them early success on that front but now their bearish bets are being left without any intellectual support to justify them and they are rightly getting creamed.

  • Reply to

    The Humpty Report

    by wallisweaver May 27, 2014 9:21 AM
    marsavian marsavian May 27, 2014 10:42 AM Flag

    I think AE's idea of using ARMH as a hedge was not a bad one once Qualcomm announced they were reverting to 64-bit ARM designed cores at 20nm because they were not ready with their own. ARM will get more royalty from QCOM by them using up to 8 of their cores rather than 4 of their own design. This has probably delayed a severe ARMH's price correction by 1-2 years which is enough time to bank profit.

  • marsavian marsavian May 27, 2014 6:44 AM Flag

    FYI, best sites I have seen so far for following Ukraine crisis in real-time are

    rferlDOTorg/contentlive/ukraine-live-blog/25382555.html
    kievpostDOTcom

  • marsavian marsavian May 26, 2014 4:43 PM Flag

    sorry about that, copy/paste corrupted the space character, try again ...

    http://www.marketwatch.com/Search?m=Column&mp=The Technical Indicator

  • Reply to

    Why Smith is irrelevant

    by primenumerist May 23, 2014 4:19 PM
    marsavian marsavian May 26, 2014 10:42 AM Flag

    ' A white paper claimed an unspecified ETD sniffer took 13 minutes (not IMSC) to clear down after detection.'

    which was not the Griffin ...

    "The Griffin 824 was designed to maximize system operational time by incorporating an open loop that does not recycle air inside the system. No cleaners are required, minimizing consumable costs and allowing rapid clear down after a true alarm."

    At the moment it is only a paper threat without TSA certifications but if they are bothering to do certs and I don't know if they are it will become a future threat.

    'that's why IMSC will be at least 30$ a share soon.'

    This company struggles to break $15m annual revenue and has never made a profit in any quarter yet you think it is still going to have a fully diluted market cap of about $3.5bn even though McCann's original pioneering Morpho bought company only went for $200m and it was one of the first to the dual-IMS detector market not the last. You have truly jumped the shark with that one ! ;-)

INTC
34.4801-0.3100(-0.89%)9:44 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.