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.
That explains it.
That I don't know- it may pre-date my ownership of this stock. Do they reverse split volumes when a stock is reverse split?
The highest total I saw on the Yahoo chart was after the Intel deal.
That should be 6:40 ET
No, we have had a number of days with more volume- after the Intel announcement there was a day with over 20 million shares traded.
No, not right-
How about 10 million shares at $15 and then a split or two.
Or better yet, a 3 for 1 split to get us back to where we were before.
resistance crushed 4.58 eom
4.30 eom
4.20 eom
At this rate, we might turn over 10% of the float today
1760 dollars took 14 years.
I may not last that long myself- but within 6 years, Qualcomm had split 16 for 1, and was at $80, so the original shares were worth $1280. I think I could settle for that.
Well, Well Remote Control
I never knew that you were, well, you. Small world indeed. Good work, Rojac, by the way. That boat and trailer has served me well since then.
Here's to a good week for all of us- and to the remainder of the turtles hitting the surf zone.
To my PM'er
Thanks- I used to play trumpet back in my school days. I always enjoy a band with good horns.
Maybe they could play at the Vegas gathering- and throw plastic turtles to the crowd between songs.
Hi Rojac
Congratulations on break even. You are right about the charts. They are interesting, but in this kind of explosive growth situation, they break down. They are more useful once a stock reaches full maturity- and Wave won't be there for years.
You could do what others do and establish a core positon that you hold as a long position, and then establish a smaller trading position and trade in and out, either locking in profits, or trying to buy back on the pull backs to increase the number of shares you own.
It's a nice problem to have.
Given what is apparently about to happen
buying more is a very non-crazy thing to do. I will be scraping some more money together, as well. Like I posted, every share now might be 15 to 30 shares in ten years.
If the HAP architecture comes out in full force, we will be more than just on our way.
Weby- I think sharing a boat with you for a day
Would be a great experience. Perhaps our other fishing friend would arrange a trip. We'll put you on the fish, for sure.
Heck CSL
I feel a bit crazy thinking about it myself. The potential numbers boggle the mind.
Hope you've joined us in the Black Sea.
Hi Weby- happy swimming in the Black Sea!
Yes, I think I picked that up from you at some point. With the recent action, I have been gazing longingly at the Qualcomm story.
But I think Wave will be bigger.
People who have called Wavoids crazy will have to add a word to their description... "Crazy RICH Wavoid."
Do you think that Danny Hakim will do another story vindicating the old time Wavoids?
I probably know a few who may fly to New York and urinate on his desk when they hit a million bucks on their Wave positions....
Hi RWK
I think you are right, that some will sell way too early given the scope of what Wave looks to be about to accomplish. As you point out, the HAP seats alone are enough to send the share price to the moon. The rational investor will look at that and think, "I've made my money, it's time to sell." They may not look ahead at an even bigger opportunity, and that is the FACT that all military contractors will be required to lock down their computers. It will make no sense to expose data about our systems when they are under production, only to then protect them when they are in use. The protection must extend all the way from design to implementation. In addition, big companies like Boeing have many small contractors that supply components, and those other companies will have to encrypt, as well. By this single act of placing themselves at the center of the HAP architecture, Wave has guaranteed that they will be used by the entire defense industry worth many billions of dollars.
What a coup- and that doesn't even begin to consider other branches of the government adopting Wave, other major enterprises adopting Wave's system, or the mobile phone space, or consumer applications of the technology. Wave will be a very big story for many years.
Sell my shares any time soon?
No thanks, I'd rather be rich.
I like to compare Wave with Qualcomm. Qualcomm is similar in that they provide the software architecture that makes the cellular telephone system work seamlessly, just like Wave makes encrypted systems work more quickly and seamlessly.
Qualcomm went from a float of 50.5 million shares to 1.68 billion shares over an 11 year period. Wave would need to split several times to do this, but if they did, each Wave share you sell this year might be 21 shares you won't have after the splits. Since Qualcomm trades at about $38 today, those original shares were worth $1216 each way back in 1994. Five years ago, Qualcomm peaked at $55 which would have put the original value of thos 50.5 million shares at $1760.
Ten years from now Wave will still be developing new markets and expanding it's role in the new computing architecture. I think Wave is in an even better place now than Qualcomm was back then.
The other thing to point out about Qualcomm is that 81% of their float is owned by institutions. At the current time, with wavoids owning over 40% of the float, we could see a squeeze of epic proportions as the price rises above $5 and major funds start to buy.
You're going to have to change your moniker from Wavedreamer to Wavereality
HAP Conference final session
Looking Forward: HAP Partner Program, Opportunities Ahead
HAP has the potential to remake the whole computing infrastructure – but only as it's commercialized. Here's the vision for HAP commercialization and how the HAP Program is pursuing it. The first big step = the HAP Technology Partner Program. Following the Partner Program, here are some of the other ideas we envision.
https://www.ncsi.com/hap10/looking_forward.html
Weets is right- it's HAPpening
All turtles to the sea!!!
HAP Conference, Part 2
Stephen Sprague will speak there, as well as Dr. Thibadeau
https://www.ncsi.com/hap10/speakers.shtml
From the Upcoming HAP Conference on March 16, online website:
HAP technologies have been deployed in multiple user environments over the past year. Learn how HAP is delivering Secure, Manageable, Sharing, and Multi-form factor solutions in these environments.
https://www.ncsi.com/hap10/index.shtml
Guess we know what Wave has been doing for that Department of Defense contract.
Hi Snackman
It's pretty amazing what a little bit of volume did for us in a few weeks. I'm waiting for the five dollar milestone so more funds can accumulate. A well placed piece of news will get us there, IMO. Next week could be it- an HP, Lenovo bundling deal, another major client, and a quarter with actual profits would put a charge in this thing.
Then it will be a stampede of turtles joining me and Dory in the Black Sea. Come on in, the water is great.
Hi Snackman
If I recall correctly, your numbers are correct. The other thing to consider is that as near as I can tell, this is the pilot package that SKS was talking about on the last CC. It is just 20 seats and one server-with a day of tech support. Why would it be out of stock unless lots of companies were trying it? Its only 20 seats per package...
Out of stock indicates demand- here's why
The item that is out of stock is the introductory package. Remember SKS talking about them? -They have a 20 seat license and comes with a day of tech support to get it up and running, then the customer tries it on their own for a while to determine if they like the product. -That is what is out of stock.
If this is true, I would hazard a guess that they don't have enough techs to keep up with the sales/setup calls, and have put a temporary halt to more orders for the time being. This may also explain the PIPE. They may need to add as many field techs as possible to get the pilots running. We will know this is the case if we see more staff being hired.
Hi Orda
The joke I posted was from a comedian named Emo Phillips. He has written a couple about our political parties, as well.
Republicans:
I am not a Republican- but I am saving up to be one.
Democrats:
When my grandmother was very old, she had a stroke. After we got her to the hospital, the doctors informed us that her heart was beating strongly, but that her brain was dead. We all realized that we had a very difficult situation on our hands. After all, we never had a Democrat in the family before.
http://www.emophilips.com/home/
Be sure to check out the Random Emo Logic Generator
Blue Fin
Read the article-they were asked to judge his presidency up to that point. (Dec. '05) The question was in his presidency so far, where would G. W. Bush rank among all presidents.
Hardly an attempt to see into the future. It was a comparison to the past, which is the baliwick of historians.
Here you go....
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
Hi Blue Fin
Carter is probably in that bottom tier of presidents-maybe even not too far from George W. Bush, but, a racist he is not.
He opposed some of Israel's policies against Palestinians, and got called an anti-semite because of it.
Hi Blue Fin (edit)
Keeler is referring to this. It's not a whisper.
(edit)Almost forgot the link
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.
Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.
The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.
Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.
Good lord, Keeler
Now that is a weighty tome.
After studying the Afican American history that I have, I can understand where Michelle Obama is coming from when she says she is proud of her country for the first time. For the first time, 143 years after the end of slavery, a Black man is on an equal footing in national politics with White opponents. What a historic time.
Unfortunately, some people would like to continue the politics of race. Too bad.
BTW-
Have you seen the newest IHSA sport?
x-point- a racist in the White House?
It has already happened
Woodrow Wilson-from Wikipedia:
While president of Princeton University, Wilson discouraged blacks from even applying for admission.[36] Princeton would not admit its first black student until the 1940s.
Wilson allowed many of his cabinet officials to establish official segregation in most federal government offices, in some departments for the first time since 1863. "His administration imposed full racial segregation in Washington and hounded from office considerable numbers of black federal employees."[37] Wilson and his cabinet members fired many black Republican office holders, but also appointed a few black Democrats. W.E.B. DuBois, a leader of the NAACP, campaigned for Wilson and in 1918 was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DuBois accepted but failed his Army physical and did not serve.)[38] When a delegation of blacks protested his discriminatory actions, Wilson told them that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." In 1914, he told the New York Times that "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it."
Hi x-point
But I don't want a racist in the White House, no matter which Party or which race he or she represents.
Please provide me with a racist quote that comes from Obama, not a person somewhere in his community.
I'll save you the search, there isn't one, and if there was, it would have been flashed across the internet many times over by now. In fact, if Obama had been running about saying things of the type that Rev. Wright has, he would never have been a serious candidate for President. He never would have been able to attract campaign staffers of the quality that he has, or funding in the manner/amounts that he has.
This racism charge will not be an issue. The Republicans will not go there, and even if some among the Republican community take it upon themselves to spread this stuff around the Internet, it won't work. There is nothing there, and it requires a twisting of -well, I was going to say words, but there aren't any of Obama's to twist-....I suppose it is a situation that is being taken out of context and twisted. Those in the Republican community who think this is a good tactic should analyze what has happened when the Clintons have made these types of attacks on Obama. He has gotten more support, not less. Moderate Americans won't support these tactics. Unless, of course, an actual quote exists somewhere....
Hi x-point
From your post:
There are black churches and then there are black churches, but the black church that we are talking about here is a racist black church led by a less that wholly patriotic reverand. To state that any politician that points this up is "playing the race card in a most foul manner" is rediculous.
From my post:
"In the days of the civil rights movement, (1950s, 1960s) Churches served as the organizing point for many of the efforts to obtain the rights promised in the Constitution. Churches were even bombed by White Supremecists, in an effort to derail or intimidate local civil rights pushes. During this time, some Black church leaders got a little tired of preaching "Turn the other cheek," when their parishoners were being abused and even killed. So, a degree of Afrocentrism, and militancy entered the Black church community. -And it is understandable that it did.-
Black leaders must honor this church based approach to civic organizing if they intend to lead any Black congressional district. The most vocal and powerful ministers are often the ones that adopt the most militant stances among the Black community. Black leaders must walk a line with these ministers, but it does not mean that they adopt the minister's views as a whole. Instead, they acknowledge that Black ministers have been, and continue to be extremely important in the Black community- and that if not for the efforts of Black ministers in the past, the leaders of today would not be able to exercise their civil rights on an equal basis with others in the U. S."
Black ministers are often the ones who stand up and say the thoughts/issues that are on the minds of many in the community. They are viewed as the driving force in the still occuring drive for full civil rights. Pointing out the wrongs that a White dominated society inflicted upon others is a part of this. To try to tar Obama with this brush is unfair to him, and the Black community in general. It is Jingoism wrapped in Swiftboating.
Look at what you really have here. Has Obama ever been quoted as saying any of this anti-America stuff? -No-
Is Rev. Wright only about being anti-America? Again, no. As a church leader, he serves a far wider purpose, and while I don't know much of him, I feel confident in saying that he may well do many good works behind the scenes. We can disgree with him on his anti-America stance without having to brand all in his church with that mark, and we can realize that just a few remarks are not the full measure of the man. Just like a few portions of Obama's past are not the measure of the man he is now.
Look also at the evidence that exists as to Obama's supposed agreement with Wright's 9/11 views. A supposed witness saw him nod when Wright was saying these things. I can only ask you, would you like this to be the standard for evidence which cast you in a negative light?
I think not.
Obama photo in turban, robe causes stir
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_on_el_pr/obama_photo;_ylt=AuyYTkPTYXTOVfgE408T28hAw_IE
The last few swipes of a desperate campaign (Clinton's)
Folks-Obama's religion...
You all need to stop and think about something. Black churches have been the key organizing center for the Black community since the days of slavery. In fact, in some locales during slavery, the slaves were prohibited to have their own churches, for fear that they would be used as places to meet and organize. Immediately after the end of the Civil War, when they were freed, one of the very first things that the newly freed slaves did was build their own churches.
The new Black churches were filled with people whose issues and life experiences were drastically different from the surrounding White communities. They had been made to feel different, and inferior, and had been abused in ways that no animal, let alone human should have been treated. They made their churches different, partly from need, and partly to establish their own communal identities. They did not want their churches to be just like White folks. They wanted their own churches.
In the days of the civil rights movement, (1950s, 1960s) Churches served as the organizing point for many of the efforts to obtain the rights promised in the Constitution. Churches were even bombed by White Supremecists, in an effort to derail or intimidate local civil rights pushes. During this time, some Black church leaders got a little tired of preaching "Turn the other cheek," when their parishoners were being abused and even killed. So, a degree of Afrocentrism, and militancy entered the Black church community. -And it is understandable that it did.-
Black leaders must honor this church based approach to civic organizing if they intend to lead any Black congressional district. The most vocal and powerful ministers are often the ones that adopt the most militant stances among the Black community. Black leaders must walk a line with these ministers, but it does not mean that they adopt the minister's views as a whole. Instead, they acknowledge that Black ministers have been, and continue to be extremely important in the Black community- and that if not for the efforts of Black ministers in the past, the leaders of today would not be able to exercise their civil rights on an equal basis with others in the U. S.
I think that you will find that Obama may profess a liking or admiration for a Black minister, but that Obama's own actions will be far different from that Black Minister.
Most politicians understand this dynamic, and if Black chuches are in their districts, they visit them on a regular basis. For any politician to be using this as an issue against Obama is playing the race card in a most foul manner.
Thanks, Alea
I knew that the statement about Trusted Computing and TPMs being compromised was a bit fishy, from a publishing standpoint. Researchers are usually a bit more specific and careful about their conclusions, when they are publishing for purposes of review by the established scientific community.
I suppose that there will be a trade off when the code does get locked down. I would think that a significant number of today's software engineers got their start by tinkering. (or hacking)
There may evolve an open source portion of the computer world-it already exists- in which the tinkerers will have to operate from now on. The roots of it are already there.
Issue the challenge
Seagate and Wave should offer one of their laptops with an encrypted secret on it to the Princeton researchers. See if they can decrypt a laptop protected by the Seagate/Wave system.
Make it a public challenge. Seagate's CEO said recently that the NSA has had the Seagate/Wave system under testing for at least six months and hasn't been able to break it. Wanna bet that they tried the freeze the DRAM method?
They just won't say it publicly because they don't want to anger either government contractors, or high ranking officials who said software encryption would be good enough.