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.
This guy has an impressive resume...
Nice find! What a loser...
You're right. Too much on one side and the boat tips. Shorts will drive the price up too.
It does stink pretty bad...
I guess I should thank them for trying to save me from my poor investment decision! I did zero research on this before I plowed my money in! LMAO
Best one yet! What a desperate bunch of idiots. This borders on criminal. To think people will short based in this filth and lose money. Shame
I would love to see a PR after the close...
I would imagine it being a long weekend if you were short...
SPIFFY's updated their website…looking better by the day!
Oooops, my bad. Forgot reverse split. You are correct...
Not sure who was saying to buy OVRL when it was under 1….NICE CALL!
Doesn't OVRL know Spiffy is worthless???
LMAO
Important Disclosure: The owners of TheStreetSweeper hold a short position in ANY.V and stand to profit on any future declines in the stock price.
ABSOLUTE JOKE
Love it! "NovaGlass"…wonder how they came up with that? ;)
This is going to get real interesting real soon...
NASDAQ announcement ANY day now...
Did anyone else catch this??? This is where Spiffy's wheelhouse is…mobile. This is Corel alone.
We estimate that around 10% of Corel’s current installed base of 100 MM active users has Corel® Office and Corel® PDF Fusion, which would suggest a potential recurring revenue opportunity of around $300 MM for Sphere. The blue sky scenario would be if Sphere expands its relationship with Corel to extend mobile access for the rest of its software applications which we believe would potentially provide the Company with a $3 B recurring revenue opportunity.
V3 making deals…
Vaals Municipality opted for the @v3systems VDI infrastructure of ICT Client Group.Nice! http://www.client.nl/nieuws/item/230-gemeente-vaals-kiest-voor-vdi-infrastructuur-met-v3-systems.html … pic.twitter.com/tOeAIgWzLc
Embedded image permalink
More exposure
http://briforum.com/Europe/sponsors.html
VMware is around 40 billion, I keep hearing this is more disruptive and tech is better, how does this relate? Aren't they essentially trying to do the same thing?
That would be around 5 billion...nice target!
Sorry, just re-read it. I heard that HTFBS editor said this could quite possibly be the most disruptive tech he's ever seen. Wasn't he one of the first to get in on ISRG? That's a 17 billion dollar company. Isn't this more disruptive to a larger market? Not sure what that means to stock price, guess we will find out.
You really think this could be that big? That's 100x from this level. That's 700 per
This could go a lot higher than that! I just hope they don't get taken out by then...
This morning SPIHF is 1.00 is my schwab account? This needs a NASDAQ listing...
Anybody know why ANY closed at a 52 week high of 4.47 and my TD account shows my SPIHF finished unchanged? Is there still an issue with the OTC? Thanks in advance
One part of the report I didn't like...
"We would not be suprised by a potential bid for Sphere3D even at this stage."
That would be a shame. This can run a long way without.
Van,
I have been doing my DD on the new pick and can't help to think this is one of the best opportunities I have ever seen. I have followed Gilder for years and have done well, QCOM, EZCH and TERN during the tech craze. This new pick has got me more excited than ever. What am I missing? At the present market cap and barring a buy-out this could be 500 times its price or more...again, what am I missing? Am I being delusional?
BTW, best research and writing in all my years of investing, kudos to you and your staff!
I hope that we don't get a buyout anytime soon. This company is a cash cow. I would like to hear from Van how big he thinks it could be without a buyout...
Anyone know or hear anything?
March update. Went with the suit!
Went up on heavy volume, down on light.
When they announce a partner, lic, customer etc. this thing is GONE!
Almost at 500k traded...
I normally try not to get excited about a stock that I own but I'm having a hard time with this one. Everyone talks about 10 baggers, this could be so much more.
The applications for this tech are STAGGERING
Good read...
Climate Change: Lessons From Ronald Reagan
By CASS R. SUNSTEIN
Published: November 10, 2012
THE re-election of President Obama, preceded by the extraordinary damage done by Hurricane Sandy, raises a critical question: In the coming years, might it be possible for the United States to take significant steps to reduce the risks associated with climate change?
Ronald Reagan Library
President Reagan, who favored cost-benefit analysis, in 1984 at his western White House.
A crucial decision during Ronald Reagan’s second term suggests that the answer may well be yes. The Reagan administration was generally skeptical about costly environmental rules, but with respect to protection of the ozone layer, Reagan was an environmentalist hero. Under his leadership, the United States became the prime mover behind the Montreal Protocol, which required the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals.
There is a real irony here. Republicans and conservatives had ridiculed scientists who expressed concern about the destruction of the ozone layer. How did Ronald Reagan, of all people, come to favor aggressive regulatory steps and lead the world toward a strong and historic international agreement?
A large part of the answer lies in a tool disliked by many progressives but embraced by Reagan (and Mr. Obama): cost-benefit analysis. Reagan’s economists found that the costs of phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals were a lot lower than the costs of not doing so — largely measured in terms of avoiding cancers that would otherwise occur. Presented with that analysis, Reagan decided that the issue was pretty clear.
Much the same can be said about climate change. Recent reports suggest that the economic cost of Hurricane Sandy could reach $50 billion and that in the current quarter, the hurricane could remove as much as half a percentage point from the nation’s economic growth. The cost of that single hurricane may well be more than five times greater than that of a usual full year’s worth of the most expensive regulations, which ordinarily cost well under $10 billion annually. True, scientists cannot attribute any particular hurricane to greenhouse gas emissions, but climate change is increasing the risk of costly harm from hurricanes and other natural disasters. Economists of diverse viewpoints concur that if the international community entered into a sensible agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the economic benefits would greatly outweigh the costs.
Skeptics have rightly observed that even aggressive regulatory steps by the United States cannot stop climate change. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for decades, and many nations, especially in the developing world, are contributing growing levels of emissions. For this reason, the unilateral actions of any country will not do what must be done to reduce anticipated warming and the resulting harms. Nonetheless, cost-effective reductions from the United States would help, both in themselves and because they should spur technological changes and regulatory initiatives from other nations.
For the United States, some of the best recent steps serve to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution. A good model is provided by rules from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, widely supported by the automobile industry, which will increase the fuel economy of cars to more than 54 miles per gallon by 2025.
The fuel economy rules will eventually save consumers more than $1.7 trillion, cut United States oil consumption by 12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons — more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010. The monetary benefits of these rules exceed the monetary costs by billions of dollars annually.
In a similar vein, recent rules from the Department of Energy are requiring greater energy efficiency from appliances like refrigerators, washing machines and small motors. For these rules as well, the monetary benefits dwarf the costs, and they include large savings to consumers as well as pollution reductions. There is a lot more to achieve in the area of energy efficiency, especially as technologies advance and continue to transform the once-impossible into the eminently doable.
The electricity sector is responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In this domain, any regulations must be carefully devised, as they were in the case of fuel economy, to ensure that they do not impose unjustified costs, especially in an economically difficult period. But just as in that case, it should be possible to work with affected companies to identify flexible and cost-conscious approaches, producing reductions while minimizing regulatory burdens.
As in the case of the Montreal Protocol, an effective response to climate change requires many nations to act. China is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet, and it must become a leader in international negotiations, not an obstacle. But smart initiatives from the United States may well be an indispensable precondition for international efforts.
For those who seek to reduce the risks associated with climate change, it is ironic but true that the best precedent comes from a conservative icon. The big question now is whether today’s Republicans will follow Reagan’s example.
Agreed.
This one was pretty good.
I can hear the train coming..
California cap and trade: Climate-change bidding begins
State’s initial auction of emission credits is set for Wednesday despite suit.
By PAT BRENNAN / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
California is soon to launch a bold attempt at climate-change reversal: a cap-and-trade program allowing businesses to buy and sell credits for emission of the most notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
The first auction of carbon credits is scheduled for Wednesday – despite a lawsuit filed Tuesday by the California Chamber of Commerce that seeks a court ruling to invalidate such auctions.
Oil refinery in Carson. Refineries are among the greenhouse-gas emitters that will take part in California's cap and trade program.
NICK UT, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The program itself is set to begin Jan. 1.
Some 360 manufacturers, utilities and other businesses are expected to take part, representing nearly 600 facilities across the state.
The cap-and-trade market is part of the state's controversial 2006 climate-change law, AB32, which also includes low-carbon fuel standards and promotion of renewable energy projects.
The goal: reducing California greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Scientists say civilization's emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are the primary cause of a sharp rise in global average temperatures over decades.
"We have a large enough emission of greenhouse gases in California that it certainly would affect United States output," said Dave Clegern, spokesman for the air board. "And we have a large enough market for carbon trading. We believe it's a good foundation to build on."
Each of the businesses participating in the program – refineries, cement makers, large food processors, electricity providers – starts out with 90 percent of its emissions credits, or allowances, provided for free.
But over the years, an overall cap on the total emissions allowed for carbon dioxide ratchets down tighter and tighter.
That's the "cap" part of cap and trade.
As it drops, the cap should drive up the price of emissions credits. Businesses that are comfortably within carbon dioxide limits can sell their credits; those whose emissions exceed allowed amounts can purchase credits.
As the price goes up, businesses are expected to choose to reduce their emissions instead of swapping credits – but with far more flexibility in time and method, and at lower cost, than would be possible using traditional emission-reduction rule making.
The program also is expected to generate revenue, about a billion dollars projected for 2012 to 2013, that would be used for further greenhouse gas reduction.
But the program has been the focus of a highly charged debate, both inside California and across the nation.
Some business groups are opposed to the program, arguing that it will raise costs for businesses and consumers.
"The cap-and-trade program as developed is going to heap billions of dollars on industry and our highest-wage employers, and also force working families to incur quite a bit of cost increases in their consumer products over time," said Gino DiCaro, spokesman for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
On Tuesday, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court, asking that Wednesday's auction be invalidated because, the group says, it is not authorized under AB32.
The Chamber of Commerce does not expect court intervention to stop today's auction, and is not seeking an injunction, said Loren Kaye, president of a commerce and education "think tank" affiliated with the chamber.
"We support the implementation of AB32 goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we think it can be accomplished with a cap-and-trade mechanism," he said. "But we do not support revenue raising."
That element of the program would prove costly, he said, and "will hurt our struggle to maintain jobs."
He said his group hopes the court will soon consider invalidating the auction portion of the cap-and-trade program.
A statement from the Air Resources Board said the auction would go forward, and that the agency is "confident that the cap and trade program will withstand any court challenge."
Supporters contend that predictions of harmful economic effects are overblown.
"There continues to be cost estimates that are just wildly inflated," said Timothy O'Connor, director of the California Climate Initiative for the Environmental Defense Fund. "So it is creating this skepticism about whether this is the right approach for California. These estimates, time and time again, are consistently undercounting benefits and overcounting costs."
Gary Stern, market strategy and resource planning director for Southern California Edison, said the utility company expects to take part in Wednesday's auction.
"We have always felt a market mechanism, like cap and trade, has the potential for being a lower-cost means of achieving the objectives on a national scale," he said. "We've been supportive of the cap-and-trade program generally on a state basis, if it's designed properly. So far, it appears to have."
But he said larger, commercial operations could see an increase in electricity rates because of state restrictions on which customers can receive cost offsets.
Edison believes residential and small-business customers probably will not see rate increases because revenue from sales of emissions credits should balance out the costs of purchasing them – although just how money is returned to customers will be decided by the Public Utilities Commission.
"If we have our way, for residential customers, there will not be rate increases," Stern said.
It's spreading, stay the course...
Iowa scientists: Drought a sign of climate change
By DAVID PITT | Associated Press – Tue, Nov 20, 2012
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — This year's drought is consistent with predictions that global climate change would bring about weather extremes including more frequent droughts, said a report released Monday.
The Iowa Climate Statement updates the 2010 report, reflecting the year's lingering drought and the belief that it signifies what many scientists have predicted — increasing instability in weather patterns will lead to extremes during both wet and dry years.
Iowa has experienced such extremes in recent years; in 2008, flooding caused an estimated $10 billion in damage, making it the worst disaster in the state's history.
More broadly, this year's drought brought about parched croplands, reducing corn yields across the nation's Grain Belt, from South Dakota to Indiana. And last month's Superstorm Sandy — a combination of a hurricane, a wintry storm and a blast of arctic air — devastated parts of the Eastern seaboard and killed more than 100 people.
The report was signed by 138 scientists and researchers from 27 Iowa colleges and universities. They said they wanted to release the updated report now while the drought is still fresh in the public's mind.
"The drought is sort of a teachable moment," said Jerry Schnoor, co-director of the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research at the University of Iowa.
The scientists are careful to avoid saying any single extreme weather incident is directly caused by global warming, saying too many factors are at play when it comes to weather. But, they did say increasingly volatile weather patterns have been predicted by scientists who study global warming.
Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Washington-based conservative think tank Cato Institute, said there's no evidence global warming contributed to this summer's drought. He doesn't deny that global warming is real and that man-made pollutants may contribute to it, but says it has a very small impact overall.
Michaels said the scientists who signed on to the report are "nibbling around the edges" with their recommendations that Americans use more renewable energy sources, such as wind power and ethanol, and build homes to be more efficient. He says any action the United States takes wouldn't be that effective because China and India are emitting increasing amounts of pollutants that contribute to global warming.
The Iowa scientists said they're statement is not one of gloom and doom, but meant to indicate investments can be made now to slow the economic impact of weather extremes and to help communities adapt to the changes.
One scientist who helped draft the report, Dave Courard-Hauri, chairman of environmental science and policy program at Drake University, said continuing to deny the connection between increased storm volatility and a warming climate helps no one.
"We gain nothing if we act as if there's uncertainty where there's not or that there is significant division among scientists regarding the causes of climate change," he said.
It's coming. The tide is turning, climate change will become more relevant again.
Maybe CTEI will have it's day.
Climate Scientists Applaud Dire World Bank Report
By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer | LiveScience.com – Wed, Nov 21, 2012
The 'blue marble' of earth gets …
Climate scientists who have been warning of the dangerous effects of global warming now have the World Bank on their side, after a new report from that organization calling for action to prevent climate catastrophe.
"The World Bank did a great service to society by issuing this report," said Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University and the author of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" (Columbia University Press, 2012).
Climate deniers often claim that solutions to global warming are part of a "global socialist agenda," Mann told LiveScience.
"The fact that the World Bank — an entity committed to free market capitalism — has weighed in on the threat of climate change and the urgency of acting to combat it, puts the nail in the coffin of that claim," he said.
A changing world
The report, issued by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics for the World Bank, urges nations to work to prevent the Earth from warming 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) past preindustrial averages. Already, global mean temperatures are running about 1.3 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) hotter than before the onset of the industrial revolution.
Likewise, carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is high and rising. As of September, the concentration was 391 parts per million, a record high, up from a preindustrial 278. That number is now rising by about 1.8 parts per million each year.
All of these changes are accompanied by ice loss, including accelerating melting in Greenland, according to research published this week. As a result, average sea level has risen between 6 and 8 inches (15 and 20 centimeters) or so on average around the world. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]
Dire warnings
But what the World Bank warns of is an even bleaker future. Even if the world's nations deliver on their promises of emission limits and global warming mitigation, there is a 20 percent chance that the world will hit the 4 degrees C mark by 2100, according to the report. If emissions continue as is, the planet may reach that point by the 2060s.
International negotiators have agreed that warming should be limited to just half that, or 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), in that time. A world that is 2 degrees warmer would have its own consequences, but it is crucial to hold that line, the World Bank report argues. A 4-degree warming would mean a sea-level rise of 1.6 to 3.2 feet (0.5 to 1 meter) on average, with the tropics catching the brunt of the change.
Climate research also suggests tropical storms would strengthen and drought would increase across much of the tropical and subtropical world.
"A world in which warming reaches 4 degrees C above preindustrial levels (hereafter referred to as a 4 degree C world), would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services," the authors wrote in the World Bank report.
Climate scientists agree.
"I am inclined to think that things will break before we get there," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said of a 4-degree-C world. Ecosystems would change so much and agriculture would be so disrupted that the result would likely be "major strife, conflicts and loss of population," Trenberth told LiveScience.
Among the flashpoints, according to the World Bank report, would be sparse water availability, food insecurity and loss of resources such as coral reefs, which are threatened by acidification as more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans. Coral reefs provide not only food to many local economies, but also tourism dollars. Areas becoming unsustainable would likely lead to mass exodus, creating environmental refugees, Mann said. [10 Surprising Results of Global Warming]
Avoiding the 4-degree world
Avoiding the 4-degree-warmer world is a matter of political will, said Mann, who sees signs of optimism, including increased awareness and more calls to transition away from fossil fuels.
"The alternative energies (wind, solar, geothermal, etc) are there," Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience. "We just need to deploy and scale them up by investing immediately in the necessary infrastructure."
Slowing the warming may be as useful as stopping it, Trenberth said.
"It is not just the absolute amount of warming, but also the rate at which
we change things to get there," he said. "Two degrees warming in 50 years is extremely stressful, but 2 degrees warming in 500 years is perhaps manageable through adaptation."
If the world fails to act, the world will become a more disrupted, damaged place, the World Bank concluded — and the poor will suffer most.
"The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur — the heat must be turned down," the authors wrote. "Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen."
I tried too below .20.........nothing