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.
Don't read it, just sign it :)
Are you absolutely sure?
I'm sure there'll be at least a conspiracy theory on this by the day's end ;)
Nope, it's still hosted elsewhere. For that matter, you don't host sites with any expected sizeable traffic in-house (not that I expect them to know it, given the incompetence they've shown in pretty much everything else, even selling shares), unless you're the size of Google or Microsoft.
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-207-155-248-0-1
That being said, it doesn't look like a dedicated hosting. The server hosting this site uses host headers, which to me says 'shared hosting'. It's hosted by XO Communications.
Try www.alexa.com and their Wayback machine.
Been buying gold and silver (the real one, not contracts) for years now. I guess, being a pessimist does pay :)
The usuals, whatever I post is my opinion, yaddayaddayadda. I'm still learning this, so if you listen to me, well, good luck to you :)
That an nuclear power. Gotta think about the future beyond the gas pump :)
Not quite the same, but very similar ones. After all, if most people don't learn History, it tends to repeat itself.
Very true. Right now we're paying for years of English and Arts majors making decisions (through protests, etc., rarely through voting, as they usually make the minority there) on technical, scientific, and business matters. And unless those of us who actually work for a living (as opposed to attenting 4 protests per week) start thinking of more than our next paycheck, that next paycheck might cover less and less, if it's there at all, as the price of everything rises.
We've been living on borrowed time for way too long. First, when the moronic ideas imposed on us in the 1960's and 1970's began taking a toll on the economy, we bought some time by reducing the prices (and thus making the economical problems we never really stopped experiencing less apparent to the average voter through low prices) through outsourcing the industry (which opened its own can of worms, too long for a single message :)). Then, when the real state of the economy began to shine through that, we moved to the "service economy". Read: lower wages and less stable jobs requiring less education (since those same 60's and 70's ideas brought education down pretty much across the board. See if you can survive in the current public school system if you're not a liberal or an outright hippie and just want to teach students their subject, rather than having them write sonnets about the Second Law of Thermodynamics; or, being a student, try to learn Math there, as opposed to the "New Math"). That led to growing paychecks and less buying power. Oh, that's called inflation? Not when you're politically correct, it isn't. Then it's called "creating more jobs in the service sector". That patch being work out, we began extending easy access to credit, so we can truly live on borrowed time. Made the real wages look ok still, since you could still buy a lot... on credit.
Of course, that couldn't create the illusion of prosperity for long, either, since the real values (such as real estate, energy, etc., basically, the things you can't outsource or put some shining patch on) continued to rise.
WHich bring us to energy. What happens when an English major decides on energy matters? Right, instead of, say, o horror, nuclear power plant (strict regulation, continuously improving designs and reliability (pebble bed design, anyone? Thanks to this moratorium on building nuclear power plants, we're stuck with much more dangerous rod designs instead of building pebble bed ones, which you have to try real hard to blow up), developments in this field can one day enable us to power actual startships, not the crap like the "international space station" where every erg is being counted) you build a coal-fired plant (less regulated, since it's only coal, right? The same thing you can burn in a fireplace. At least, that's what it is to an English major, something he can relate to. Also highly radioactive (coal happens to be radioactive, you know, especially in those quantities), highly polluting (wasn't pollution bad?), and with constant dust fires and explosions (what, Los Angeles Times doesn't write about that? Odd)).
So it's small wonder the price of energy goes up all the time.
Spaking of energy, here's a funny thing on how a progressive English major's mind works. I heard this program on NPR the other day. They were discussing the "food crisis", and they discovered, with great surprise, that apparently organic farming produces less food per effort involved. So they had to reconsile between the two of their conflicting priorities - feeding the world's population that can't feed itself but sure can procreate out of control, or continue with organic farmers. Of course, the worse idea won in the end, they decided that farmers must produce more food, and promoting organic farming can wait :) Another fun debate is between the wind energy industry and the protectors of the birds. It's really hard to be a liberal these days, so many conflicting priorities, and you want it all and right now :)
How all this relates to the topic of LLEG? Well, just what the message I'm replying to said: noone wants the power plant in his backyard. When we run out of backyards in which to build them, well, we run out of energy. Personally, I consider $5 per gallon (and it's already that here in Southern California) a good development. We've been living on borrowed time for so long, we forgot how to innovate. This might be a boost to that (unless we've forgotten it quite thoroughly, but I'm an optimist, believe it or not, I believe we're still able to do it, aand I base that on absolutely nothing).
The question to consider for this guy spenceronfire, if he is who I think he is, where will his real estate/rental prices be, even without the evil smokestack, if there's noone who can afford to rent or buy that real estate? For exmple, here in L.A. the real estate prices are insane, without any view (the view of the street is considered nice already). We have jobs here, which would probably explain it.
Correction - I don't think there's a million of car dealerships around the world, merely one or two hundred thousands. That narrows down the competition 5-10 times, and so is good for RVGD :)
It would be impossible. I'd imagine this one board has more than that.
Actually, it'll take about 143M shares at today's closing price.
Things haven't changed. I just didn't realize that paying for impressions was still out there (being inefficient and all), and thought they made a mistake in the PR, since they haven't proven to be very, umm, accurate before, and didn't necessarily knew what they were talking about. In fact, I hope they were mistaken and actually paid per clicks.
Why August 10?
Ah, sweepstakes, one of the oldest wealth redistribution schemes :)
I'd generally agree with you, most middle-traffic corporate websites would use ASP.NET or something to that tune. However, you might want to check out facebook.com, wikipedia.org, yahoo.com, etc. Those are written by quite high-power developers though, ad they like the fact that they can customize and tweak PHP. However, your point is also valid, given that this website, the way it's designed, is no Yahoo :)
My bad. The question is, why would anyone want to buy impressions then? I mean, when you want to just work on your image, then impressions make sense, but when you actually want people to get to your site and sign up for something (like a contest), that'd be wasted money, while pay-per-click would work better. For that matter, your banner or link would be there longer. Oh well.
Impression, unless MySpace model is different from everyone else's, is a click-through to one's website. You pay per that click, so 200 million impressions means that 200 million clicks went to your website. Mind you, those can be by the same people, and in many cases they would be, or people can click the banner ad by mistake and then close the window.
Nah, the answer is the view. We as a society have long since lost the sight of where our prosperity (or should I say, former prosperity) comes from.
Hint: real estate prices only go up when there're people with enough money to buy that real estate. Real estate at the prices we have in this country is only possible when someone's buying it.
Well, the real estate is cheap and the surroundings are nice, so that's good. On the other hand, I still work for a living, and I doubt I can find anything there, so probably not.
Oh, I don't know, it sure looks like it :)
Umm, why do we need this, again? I seem to have a problem following the logic.
Well, I hope it does, of course.
The problem is, I'd really like to see the plan for acquiring those profits/revenues/assets. So far, the only plan for acquiring assets that I saw was selling more shares.
I understand that this is a startup, and having started several companies myself, I understand how hard it is. However, to start a company, one can either do it from his own resources/bank loans/venture capital, like I did, or one can go public to raise those funds. In the first case, you're the one taking the risk, but you're also only responsible to yourself (and the bank, if you took a load, but forgive me for not sparing any worries for the banks, they can take care of themselves just fine). If you go public, you're responsible to that very public, and part of that responsibility (that is, unless you're running a scam, or are unfit to run a public company) is to keep your shareholders informed on:
1. What your plans for utilizing their money are.
2. WHat your plans for increasing their value are.
3. The events which affect the value of their shares, including the share structure.
Of course, all 3 have to be honest, as well.
These are quite demanding and often unpleasant preconditions for running a public company, but that's the cost of having an easy access to capital, as opposed to, say, getting venture capital or a loan.
It looks like, for whatever reason, the CEO in question here seems unable or unwilling to meet these conditions, and that's pretty sad (for the shareholders, that is).
That being said, it's one's own fault for investing in a company that doesn't meet those conditions (which doesn't excuse a company from meeting them, of course).
Also, wasn't there a law protecting small shareholders, which, aside from everything else, prohibits raising AS/OS count without a shareholder meeting? I might be wrong, and it might be something from the 80's and long since abolished for whatever excuse, but I'm quite curious to find that out. If anyone has any info on the subject, I'd appreciate it if you let me know.
Hmm, what's the hype there? :)
They have revenues, assets, and lots of those, as well as a large share of a large market. Let's just try to keep it real here.
And yes, the number of shares is less important than market cap and market cap's relation to revenues/profits/assets. Of course, that only works for companies having revenues/profits/assets. For the rest, it's the expectation of those three that's reflected in the price. The big question here is what one can reasonably expect the value of this company to be.
The usuals, whatever I post is my opinion, yaddayaddayadda. I'm still learning this, so if you listen to me, well, good luck to you :)
Maybe the loss was less than expected :)
Just what I said, I found your board interesting. Especially so, since your trading style is similar to mine, and I always look to improve it.
You have an interesting board here.
Not likely :)
Ouch. I mean, go FRGY :)
Got some of it today, it being this low and all.
When are we going to get to the History of Wales? :)
Yes, that's what I meant. Made the same mistake at the gun store :)
Heh, right :)
I just don't like supplying incorrect information. Besides, they look the same, and I was quite sure I was getting a 607. Then I checked the receipt... Oh well. BTW, it turns out, most of the Tauruses are illegal in California, including the Judge, the one that can shoot 210 shotgun shells (that's the one my girlfriend wanted, as she only needs it for self-defense, not big on target shooting, and you don't have to aim that one too much). But no, the Californian laws are written with the idea that people would only buy guns for target shooting, and not for self-defense. After all, that's what police and laws are for, right? Say, if there's a law prohibiting murder, there'll be no murders :)
It's Taurus 627, actually. I kinda fell behind the times on models, thought they were still making 607 :)
Sounds like a sure way to health and longevity :)
Good night.
I see. That does suck. So the total can go way over 50% then. Brr...
Funny, we keep making fun of Europeans for paying 51% :)
Across the board? You mean, it's the total taxation, including the state, federal, and local taxes?