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.
PLSB - up 40% today?? (Glad I didn't panic sell!)
NTEK - NP1 on display today at CES yet nobody can confirm 4K streaming or provide any other impressions ...
Thanks ... it's crazy to me the board here is not better informed ... goes to show that markets are not efficient.
Nobody's interested in this????
Is the 4K streaming being demo'd today?
My cost was .0286 plus some sucessful swing trades (that cover my intial investment) so I guess I'm a similar situation to Harleyman ... the bomb that will drop in either direction, I think, is CES next week ... either they showcase the streaming 4K tech or they don't.
I'm placing a bet the tech is legit as they have left themselves nowhere to hide. If some BS arises of a last-minute delay hindering their CES demo, then I'm out.
I'm holding for the CES tradeshow ... also I like the Ingram Micro announcment, the NVIDIA tweet a while back, and that they did indeed build a functional VODWIZ website. Thus, despite Foley's history, I'm betting the 4K streaming is legit ... if CES falls through then I'm out.
I have not followed the research you and Malc were discussing so I hope I'm not missing any important details to contradict the above!
Incidentally ... belated Happy New Year!
Hi Harley -- Here are my ownings that overlap with those here.
ADXS
NWBO
HHSE
VRSEF
NTEK
SAN
Wild card: EXMGF/MIN.V (same as last year and the year before!)
My biggest winners from last year (still holding): INO and YLWWF.
Biggest loser from last year (still holding): EORBF.
My crazy bet for this year (small investment) ...CMBPF.
Who is Sam?
If the market does not react to favorable news, that would seem to imply from a fundamentals perspective we are more undervalued relative to before.
Ok, thanks... just curious, do you have an estimate of this benefit?
I guess there are the milestone payments but the upfront selling of shares seems to me, for the most part, just spinning the dilution.
Hopefully the milestone payments are significant... a bit suspicious, unlinke INO deal recently, no details were shared.
Shares into strong hands ... probably!
But more importantly, where are these shares coming from? Acqusition of shares by strong hands from the open market remains quite different than acquisition of shares by strong hands via dilution.
I'm not sure how to read this news ... are the shares to be purchased on the open market or will this be dilutive?
Yes, that's a good point... for those questioning the legitimacy of HHSE (all the clamoring and genuine concern of lack of audit) this alleviates some concern.
Why would a large (indie) studio sign an agreement if there was not a significant pipeline of upcoming movies!?
Not sure if this was your understanding, but Hannover will not be selling any Allegro products, just the other way around ... the benefit is the channel itself, not necessarily the volume of releases by Allegra.
I could be misunderstanding, so please correct me...
VRSEF ... bought 83 cents all the way down to 41 cents ... will we claw back to that level?
Hopefully YES and SOON!
YLWWF ... very nice the last month!!!
Thanks for trying to clarify this...
EXMGF ... up 20% today ... my embarassingly poor-performing wild card for the last 2 years showing a little life.
I've been accumulating as they have funding and what I've read there should not be too much concerngs about permitting. Global demand for resources should only increase and with expanded money supply, improving (eventual?) global economy, increased velocity of money will probably spur some inflation pressure as well.
Finally, the whole venture exchange has done poorly so I think there is similarity here to the performance of VRSEF (if a miner could be similar) ... bad timing on both but that is not to say the fundies are poor long-term.
Hi Gibbon,
Thanks for sharing about eugenics ... that has been outside the scope of my investigation and consideration but it's certainly an interesting issue which I did not know about this history.
You said this, which relates strongly to my interest:
"For science itself is pure observation."
I tend to agree quite strongly and perahps also many scientists today would too. When getting into philsophy of science and philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), it seems -- however -- that most academics to some extent might disagree with this statement or at least its implications. To follow 'pure observation' is to always be open to new information/observations that might potentially refute one's theory. Also, because reality outside and beyond one's observation, by definition, can not be observed, following 'pure observation' is to be skeptical of metaphysical knowledge (as to the nature of reality). The many forms of physicalism (applying terms such as reductionism, supervenience, emergentism) try to solve metaphysics by constructing some way of rationalistic/inductive knowledge beyond observation. In such thinking, however, both the value of introspection and appreciation of the profound mystery of reality -- I think -- are lost.
If I had more time I would look up some some quotes but have to go for now.
"Just write all the library down to zero, say this company is starting fresh and recognize every dollar in cash that comes in as revenue and every dollar that goes out in cash as an expenditure. "
Lol ... I think a financial statement requires more than 2 line items ... let's try to keep things real.
Interesting when read between the lines ... I'm calling bottom as sentiment will catch up with reality.
"... gold demand has jumped this year ... [but] fears have plagued base metals"
Hi Gibbon,
" Morals and ethics are purely based upon population. So the more the population grows they have found the better it is to implement them."
That certainly makes sense and I agree ethics certainly don't have much meaning without the context of the 'herd'.
One important thread in my writing is to move from an 'outside-in' objective perspective to more of an 'inside-out' introspective objective. I can't do these thoughts justice in a few paragraphs but this is founded on the principle that knowledge comes from observation/experience ... there is no way to 'objectively' escape this.
In this regard, yes, we could look upon society from a detached and distant standpoint and see human interactions (and ethics) evolving to protect the herd. In fact, this is what academia mostly teaches and what is required of an 'expert' in the field of psychology, sociology or what have you. Don't let your personal opinion cloud your objectivity, they say!
But this is to disregard that observing a soceity necessarily requires an observer. In such disregard I think one important perspective is missing. When one is very closely aware of what is going on in society and one's place in society, which is to say to be sensitive or closely aware of one's interactions with others, the consquences of one's actions, how others are effected, then I'd propose there is another dimension that there is to consider. If you see someone hurting, make a connection with them by trying to help and observe the thankfulness in their eyes, there is personal intrinsic value to such moments knowing that reality is 'better' or 'good'. Quality, value, or whatever word is chosen cannot be defined, know or quantified without reference to such immediate experience.
I wish I was more moral in the regard of being more sensitive in this way, but I'm working on it ... to be more conscientious of truth.
This is why I appreciate this board, which is trying to be senstive to what's going on in the markets ... not just the 'outside' quantititive perspective of wealth being trasferred between accounts but personal senstivity and complete observation to how the whole trading 'system' impacts people in the context of the whole of experience.
I'm not sure this resonates or not ... I'd be happy to discuss further.
I thought you were providing the rationale for cutting off my discussion ... I personally think I might be able to shed significant light on these issues so I took it to heart. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Of course, I appreciate that getting deeply into philosophical issues might be beyond the desire of this message board and I respect that ... glad this was clarified. I won't be posting any more and will get my desired discussion fix elswhere where it might be more appropriate and less distractive.
I'm signing off, my friend ... have a great TG!
Malc,
You know I've been writing/researching a book near and dear to my heart (for about 20 years) related to the nature of truth. I have always been curious your feedback, but at the same time understand and appreicate that time in your personal life is limited to get into the depths of academia I'm attempting to navigate.
Am I reading your comment correctly that your feedback is that it is doubtful I could shed any light on the subject?
That's a bit harsh, but as long as it's genuine, I'm willing to swallow or at least consider it ... perhaps I have no clue what I'm talking about and I don't want to live blind to any such fact. That said, it would have been nice to have some constructive feedback and discussion which I'm always seeking.
If you don't have any other feedback or prefer not get into it, that's fine too and I certainly won't pursue any further. Just let me now.
“The truth springs from arguments amongst friends.” David Hume
"As far as light emitting scholars I doubt you will find any here ..."
Ouch!!
"the discussion of truth, which is our goal here."
Double ouch!!
"try to integrate the philosophical principles with how they relate to market practices/theory,"
I certainly don't want to distract from the intended discussion. In my defense, it is a blurry line ... how are philsopohical principles to be applied when the said principals have not been established or agreed? Another difficulty is philsophical principals are very inter-related ... business ethics is related to ethics in general which is related to epistemology which is related to the nature of consciousness which is related to metaphysics ... etc. If the discussion is to be philosophical or cover philsophy, It's going to be a challenge, I think, to establish clear yet non-artificial boundaries.
Of course, I've not thought it through so perhaps there is some good distinction. Regardless, knowing my own personality quirks, it will be difficult for me to restrain myself, especially when I see terms such as Existentialism!! I can't help myself! Thus, I'm probably not going to contribute more to the philosophical side of things here ... absolutely no hard feelings and I can appreciate my interest might not be well-aligned with everyone else.
I'll continue to lurk... thanks again for the efforts.
Hi Koog,
Thanks for the response. I admit right away I'm at a disadvantage as I'm NOT versed in the details of Rand's Objectivism, but I am certainly open to learning more. At first glance, however, it certainly seems to be in opposition to what I stated.
I'm taking this from Wikipedia, so please feel free to clarify in case objectivism is mis-represented here.
"Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness [I agree there is more to reality than conciousness], that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception [I agree or disagree depending on how reality is defined], that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic [I probably disagree unless knowledge here is taken as not being absoluate knowledge of cause and effect], that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest) [I might agree with the disclaimer that happiness includes that which comes from making others happy], that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism [disagree that laissez-faire is always best, but there are specific circumstances], and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally. [I disagree that art's ONLY role is to transform ideas but I'm not sure what type of transformation is intended here]."
And your quote...
"Truth is the recognition of reality [disagree, truth seems to be something more than the mere mental process of recogition ... truth seems to exist independent to what is thought about it] ; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth [I agree or disagree depending on the how reason is characterized ... for instance, when I observe (trying NOT to reason much) that it FEELS cold is this feeling providing any knowledge about my state of consciousness?)].
That is certainly a lot of issues to cover! I'm frankly not sure where to start and if we can reasonably expect to get through the depth of these inter-connected ideas. But, if you have some additional comments or specifics to discuss I'm certainly willing to continue the discussion.
Yes, I couldn't help myself ... happy TG to you too!
Regarding the previous Q financials reported in the SEC filing, what do you think is the most significant lie?
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Please don't disregard my previous post but I have one more thought related to above.
I'm not sure we agree here, but I think Nietzsche confuses knolwedge not being absolute with truth itself not being absolute. (There is also different context that somone with a physical disability might not like dancing, but such difference of opinion is not a philosophical issue.)
(I've not read Nietzsche, but just inferring from the quote.)
Can anyone of us know with certainty what is utlimate truth. I'm talking outside of immediate experience such as truth of metaphysics, utlimate cause and effect underlying reality, and so forth? I would tend to agree with Nietzche that the answer is 'No'.
BUT ... through sharing our experiences we can expand our perspective and thus get CLOSER to knowing truth. If we had the time and openess to really share our perspectives I'd argue that through this process my way will become more like your way and your way will become more like my way.
I might have misunderstood a bit your sentiment ... thanks for the note!
So it seems we agree on the nature of consciousness (let's say for now it is special), the nature of truth (it is linked to the special nature of consciousness), and that however difficult it is to comprehend truth intellectually/analytically, through shared discovery there is common meaning to be found.
Do I have that right? If so, that's quite a bit of common ground!
Since we agree on so much, what next? Do we try to find more deeply where we disagree (which is inevitable) or do we try to investigate more deeply to better develop this common outlook? Or talk about something else?
What I'd like to talk about next, I think, touches on all three!
In my investigation and research, I'm looking very squarely at the academic community and the prominence of physicalism. That spills over tremendously into the rest of society. (There is an amazing book called 'The meeting of East and West' that has some amazing examples how cultures and societies have values linked very closely to the associated philsophical beliefs.)
Despite some of the shared outlook you detailed between attitudes today and Existentialism, I think few would call themselves Existentialists but I bet a ton of these folks would think the nature of reality is merely a bunch of random particles colliding in time and space .... which leaves little room for any deeper meaning!
Also, I believe academia is itself motived/corrupted by financial incentives. It is much more profitable to be considered an authority ... people look to experts for answers not experts as being someone who says 'I don't know'. Physcalism, despite all the deep issues that have been provided over the centuries, provides this foundation of expertise.
When going through the literature, it is amazing the twists and turns I see that are taken to establish physicialism. With some fundamental philsophical knowledge and critical thinking, it surprises me how easy it is to poke holes in arguments that supposedly establish physicalism.
The discussion from here, to question physicalism, goes to both metaphysics and espistemology ... Hume, Kant, Quine, the logical empiricists and from there to more recent discussions into the phisosophy of science (problems of inductive reasoning), the nature of consciousness, and the definition of truth iteself. Anything here you'd like to comment/discuss ... I'm afraid it gets very deep!
Nope ... after this news my swing-trading is on pause ...
If you don't believe a thing Eric says, do you think the SEC filing is inaccurate/fraudulent? ... that seems implied by your statement, but please feel free to clarify.
So you don't believe the SEC submission?
I was not accusing you of saying the company was fraudulent ... I was posing the question ... do you think or even feel the SEC filing was fraudulent or inaccurate?
And if not, does the audit matter in terms of knowing the fundamental value of the company?
If you wish not answer the question, don't worry about it.
JMO.
Hi Malc,
I found the post!
Beyond some basic summaries, my only study in Existentialism was to read Martin Heidegger's 'Being and Time' ... although Heidegger was a great influence, he claimed not follow Existentialism. If I recall, Existentialists see reality as absurd which fits into Heidegger as he, for example, described our existence as 'thrown' ... we do not chose our life but somehow 'land' there. I'd have to review my notes but I don't think Heidegger went as far as the Existentialists to conclude life is therefore essentially meaningless or a farce.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with your post!
Despite what is or is not Existentialism, what you are saying fits quite nicely in my thoughts on truth ... to not care is to basically not seek truth and to see truth as only relative (not universal) is basically an excuse to not seek truth.
I think in accordance with what you are saying, I hold that truth is absolute, or at least that it seems to be so empirically (a subject for deeper debate that I could certainly better defend/elaborate). Knowledge, however, is not absolute. That is the rub ... if knowledge is not absolute it is difficult to establish that truth is absolute or universal.
A hint about why I think truth is absolute is the unique nature of consciousness. My experiences are UNIFIED within the conscious me in a way that has no physical analog. It is the unity of consciousness that allows comparisons to be observed and truth is bred from this mysterious capability. Thus, our fundamental and unique nature as conscious beings is to be 'truth seekers' ... to deny truth is to deny the special nature of one's self.
THE common ground to establish a moral society is to want together to find truth. We need only to care more about truth to care more about others, advance ourselves, and live life more fulfillingly.
Thanks ... guess I'm not the only one scratching his head about ADXS!
I'm taking the contrarian route and am investing in it precisely because it has no love ... we'll if this is wise or stupid ... hopefully no skeletons in the closet!