Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Zeev,
Take a look at GPRO. It popped yesterday but I've been playing it for sometime now. A friend who works for a mutual fund put me on to it. It can be very volatile but very profitable if you are on top of it.
Moon
thanks Bruce,
I couldn't imagine why it wasn't there and it figures I must have done something wrong when checking. I see there are thousands of posts on RB and that's why I thought it was strange when I didn't find it.
One of the daytrading problems with these penny stocks is trying to figure out where the mm's are going. They play games and it's difficult to deal with that. That's why I'm just waiting for the commercial to hit. I would expect that could move this considerably. Also I checked yesterday and this stock doesn't have a message board on Raging Bull as of yet. When that happens look out cause those guys are crazy over there and stocks like this get played to the hilt.
erbottom,
I don't know about other traders but I'm just accumulating as many shares as I can before the ads hit. When the drop occurred today I addded another slug and I'll keep doing this as long as it lets me.
just bought another pickup load at .125
JB,
Check out the new nflx competition. GZFX with ads coming featuring the Dell cool dude guy.
Bought a small pickup load yesterday but it wasn't easy as cause these mm's play the game. Good luck on getting what you want at the price you want.
Moon
Zeev,
Looks like the market is buying Nvec after you of course.
NVE Corporation Reports Fiscal Year Results
Wednesday April 28, 4:00 pm ET
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 28, 2004--NVE Corporation (Nasdaq:NVEC - News) today announced financial results for the quarter and fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.
Total revenue for fiscal 2004 was $12.01 million compared to $9.45 million the prior year, an increase of 27%. Product sales increased 115% over the prior year. For fiscal 2004 the company reported net income of $2.11 million, including a net income tax benefit of $233,022 from reduction of the valuation allowance relating to deferred tax assets. This compares to net income of $646,850 in fiscal 2003. Earnings per share were $0.45 per diluted share compared to $0.15 per share for the prior year.
Where's the netflix guy?
check out the competition with this one gzfx.
eom
Loren,
There was an opinion last week that IGT had ST peaked and earnings would not drive this too far for the near future so I sold mine at 45.75. I was lucky too get that having not watched it that close from 34.00. Anyway I'd like to re-enter but don't know where the bottom is right now. I was watching byd as an alternative for a gambling stock.
Stow,
Mace & ARTX moving well today. I just learned that ARTX was involved with Taser. See below.
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 14, 2004--Arotech Corporation (NasdaqNM: ARTX) announced today that the courseware developed for the Taser less-lethal weapon will be featured at the Taser Tactical Conference, April 17 & 18, 2004, in Las Vegas, NV. Sgt. Richard Gentry, head of training for the Miami Police Department, will present the exclusive Taser training course developed by Arotech's use-of-force training subsidiary, IES Interactive Training, Inc. in cooperation with Taser International.
MACE popping again.
Fishweed,
Sold my IGT this AM @ 45.75. I had held it since 34.10 and read one report that upside was most likely limited from here for the ST anyway. I'm watching it for a re-entry cheaper cause it's still got lots of potential as states approve slots in the future.
Moon
Back in SSTI for second helping today @ 14.84.
***OT***
OK Holly you're either from Michigan or somewhere close in the Midwest, cause I know that accent.(g)
Did Haup report upside guidance?
Seems to be the general problem in this market, which tells me the general psychology of the market is unhealthy right now. There are too many problems to dwell on and hopefully the market can kick this depression. Maybe a daily dose of prozac would help.
Out SSTI for $1.10..will reload it with any pullback. Sell off completely uncalled for. this market is acting absurd in many repects. time to take advantage of this craziness.
SSTI reports upside guidance and sells off $2.00.
So looks like buying opportunity to me. Long SSTI @$14.10
NVEC gapping up no news that I can find. Possibly just short covering premarket but who knows.
VISG up strong premarket.. this has been a good one for me ....eom
Moon
If you buy into max-pain theory then 30 is the number
thanks to those nervous nellies who sold their sndk cheap..It made my day .
eom
trying to add some sndk here on the cheap. way oversold imho
in edit...got some @ 28.50 we'll see how that goes today
Long sndk since 28 & change. sold my first helping for 3 pts. the excitement right now is visg breakout.
Zeev,
Trading in Haup is almost as exciting as watching paint dry. Now don't get me wrong I've made money on this stock but I can't watch it at all. Just buy it then and pick a sell point and forget it until I get the confirmation notice. The visual excitement like a taser or ipix isn't there so please guys let's get some volume going on this puppy. (vbg)
Moon
Long visg @ 12.60
Long drooy @ 2.75
Long ssti @ 15.80
eom
The analysts still like Intc:
Company Symbol Brokerage Firm Reiterated Rating: Target
Commerce Banc CBH Morgan Stanley Equal-weight $55
Renal Care RCI Morgan Stanley Overweight $51
Intel INTC UBS Buy $41
@Road ARDI UBS Buy $15
Gaylord Entertain GET Deutsche Securities Buy
Wal-Mart WMT Deutsche Securities Buy $72
Gilead Sciences GILD Legg Mason Buy $67
Intel INTC Legg Mason Buy $38
Nextel NXTL Schwab Soundview Outperform $33
Motorola MOT Schwab Soundview Outperform $22
Linear Tech LLTC Schwab Soundview Neutral $47
Intel INTC Schwab Soundview Outperform $42
Altria MO Goldman Sachs Outperform
Novastar Fin NFI WR Hambrecht Buy $54
People's Bank PBCT Ryan, Beck & Co Outperform $49
Lakeland LBAI Ryan, Beck & Co Mkt Perform $17.50
Scientific-Atlanta SFA Thomas Weisel Outperform
Linear Tech LLTC First Albany Strong Buy $54
Intel INTC First Albany Buy $36
AM April 14th
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Quotes
Sym. Price Chg.
VISG Trade
News 13.3 2.602
Viisage CEO Bernard Bailey to Appear on Wednesday Edition of CNBC`s ``Squawk Box``
April 13, 2004 18:30:00 (ET)
BILLERICA, Mass., Apr 13, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Bailey to Discuss Company's Strategy in the Emerging Identity Solutions Market with Neil Hennessy, President and CEO of Hennessy Funds
Viisage (VISG, Trade), a leading provider of advanced technology identity solutions, announced today that CEO Bernard Bailey will appear on the Wednesday, April 14 episode of CNBC's "Squawk Box" program to discuss the company's strategy, performance and role in the emerging identity solutions market.
Bailey will join host Mark Haines and guest host Neil Hennessy, president and portfolio manager of Hennessy Funds, at 7:50 a.m. EDT to discuss topics such as Viisage's strategic focus, recent acquisitions and customer wins, as well as the increasing interest in the identity solutions sector.
Who: Bernard Bailey, president and CEO of Viisage
What: Appearance on CNBC's "Squawk Box" to discuss Viisage's
strategy and the state of the identity solutions market
When: Wednesday, April 14, 7:50 a.m. EDT
Where: CNBC (Contact local listings for channel)
About Viisage
Viisage (VISG, Trade) delivers advanced technology identity solutions for governments, law enforcement agencies and businesses concerned with enhancing security, reducing identity theft, providing access control, and protecting personal privacy. Viisage creates solutions using secure document and face recognition technologies that quickly, reliably, and accurately identify individuals. With over 2,000 installations worldwide, Viisage's identity solutions stand out as a result of the Company's industry-leading technology and unique understanding of customer needs.
Stowboat,
Yeah I went out to costco and when I returned saw I was put of artx @3.95 which I had in yesterday,
anyway now playing mace .looks like mags is turning around too
ARTX
11:01 ET Arotech unit receives over $3.1 mln in orders for vehicle armoring (ARTX) 3.67 +0.57: Co announces that its MDT vehicle-armoring subsidiary has received new orders of over $3.1 million. Vehicles will be armored in both the new Auburn, Alabama facility, and in the Israeli facility. (Briefing.com Note: ARTX was highlighted last week by Briefing.com at $2.40 as a security play; see April 7 In Play write-up).
running hard right now
stow,
sold mrkl for 1.32
now looking at artx which just moved. bought 2000 shrs. @ 3.23
on eturd mrkl works and on yahoo mrkl.ob works..what are u using ?
try mrkl.ob
Paul,
I agree but look at the bomb detection cos. and what happened to them and tasr etc. Security has now become an area that will get it's share of bucks.
If you worked in anything relating to security years ago that was the pits. The first layoffs, very little money allocated and no new technology. Well the terrorists have changed all of that and the security industry is catching up rapidly.
Moon
In edit just checked mrkl again and it could be wild today.
It's one of the homeland security cos. with about 3 m. float so once the name gets out it gets a little crazy. started yesterday.
I sold half of mine yesterday at the close on the high and was happy until I saw premarket today.
stowboat,
check mrkl. premarket up and was very strong yesterday.
Mansoor Ijaz is a FOX News Channel foreign affairs and terrorism analyst and founder and chairman of The Crescent Partnerships, a series of New York-based private equity partnerships focused exclusively on the development of national security technologies.
As a private American citizen, Ijaz negotiated Sudan's counterterrorism offer to the Clinton administration in April 1997 and proposed the framework for a cease-fire of hostilities in Kashmir between Indian security forces and Muslim separatists in August 2000.
What do you think is behind the perceived lack of competence by Richard Clarke? Why would he not want to extradite terrorists? Why would he not want to send a team to Sudan to look at the terror files? What do you think is the real reason behind these failures? - (Jeff, Alexandria, VA)
Ijaz: He and some of his staff members were convinced that by forcing bin Laden's expulsion from Sudan the arch-terrorist would run back to Afghanistan where, they incorrectly assessed, it would take him years to get back up and running. That would buy them enough time to push through the armed Predator drone concept. Then, if the Predator found bin Laden, as it did in 1999, Clarke could personally order it to kill the Saudi fugitive and reap the glory of having given that order.
Why is Clarke trying to prove Iraq and Al Qaeda aren't connected? - (Brenden, Portland, OR)
Ijaz: Let's face it: had the book said anything positive about the Bush administration or made the tangible case of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, it wouldn't sell very many copies. The media are always desperate to find some insider who will trash the administration for what they perceive are the faults in President Bush's policy paradigms. The same happens to any administration while it is in power - that's part of life in Washington. What is so dangerous about the Clarke affair is that he has taken the focus of our senior National Security Council and intelligence officials away from the job at hand - defeating the terrorists - and instead given the terrorists comfort as they watch in amusement while one branch of our government feuds with another. I remind you that Clarke himself made the original connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a January 23, 1999 Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, he told Mr. Loeb regarding the August 20, 1998 U.S. missile strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant that intelligence existed which connected bin Laden to the ownership of the al-Shifa plant, the Iraqi nerve gas agents, and Sudan's ruling junta, the National Islamic Front. If he knew that then, stated it for the record, and it was never disputed by anyone, it is either a flat lie or a severe memory lapse for him to say anything else now.
The Bush administration only uses Ansar al Islam and Zarqawi as their proof of a connection. If there really is more evidence, why don't they use it? - (Meg, Schenectady, NY)
Ijaz: This is a serious mistake on the part of the administration, and frankly I cannot tell you why. The evidence of Iraq's contacts with, support for and intimate relationship at an intelligence level with senior Al Qaeda operatives including bin Laden is plentiful. My suspicion is that the collection of that data involved sensitive sources and methods, and that there may still be ongoing operations in that part of the world (i.e., with Syria or Iran) where either the same or similar sources and methods are being used. We certainly don't want to aid and abet the enemy. If this is not the case, then the Bush White House has made a serious political error in judgment not sharing openly all the evidence they have of an Iraqi-al Qaeda connection.
If Sudan was a state sponsor of terror, why would it be in their interest to cooperate with the U.S.? - (Dave, Pheonix, AZ)
Ijaz: By 1996, bin Laden was actively interfering in the internal politics of Sudan. He was siding with its Islamist leader and then Speaker of the National Assembly Hasan al-Turabi (an ideologue) against the government of Omar Hasan El Bashir, Sudan's military dictator (and a pragmatist). Bin Laden wanted to rule over a state, and Turabi was a willing participant in making that happen. In Islam, there is a clearly written rule that if you are a guest in someone's home, you never cause a fight between husband and wife. If you need any proof of the rift between Turabi and Bashir, just yesterday Turabi was arrested along with 12 other Sudanese army officials for conspiring to overthrow Bashir's government. This is the second time in five years Turabi has been put under arrest for anti-government activities. So, at that time, Sudan's interest in getting rid of bin Laden and cooperating with the U.S. was more for internal domestic political reasons than anything else, and they were shopping to see what price if any they could extract from Washington if the Sudanese were willing to hand him over. Unfortunately, our people in the U.S. government just didn't understand the magnitude of the threat Al Qaeda and bin Laden were growing into at that time, no matter how many different ways I tried to tell them. And I am on record in my op-ed pieces, testimony before Congressional and Senate committees, and in personal meetings with all our senior national security and intelligence officials as having said so. Had they understood how fearful Bashir was of bin Laden at that time (even though he could not openly admit it), they might have understood the power behind bin Laden's various moves in 1996.
If Clarke passed up a golden opportunity to get bin Laden more than once, is it because he didn't care, or because other larger forces on a global scale were at work? If it is the latter, what is the likelihood anyone will broach the subject publicly? - Joan (Blue Point, NY)
Ijaz: Clarke's fundamental viewpoint on terrorism was never concerned with dismantling Islamic extremists by getting inside their networks and unraveling them from within, which is the policy track I advocated with President Clinton and Sandy Berger, among others, at the time. Clarke was of the view that our military was technologically sophisticated enough to literally find and kill all the bad guys with Predator drone missile strikes. Except by the time he got an armed Predator in the air, Khobar Towers had been bombed, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been bombed, the USS Cole had been attacked - how many terrorist strikes had to take place before we got the message these guys were serious about destroying our way of life. It's all quite simple, really. You had a president who didn't want to hear bad news from his intelligence chief and therefore rarely met with him or read his memos. You had a lawyer turned national security adviser who couldn't grasp the magnitude of the threat and relied on his aides like Clarke to do the thinking for him. And you had men like Clarke with oversized egos who genuinely thought they had Al Qaeda pegged as a ragtag bunch of Islamist fanatics who would be fun to go hunting after with U.S. Predator drones. In a nutshell, the U.S. national security apparatus, when it came to understanding Islam's lunatic fringe, was kindergarten under President Clinton. The terrorists were getting their PhDs in becoming perhaps the most serious threat humanity has yet faced other than disease and natural disasters.
Mansoor Ijaz is a FOX News Channel foreign affairs and terrorism analyst and founder and chairman of The Crescent Partnerships, a series of New York-based private equity partnerships focused exclusively on the development of national security technologies.
As a private American citizen, Ijaz negotiated Sudan's counterterrorism offer to the Clinton administration in April 1997 and proposed the framework for a cease-fire of hostilities in Kashmir between Indian security forces and Muslim separatists in August 2000.
What do you think is behind the perceived lack of competence by Richard Clarke? Why would he not want to extradite terrorists? Why would he not want to send a team to Sudan to look at the terror files? What do you think is the real reason behind these failures? - (Jeff, Alexandria, VA)
Ijaz: He and some of his staff members were convinced that by forcing bin Laden's expulsion from Sudan the arch-terrorist would run back to Afghanistan where, they incorrectly assessed, it would take him years to get back up and running. That would buy them enough time to push through the armed Predator drone concept. Then, if the Predator found bin Laden, as it did in 1999, Clarke could personally order it to kill the Saudi fugitive and reap the glory of having given that order.
Why is Clarke trying to prove Iraq and Al Qaeda aren't connected? - (Brenden, Portland, OR)
Ijaz: Let's face it: had the book said anything positive about the Bush administration or made the tangible case of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, it wouldn't sell very many copies. The media are always desperate to find some insider who will trash the administration for what they perceive are the faults in President Bush's policy paradigms. The same happens to any administration while it is in power - that's part of life in Washington. What is so dangerous about the Clarke affair is that he has taken the focus of our senior National Security Council and intelligence officials away from the job at hand - defeating the terrorists - and instead given the terrorists comfort as they watch in amusement while one branch of our government feuds with another. I remind you that Clarke himself made the original connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a January 23, 1999 Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, he told Mr. Loeb regarding the August 20, 1998 U.S. missile strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant that intelligence existed which connected bin Laden to the ownership of the al-Shifa plant, the Iraqi nerve gas agents, and Sudan's ruling junta, the National Islamic Front. If he knew that then, stated it for the record, and it was never disputed by anyone, it is either a flat lie or a severe memory lapse for him to say anything else now.
The Bush administration only uses Ansar al Islam and Zarqawi as their proof of a connection. If there really is more evidence, why don't they use it? - (Meg, Schenectady, NY)
Ijaz: This is a serious mistake on the part of the administration, and frankly I cannot tell you why. The evidence of Iraq's contacts with, support for and intimate relationship at an intelligence level with senior Al Qaeda operatives including bin Laden is plentiful. My suspicion is that the collection of that data involved sensitive sources and methods, and that there may still be ongoing operations in that part of the world (i.e., with Syria or Iran) where either the same or similar sources and methods are being used. We certainly don't want to aid and abet the enemy. If this is not the case, then the Bush White House has made a serious political error in judgment not sharing openly all the evidence they have of an Iraqi-al Qaeda connection.
If Sudan was a state sponsor of terror, why would it be in their interest to cooperate with the U.S.? - (Dave, Pheonix, AZ)
Ijaz: By 1996, bin Laden was actively interfering in the internal politics of Sudan. He was siding with its Islamist leader and then Speaker of the National Assembly Hasan al-Turabi (an ideologue) against the government of Omar Hasan El Bashir, Sudan's military dictator (and a pragmatist). Bin Laden wanted to rule over a state, and Turabi was a willing participant in making that happen. In Islam, there is a clearly written rule that if you are a guest in someone's home, you never cause a fight between husband and wife. If you need any proof of the rift between Turabi and Bashir, just yesterday Turabi was arrested along with 12 other Sudanese army officials for conspiring to overthrow Bashir's government. This is the second time in five years Turabi has been put under arrest for anti-government activities. So, at that time, Sudan's interest in getting rid of bin Laden and cooperating with the U.S. was more for internal domestic political reasons than anything else, and they were shopping to see what price if any they could extract from Washington if the Sudanese were willing to hand him over. Unfortunately, our people in the U.S. government just didn't understand the magnitude of the threat Al Qaeda and bin Laden were growing into at that time, no matter how many different ways I tried to tell them. And I am on record in my op-ed pieces, testimony before Congressional and Senate committees, and in personal meetings with all our senior national security and intelligence officials as having said so. Had they understood how fearful Bashir was of bin Laden at that time (even though he could not openly admit it), they might have understood the power behind bin Laden's various moves in 1996.
If Clarke passed up a golden opportunity to get bin Laden more than once, is it because he didn't care, or because other larger forces on a global scale were at work? If it is the latter, what is the likelihood anyone will broach the subject publicly? - Joan (Blue Point, NY)
Ijaz: Clarke's fundamental viewpoint on terrorism was never concerned with dismantling Islamic extremists by getting inside their networks and unraveling them from within, which is the policy track I advocated with President Clinton and Sandy Berger, among others, at the time. Clarke was of the view that our military was technologically sophisticated enough to literally find and kill all the bad guys with Predator drone missile strikes. Except by the time he got an armed Predator in the air, Khobar Towers had been bombed, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been bombed, the USS Cole had been attacked - how many terrorist strikes had to take place before we got the message these guys were serious about destroying our way of life. It's all quite simple, really. You had a president who didn't want to hear bad news from his intelligence chief and therefore rarely met with him or read his memos. You had a lawyer turned national security adviser who couldn't grasp the magnitude of the threat and relied on his aides like Clarke to do the thinking for him. And you had men like Clarke with oversized egos who genuinely thought they had Al Qaeda pegged as a ragtag bunch of Islamist fanatics who would be fun to go hunting after with U.S. Predator drones. In a nutshell, the U.S. national security apparatus, when it came to understanding Islam's lunatic fringe, was kindergarten under President Clinton. The terrorists were getting their PhDs in becoming perhaps the most serious threat humanity has yet faced other than disease and natural disasters.
Jbennett53,
Do prisoners have email capabilities while in prison?