is happily being the wheel rather than a rusty old spoke
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.
But "Bob" is okay for a CEO name? When he frequently cites his locale as "Boogerville"?
Edit: Actually, I could have a little fun and poke fun at our local post office (checks received weeks after mailing, and over a week after being post-marked) by just changing the mailing address I give out as being in Boogerville, MO. Shouldn't have any worse trouble getting my mail as long as the zip is correct.
OT: Pilots
No, and I'm not sure why you ask, but I've been asked before and it turns out to have been by people who know my dad, who is a pilot. When other families would pile into station wagons to go on vacations, we'd pile into the Cessna.
Just a place-marker post for future reference. The post to which I'm replying was posted with the stock trading at 99 cents, shortly (weeks) after a runup from 14 cents to a high of $1.57 before retracing back to roughly the $0.95 to $1.10 range.
Historically, yes. And history does have such a strong tendency to repeat.
Personally, I'm extremely amazed that his legal counsel has signed off on his posting like that.
And I get the feeling that that post, and others like it, will later be held up as yet another in a long list of "samples" to be quoted elsewhere in similar situations.
We're temporarily running on the new posting system pre-open. I've been unable to reproduce any errors even by reposting ones I was sure had errored yesterday.
If anyone gets an error message, please post here with a cut/paste of the exact output.
Here's some answers, from Samy's POST, I got sick of doing right now, hopefully some others will jump in and finish off this list (sorry actually have work to do in the office) - Stock symbols and CUSIP's have nothing to do with the ability to file anything with the SEC. CIK is all that matters CUSIP numbers and standardized descriptions are used by virtually all sectors of the financial industry, and are critical for the accurate and efficient clearance and settlement of securities and other financial instruments as well as back-office processing. - Stock symbols and CUSIP changes don''t require any amendments to anything filed with the SEC. It actually has nothing to do with them http://www.cusip.com/ - OTCBB and PINKSHEETS aren''t stock exchanges. Listing services aren''t exchanges, lol The OTC Bulletin Board® (OTCBB) is a regulated quotation service that displays real-time quotes, last-sale prices, and volume information in over-the-counter (OTC) equity securities. An OTC equity security generally is any equity that is not listed or traded on NASDAQ or a national securities exchange. OTCBB securities include national, regional, and foreign equity issues, warrants, units, American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), and Direct Participation Programs (DPPs). The OTCBB is a quotation medium for subscribing members, not an issuer listing service, and should not be confused with The Nasdaq Stock MarketSM. - Conversion Solutions isn''t even close to being eligible for Nasdaq NM/SC listing http://www.nasdaq.com/about/nasdaq_listing_req_fees.pdf'
Here's some answers, I got sick of doing right now, hopefully some others will jump in and finish off this list (sorry actually have work to do in the office) - Stock symbols and CUSIP's have nothing to do with the ability to file anything with the SEC. CIK is all that matters CUSIP numbers and standardized descriptions are used by virtually all sectors of the financial industry, and are critical for the accurate and efficient clearance and settlement of securities and other financial instruments as well as back-office processing. - Stock symbols and CUSIP changes don't require any amendments to anything filed with the SEC. It actually has nothing to do with them http://www.cusip.com/ - OTCBB and PINKSHEETS aren''t stock exchanges. Listing services aren't exchanges, lol The OTC Bulletin Board® (OTCBB) is a regulated quotation service that displays real-time quotes, last-sale prices, and volume information in over-the-counter (OTC) equity securities. An OTC equity security generally is any equity that is not listed or traded on NASDAQ or a national securities exchange. OTCBB securities include national, regional, and foreign equity issues, warrants, units, American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), and Direct Participation Programs (DPPs). The OTCBB is a quotation medium for subscribing members, not an issuer listing service, and should not be confused with The Nasdaq Stock MarketSM. - Conversion Solutions isn't even close to being eligible for Nasdaq NM/SC listing http://www.nasdaq.com/about/nasdaq_listing_req_fees.pdf'
♫ Oasis - Don't Go Away
♫ Oasis - Don't Go Away
Here's some answers, I got sick of doing right now, hopefully some others will jump in and finish off this list (sorry actually have work to do in the office) - Stock symbols and CUSIP's have nothing to do with the ability to file anything with the SEC. CIK is all that matters CUSIP numbers and standardized descriptions are used by virtually all sectors of the financial industry, and are critical for the accurate and efficient clearance and settlement of securities and other financial instruments as well as back-office processing. - Stock symbols and CUSIP changes don't require any amendments to anything filed with the SEC. It actually has nothing to do with them http://www.cusip.com/ - OTCBB and PINKSHEETS aren''t stock exchanges. Listing services aren't exchanges, lol The OTC Bulletin Board® (OTCBB) is a regulated quotation service that displays real-time quotes, last-sale prices, and volume information in over-the-counter (OTC) equity securities. An OTC equity security generally is any equity that is not listed or traded on NASDAQ or a national securities exchange. OTCBB securities include national, regional, and foreign equity issues, warrants, units, American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), and Direct Participation Programs (DPPs). The OTCBB is a quotation medium for subscribing members, not an issuer listing service, and should not be confused with The Nasdaq Stock MarketSM. - Conversion Solutions isn't even close to being eligible for Nasdaq NM/SC listing http://www.nasdaq.com/about/nasdaq_listing_req_fees.pdf'
Got 'em
Got 'em.
Test of a post I think failed yesterday on the new version.
Test of a longer message to see if I can induce a failure in development environment:
Someone brought up a good point regarding old signatures, so here's what I'll do.
On my to-do list (about 4 or 5 items down) is "Strip signatures out of old messages that contain them directly in the message."
That'll make both our message table and search catalogs a bit smaller.
But here's what I'll do instead.
I'll parse them before stripping them, so that when I'm done, I'll have a separate table called Signature_History or something like that, and it'll contain each signature-using user ID and each of the signatures they've used. Then it'll be fairly easy to incorporate that into profile editing so you can have multiple signatures and select any of them by checkbox whenever the mood strikes.
However, it'll still work such that whatever your CURRENT signature is, is the one that'll be displayed when anyone reads ANY of your messages.
Now I think I'll probably be spending the rest of the day finding the bugs in the new posting routine. I thought it was working well enough to put into production yesterday afternoon, so I did it, while watching trace output, then noticed some posts in the trace output that weren't showing up on the site, and later got an error message of my own when trying to post.
It'll really help the site when I get this running, though. Posting seemed to happen a LOT faster using the new routine, and the thing of dupe numbers should become a thing of the past.
Previously, assigning the post number (along with incrementing a post's reply count) happened very early in the process. And all of it was happening in ASP, so it was very easy for several people to overlap in the posting process, and if a part of it failed (usually the post-insert process, which is the heaviest part), the parts before that still succeeded, resulting in dupe message numbers and other incorrect things like incorrect total posts for a user, incorrect daily post counts, etc.
Now it's all or none. Well, is in development and soon will be in production. If any part of the process fails (which should be less likely to happen because of the greater speed), every part of it fails.
Someone brought up a good point regarding old signatures, so here's what I'll do.
On my to-do list (about 4 or 5 items down) is "Strip signatures out of old messages that contain them directly in the message."
That'll make both our message table and search catalogs a bit smaller.
But here's what I'll do instead.
I'll parse them before stripping them, so that when I'm done, I'll have a separate table called Signature_History or something like that, and it'll contain each signature-using user ID and each of the signatures they've used. Then it'll be fairly easy to incorporate that into profile editing so you can have multiple signatures and select any of them by checkbox whenever the mood strikes.
However, it'll still work such that whatever your CURRENT signature is, is the one that'll be displayed when anyone reads ANY of your messages.
Now I think I'll probably be spending the rest of the day finding the bugs in the new posting routine. I thought it was working well enough to put into production yesterday afternoon, so I did it, while watching trace output, then noticed some posts in the trace output that weren't showing up on the site, and later got an error message of my own when trying to post.
It'll really help the site when I get this running, though. Posting seemed to happen a LOT faster using the new routine, and the thing of dupe numbers should become a thing of the past.
Previously, assigning the post number (along with incrementing a post's reply count) happened very early in the process. And all of it was happening in ASP, so it was very easy for several people to overlap in the posting process, and if a part of it failed (usually the post-insert process, which is the heaviest part), the parts before that still succeeded, resulting in dupe message numbers and other incorrect things like incorrect total posts for a user, incorrect daily post counts, etc.
Now it's all or none. Well, is in development and soon will be in production. If any part of the process fails (which should be less likely to happen because of the greater speed), every part of it fails.
test
I haven't checked, but would strongly suspect that single letters are entries in our 250k-word dictionary.
I really suspect that's a gap in the Ignore procedures I never did close up.
'test'
"test"
test
I'm wondering the same thing. I put in a very different version (orders of magnitude more efficient) of the message-posting routine, but in watching the trace log go by, I'm seeing problems with some posts of yours. You keep trying to post a reply to #msg-12507474 but it's simply not "taking".
Yet you're able to post here...
Edit: I got an error message on that post attempt, so I've reverted back to the old routine. Will tackle this again tomorrow.
test
I'm putting a radically different version of the message insertion routine into production right now.
If it blows up on you or you see any kind of weirdness involved with message-reading (messages from ignored authors hitting your MailBox, for example), please post here as I'll be watching this thread most of the evening to squash any bugs before tomorrow's open.
test
test2
test
test
test
test
test
Bear with me on the occasional dupes. I'm revising the whole set of posting routines and forgot I was in the development directory when I replied previously, and the only currently functional scenario there is public non-replies. Quite a few more scenarios left to cover.
It's been different since sometime last week.
Now, rather than embedding signatures in messages themselves, they're retrieved from your profile at message-reading time.
So on ANY post you've written, only your current signature is displayed when someone reads it.
The old way was wasteful in terms of storage space and processing overhead.
test
test
test
Anudder test
Test. Which has a tiny snowball's chance in hell of actually working correctly.
snappy...including Search. is real-time indexing back on?
Should continue to get snappier, though in relatively small increments until the new box gets here and is put into production.
Indexing is pretty close to realtime now and, having made it through today without causing problems, will likely stay that way. Of course, with the new box, it'll be very realtime since the new version of SQL handles it so much better.
For the benefit of anyone out there dealing with SQL-Server and full-text indexing, learn from what I learned the hard way.
Unless your server isn't very busy, DO NOT enable "Update Index in Background". But DO leave "Change Tracking" enabled. Change Tracking apparently causes little or no overhead. In any event, the amount is quite acceptable.
But if you enable background updating, the server spends every waking CPU cycle trying (in vain) to keep the catalogs updated.
What I've done, instead, is schedule an event to run every 15 minutes to basically do what the "Update Index" command in enterprise manager does. I can see every time it runs. The histogram spikes briefly then it's done just as quickly as it started.
Oh, and firing off "Incremental Population" is a real losing proposition, too.
Anyway, I've got other routines I really need to dramatically change and in the meantime will try index refreshing every 5 minutes tomorrow to see how it's working, then when I'm done with these other routines, I'll go back through and tidy up things I've broken along the way. Like apparently "Ignore", which I thought I'd already fixed.
How's site performance this morning?