I hate to break this to you, but we did send them Milton Friedman [nybooks.com], and the Chinese are largely taking his advise. We, on the other hand, are not, which is probably the reason China is on the ascendant, and we are in decline.
You know, there really ought to be a prize for getting something perfectly backwards. [You must have meant "advice", I take it, but it's still backwards]
Tell me something; how much of their growth is due to tax cuts? Take a wild guess. I'll assume you aren't going to walk off a cliff and try to maintain that they latched on to his laissez-faire deregulated greedy classes will work it all out theory, are you? Because that's foolishness, if that's your "case." Reagan was Friedman's boy. He had to be, I mean do you think Ronnie did the family bookkeeping? That was Nancy. Reagan was senile, he was what stock brokers refer to as "told and sold." And no, it isn't usually a compliment.
You can stretch your hyper-elastic misread of clearly logged history all the way to Beijing and back, but the fact is laissez-faire approaches and "letting the banks regulate themselves" has the World teetering on the abyss. Totally discredited. That's your boy, Friedman, in a nutshell. He had a lot of good ideas, too. I don't see him as being stupid, at all, but wrong? That's another kettle of fish. I'm sure it looked better on paper than it played out over the last 8 years, what do you think?
Now, explain the Chinese dynamo, versus the volatile and, for the last 8 years, disastrous American economy, in terms that show Friedman impacting Chinese economics, rather than his theoretical support of American policy, and it's destructive impact on our economy over here.
The Americans bitch about China manipulating a bit of currency (really a vastly overblown "excuse" for poor American theory and economic health), and the Chinese intervene bigtime, as in nationalization, and if you're going to sit there and pretend that China is anything except intensely-regulated (The name Keynes ring any bells?), and that we aren't, well, come up with some real citations, or head back to the ivory tower, and don't worry, you guys will no doubt have another chance to ruin the world's economy, in a generation or two. Just have to be patient.
Milton Friedman, for whatever the flaws that were accentuated by an unbalnced (as in "mentally") application of his theory, definitely did not ever say that the biggest banks should devise ways to pacage "risk" in a format that nobody could evaluate with certainty, AND that regulators should overlook the fact that none of the banks had near enough capital to cover the risks in case of some systemic default. He wasn'[t fucking crazy, in other words, or greedy. But Wall Street exists for greed, and the laissez-faire dismantling of oversight, under Clinton, following Reagan, with Bush upping the ante on both of them, was, indeed, crazy, if long term health means anything to a thinking person anymore.
If they ever call in our debts by spending those dollars, we are in big trouble.
You're right, but their world-leading rate of growth for all 30 of the last 30 years wasn't based on bankrupting countries that represented 20% of their exports, then, either, was it? Besides, if they fucked us, like that, they'd also be fucking the Japanese, big time, and then they can kiss 35% of their export market bye-bye.
Ironically, given the brilliance of the Chicago school and all the right-wing wage slaves that vote Republican, economists, almost unanimously, cite China's huge government investments in their own economy as the primo genitur of that entire 30 years of growth. That investment, on average? 40%. And foreign investment? 2.5% at the most. Of course, any "smart" American knows that investing in your own economy is for sissies, because the only problem with our Economy is that the super-rich don't have enough money yet.
Seriously? If we really wanted to destroy them we should have sent them Reagan, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and one or two others. Oh well, better luck next time... oh wait.
I see, I didn't realize we were talking with a mindreader or someone who was otherwise privy to the President's thoughts and motives. Thank you so much for that. Actually, your delusion, cited, fits in pretty well with your stunted, delusional world view as a whole. But I'll tell you what: The fact of "consistency" in your delusions of "insight" and "pronouncements" [Patron Saint my ass] actually makes your getting psychiatric help all the more urgent.
Don't worry, the other patients in the mental ward will probably nominate you for 'god' if you can just keep reciting your pathetic, worn-out revisionist republican talking points over and over. You're my Patron Saint of the Retarded, now. Nice goin', asshole. Oh, and by the way, loser, WE won. So kiss my fucking ass, you poor, shallow, unoriginal toad.
we also put the punctuation within the quotation marks where it belongs
Anyone who has ever worked, as a real professional, in layout, be it books, novels, newspapers, etc, would beg to differ. The British had that right. Most of the layout people I know, in the US, tell me they hold their noses whilst doing it "properly," at the expense of their "better" (graphical) judgment.
the only thing that matters to me... will it erase my mortgage?
While I agree that is funny, at the same time, there are precedents for these losses of data to bounce back beneficially.
Although my memory of the details is spotty, there was a bombing (Weather Underground, perhaps?) of a computer center in California (possibly Sacramento, due to the presence of DMV data) that had data destroyed, and part of that data turned out to be records of about one half of the outstanding parking tickets in the City and County of San Francisco. So, Mayor Alioto(?) of San Francisco decided that fair was fair, and they tossed out the remaining records of the outstanding tickets. I "gained" about $1500 thanks to that. Parking in SF was notoriously rough, assuming one didn't have an hour or two to roam around looking for a "legal" spot.
too much power for any single human being to weild...
and
he's only a small cog
That would be "wield", I believe. And secondly, which is it Mr Wizard... a "cog' in a larger power structure, or a vessel of some gargantuan "power" as you put it?
I love it when you guys that think you're a factor, or two, smarter than you really are decide to toss up conflicting generalities and un-documented over-simplifications of people and events that you clearly have no grasp of, whatsoever. Thanks for your, uh... , "contribution" to the bullshit factor.
Our Savior, the Almighty, the All Powerful, the One, Barry.
Did you by any chance notice Obama's consistent use of the word "we' in those statements? Didn't think so.
The Republicans destroyed so much of our country, it's certainly understandable that they might feel a "savior" is necessary, at this point. Although a remedial reading instructor might be more helpful, in your case.
Mr. Obama has been quite clear that change requuires participation on the local level. You know, like "interactive" as opposed to sitting on your ass and letting others dictate and/or do everything for you?
Never underestimate the ability of a government to make you think that it is involved in supah-top-secret-important-shit that, for you're own good, you're not allowed to know about.
Having worked on some projects related to electronic warfare, hardware and software, (on-the-fly, onboard assessment and auxiliary targeting computers, STOL craft with nothing but pressurized gas dispersal tanks as a "payload", etc.) and also having once been a "fan" of the idea that a "bluff" has to be more cost effective, people who share your "impressions" have no idea what's actually out there, what the "good guys" are actually capable of, or what they are talking about, I'm just saying.
That being said, I think the fellow in the UK could honestly benefit from a letter-writing campaign, on both sides of the pond, asking for some humane mercy here. Also, the military is not the "government", at least not here, not yet, so people "thinking about the govenment" in terms of "top secret spooky stuff" are looking in the wrong direction, totally. Try Northrup, Lockheed-Marietta, Boeing and loads of little outfits that only build anti-personnel shit as a sideline. It's a business, like any other, and it gets nasty out there; the kind of things that you don't want to know about (and neither did I).
If the guy in the UK had actually hurt somebody, in terms of the system he was in, he might have been offered a job, rather than punishment. I find that a trifle ironic. I also agree that your choice of #1 is the most likely explanation, with a long-shot idea that maybe, further inside he accidentally stumbled on a legitimate "bug" that led where it wasn't supposed to go. In which case the creator/programmers of the "honeypot" are probably in another field of work, or maybe just in a field, someplace.
Alas, Canada isn't where all the illegal calls and emails originate
Where have you been? I won't argue about the email bit, and I realize it's nothing to be proud of, but Canada has the best, as well as the most successful/notorious fraudulent telemarketers on Earth.
Check news articles from end of the 1990s and a year or two after. Montréal has an international reputation for having the highest grossing ongoing, organized criminal telemarketers in the Entire World (Vancouver is doing okay along those lines, also).
Interpol, in Europe and the FBI, down here in the US, had to go up there and basically "shame" the RCMP into raiding and taking down the top of that food chain. Two chains, really, one, a non-denominational consortium of Irish, Jewish, Greek and Cosa Nostra guys, and the other being the financial "fund raising" arm of the Hell's Angels, headed by Denis Morin.
The "Phonebusters", up at Thunder Bay, were outgunned and subverted once cases hit the Court system. There were rumors, underground, that the first really huge case to hit the system in Ontario (which involved two Montréalers, one of whom was Les Pinsky) was a slam dunk, requiring a $250,000 payoff to someone in the Ministry of the Attorney General to get away scot free. The Ontario Provincial judge in the case was furious at having to throw out a case against a guy who had made $12 million in the previous year ("officially", the actual figure was way up there), because of "screw-ups" by Crown lawyers.
Meanwhile, in Montréal, the RCMP had one of their people visiting owners and part-owners of a dozen seemingly separate businesses, telling them what amounts of individual Bank Drafts, etc, were going to be "flagged" in the system, which,mail drops had been added to surveillance, etc. "Guidance" in other words.
The biggest gang didn't go down until a lady in Ontario, who was addicted to sending cash to telephone fraudsters, and was embezzling huge cash from a firm she worked at, killed herself, and the FBI just blew a gasket. And Denis Morin, who was under observation for years, by Canadian legal people, wasn't busted until he was walking into Disney World, in Orlando, by FBI agents (with OPP and RCMP guys tagging along for the photo op.
Les Pinsky, one of the old-school telemarketing guys in Montréal, died recently, before his recent case could get to Court (natural causes). If you visit the Portage, a drug and alcohol treatment facility on St antoine Street in Montréal, chances are that Les' picture is still up on the wall of grads. Even some of his closest friends knew that what he was doing was not just illegal, but all the way wrong, yet still loved him, in some cases, for the beneficial work and volunteering he had done. But the notion that man can sin with one hand and do good works with the other, and that these things "balance out" somehow, morally, are delusional. Isaiah, in the Old Testament, was very persuasive about what those who thought that they could, God-like, make these assessments and draw conclusions about their "faith saving them in the end" were in store for.
A lot of folks will be glad Les is dead. That's easy to understand. People who knew him, who knew something about him besides "his job" can only wonder how things might have gone if he had used his skills and abilities for something that was "good." But he didn't, or, rather, he did, but those numerous acts were simply outweighed by his "real" work. A lot of people got hurt, and even his close friends know that that is totally unacceptable.
Don't think for a moment that Canada isn't more than adequately "represented" as far as fraud goes. There's a reason, or two, why the gargantuan heroin importing "company" that was known as "The French Connection" had Montréal and little ports up and down the Canadian east coast as its last stop on the way to New York, Chicago and Detroit. And it wasn't smoked meat sandwiches and Molsons.
These people are fraud artists. What on earth makes you think that they are "most businesses"?!?!?!
I agree with your point-of-view, in the sense that fraud artists aren't dealing in the actual goods and services that "legitimate" businesses deal in.
However, that's as far as the differences go. The psychology of sales is identical, fraudulent or not. But the poster you replied to is also 100% wrong in asuming that "repeat clients" aren't a concern of fraudulent firms. They are. As a matter of fact, "invoices" from previous scammed victims, is worth its weight in platinum.
On Wall Street every prospectus states thet "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." (And a lot of investors in shaky deals just go right past that clause with an attitude very similar to "Well, they have to put that in there, by law.") In the world of telemarketing fraud, the "past performance" of the mooch, is almost certainly a guarantee of any one, or more, of a long list of pre-existing pathologies that come into play on the buyer's end. (If none existed, no sale would take place, as a rule, with more or less statistically insignificant exceptions, of course)
Anyone who thinks that so-called legitimate businesses are immune to taking advantage of the same character defects, that are predominant in the general population, is in for a surprise.
Fraud is harmful and cynically sociopathic. I want to be clear on my stance. The fact that it may, indeed, "take two to tango" is absolutely not an exculpatory factor, except in the fragmented minds of the most self-serving (and pathological) types out there. But it does take two, and the fact that humans are, by default, creatures who rely on an instinctive predilection toward habituation, makes "repeat business" a serious factor in business and marketing... again, fraudulently-based or not.
When I sold encyclopedias, door-to-door, about forty years ago, I took a couple guys out with me as training one afternoon to show them that going "by the book" wasn't the only way to do things. For example, guys with a lousy pitch will just keep knocking on more doors, relentlessly, until they get in (the same thing happens in bars). That's the equivalent of SPAM.
I didn't go for that, so, besides looking for visual clues such as tricycles or kids things in the yard, orange curtains in the kitchen window (don't ask), I had other bits of evidence that made a place worth knocking on.
My favorite item was a little plaque that said something very similar to:
No Peddlars, Solicitors or Agents
So there we were, faced with that old favorite sign, and the kid asked me, "If they don't like salepeople, why are you knocking on the door?"
And I said, "You know why people really put these things up?"
"Well sure, they don't like salesmen."
"That's what they want you to think, but the "real" reason is: If the doorbell rings and it's a salesman, they're afraid they're going to buy something... again."
To be sure, there were other forces motivating the people; being entertained, for one, as silly as it might seem. But the first time I saw this thing about the creation of a no-call list it was obvious that this would be the best place to start, in terms of more profits per phone number called. Guaranteed, zero doubt about it.
For one thing, consider this: Assume that everyone out there is, collectively, more average than the readership here. If an otherwise decent-sounding caller has just called you, and even volunteers that he knows you are on a no-call list, before he goes into whatever the "pitch" is, most people will have already assumed that if the guy called, despite the "Law", then "there must be something to it."
The no-call list as source, is the opposite of the strength-in-numbers, law-of-averages (spam-like) approach of the amateurs. It is, literally, money in the bank, for the people who "believe in their own pitch" and abilities.
This is the easiest way to prevent any app/process from piggy-backing onto a legit process that has queried the system as to whether we have an Internet connection:
open the sudoers file, located here:/etc/sudoers
add the following:
Defaults:ALL timestamp_timeout=0
Save. Done.
OS X comes with a default 5 minute "window" on the use of an admin to get privilage escalation. When that window is shrunk to zero, that means that the escalation is disabled instantly. All processes are serial, so two processes cannot occur at the same moment in time. Period.
Running as a non-admin user is okay, but the timestamp is what really has to go.
I ran a small network for homeless Vets at a VA Community Center, back in Syracuse. It was a drop-in place with psych people and all sorts of resources for mostly Vietnam-era vets. First Gulf War guys were beginning to show up, also. The Network was no problem. The rewarding part of it was helping the guys sort things out and giving them search ideas, etc. It was an eye-opener, no question about that.
Why don't you stop confusing the lowest common denominator with the greatest common multiple?
Guess what, AC? Straight A's in math, and yeah, all the way up, Bitch. Kiss my ass cowboy. Oh and shove your acronym dictionary up your ass, too, sideways. You know, to get the maximum benefit.
Perhaps it should be you who learns something about the English tongue.
What is this? The Dawn of the Dullards?
Listen and listen good you atrociously dull limey cunt. Here's another definition of monetize. Instead of reading, your life is wrapped up in video games and Nintendo bullshit, right? Do they have basements over there, yet? Last time I was there you had be downtown to find a doorway over 4 feet tall. So while you were in the root cellar, or whatever, playing your Nintendo games and shit, guess what Nintendo was monetizing? Your useless, pointlees and pathetic fat fuck lifestyle. Bite that, Bitches
How about avoiding all nonsense words, and not only "monetize"?
Nonsense? Oh, I get it. People should just dumb down, everywhere, like a new lowest common denominator applied to learning or reading? I have a constructive idea: Why don't you buy a fucking dictionary, and read it, rather than brag about your ignorance in public?
Please learn to actually read comments you're replying to before flaming them.
I appreciate your comment(s) and consider your point(s) taken, by me. I was in a very grumpy, nauseous state, and even I knew I was giving the post that I responded to, meaning that wasn't even there. And I hit submit anyway, which is dumb, and what can I say, except that I'll make an effort to be constructive, and respectful going forward.
I get a lot out of this site, specifically because I *normally* do read well. You'd never it from my post up there. I don't enjoy being wrong, but, truth is, I'd rather have it pointed out than "tolerated" or encouraged. I apologize to the OP, and anyone else who was annoyed.
About marketing: it is a fixed cost which will be the same no matter how the song is distributed, so I don't see how it factors in.
Dude, first I want to say thank you for providing such a huge laugh. It's hard to know where to begin, it's like pick an angle. any angle. I assume you know nothing about business, and the same, or less, about money. (Think of it as "allowance.")
So, we'll start with the easy ones:
Let's run with your "take" on things. The fixed cost idea. I see. so, if I want to take out ads for a new artist, I'd be silly to advertise on re-runs of "Bonanza", because I could put the ads on prime time HBO for the same cost, huh? By the way, if you're working at HBO in sales, please contact me. I don't have a product, but I'll think of something.
I'll just let my marketing guys come up with something cheap, that they are certain will sell, because of quality and the dead certain knowledge of what a lot of kids are going to want to buy 5 months from now. Oops, there's that the old fucker "Marketing" again. What are we gonna do, dude?
Oh wait, that's right, you said it is a constant, and therefore, not a factor. I'll let you in on a little secret, my coffee came right out my nose when I got to that part of your "thesis." Let's look at life in a new way, courtesy of your Constant Expense Equals No Net Impact Theory.
So, if we buy an SUV, for instance, and put 40 gallons of premium gas a week into it, at the end of the year the total cost of ownership is... the cost of the vehicle purchase (amortized) minus nothing? I like it, I like it a lot. Food is sort of a constant, too, isn't it? Sure, so where do I get my rebate of wages for everything I ate last year? Because, forgive my stupidity, but it looks like it made a nasty hit on my bottom line, as far as retained income is concerned. If the guys at the grocery see the brilliance of your theory, a rebate should be obvious.
I realize that nobody (I hope) is stupid enough to suggest the ideas that made that coffee come flying out of my nose. It only "looked" stupid. But, seriously, business is not exactly a case of an entity existing in a world of ubiquitous "Constants." (Little hint: It's closer to the opposite of that)
In other words, let's pretend that that small part of marketing, that you think IS marketing (advertising, in other words) is a Constant. It's not, but hey, you know, we're pretending, in an effort to try to understand, ok? Are sales a Constant? Is the price of transportation? How about the ratio of products that are hits as opposed to misses? Let's assume that anyone working for you will be getting the same pay in 35 years as they did when they signed on. That would be a constant. Of course constantly spending money on HR to replace your perpetually dissatisfied workforce might be another Constant, too, wouldn't it?
All those things, and a whole lot more, come from the bottom line. There are probably 50,000 guys at any given time, who have bleeding ulcers because their job is to estimate, in advance, and within a "tolerance" as far as "accuracy," all the non-Constants involved in their companies cost of doing business. I suppose it goes without saying that this doesn't sound like your best choice of career path.
If you're sell a million dollars of $12 CDs vs. the same amount of $1 downloads, how could you possibly make more profit on the CDs?
That is correct, they couldn't possibly make as much off the physical CDs. I hate being boring "on purpose" but, manufacturing cost, shipment, advertising, returns policies, middleman (jobber) profit margins and last retail outlet margins cut into the list price something fierce.
Sure they have some economies of scale, but not even remotely enough to negate the cost of incidentals.
One thing though, about CDs, is that they are a lot easier for Artist management to enumerate, for purposes of figuring the artist share. And that "share" is usually subtracted from advances, given at the time of signing "For hire" contracts, and is the artist's only non-touring, non-merchandising income.
Contracts almost always have a per unit rate (minus a percentage for breakage/returns) that is considered the artist share. There are exceptions, of course, and some artists have the wherewithal to initiate touring and merchandising business models that allow them to recoup a lot of the actual cash that was sacrificed when they signed away their publishing rights. But that is rare when we look at the industry and its "workers" as a whole.
Things are stacked against the workers, in many of the same ways that are common all across the board in our work for hire system. But the cool thing is that, although the labels can make more money with less accountability, by using all-digital means of production, that same tech is available to musicians, and, if utilized, will put growing numbers of them in control of the "means of production."
If that scenario were to gain the force of momentum and become the rule, rather than the "exception," we'd have a small revolution on our hands, at least in terms of workers' rights and fairness in that industry.
It would be a rather classic case of a monopoly based on shared objectives, rather than negotiation or collective agreements, etc., with the "workers" on the dealing, rather than the receiving, end of the game.
A sincere thank you for taking the time to write all of that, solely for my benefit. I really do appreciate it.
First, you are sincerely welcome. And secondly, your message points up a valid point that I also recommend to people and that is: Invest in what you understand. What one "knows" in other words. Everyone who works has some instinct about what they encounter as to what works and what doesn't. A really "plain" example might be an auto worker who puts part of his 401k in a specific parts supplier, etc.
When China was really heating up, and guys were buying into shoe factories in the middle of nowhere, that employed almost zero accountability, I looked for American and European companies that were "participating" in the expansion in China, as far as building things and infrastructure-related moves. We did pretty well that way, and when guys I knew were moaning about this or that "unknown" entity being taken over by the People's Army, or having more holes in their finances than yen, I always felt, "Well, what did you expect?"
Go with what you know. That should be rule #1, and thanks for reminding me of that.
People who sell stocks and bonds on the retail level are notorious for pulling out the charts and throwing together what sounds, even to someone who understands the hackneyed terminology, like "gobbledy-gook." And, in that situation, the worst thing we can do (I've done it myself) is to "go along" with the "story" that doesn't actually make clear sense to us. Many of us have an inclination to say we understand something when it's still "fuzzy." But doing so when we're being "pitched" by a salesman is the worst possible time for this. (And again, this has happened to me, and I was straight A's in math, all the way up, somewhat well-read and "traveled", so I wasn't a complete idiot, but... I felt like one later, believe me).
I think it was Peter Lynch who first brought that idea to my attention; the notion of "go with what you know" and "get out there and kick the tires." Even if someone read the 3M piece, and was impressed with "the story" I always suggest that individuals contact the person at a company whose function is "Investor Relations." Those people are generally pretty conservative, and they avoid "hard sell" tactics, as a rule.
Also, you mentioned larger "Index Funds" and I'm definitely a proponent of them. They are not so much a "get rich quick" scheme, but they do conform to strategies related to "slow and steady wins the race." There are total market funds out there, as well as the usual S&P 500 and S&P 100 funds. But there are also large funds that "mirror" the Russell 2000 (that include smaller exchange-listed firms) and "sector" funds. So, while the bulk of an index-based account might lean heavily towards broader market measures, the presence of a sector or "small-cap" fund can often provide a serious run-up in paper values when a Market turns upward.
And of course, Index Options are a smart move when one is holding primarily index funds, because they can act as "insurance" to maintain 'real' value when paper losses occur, and are also so leveraged that a total loss on an index option, when the underlying Index is held, is always accompanied by a larger move upward in terms of the underlying Index, itself. They can act as insurance, to keep one's net worth steady in turbulent times (for the Market, as a whole).
couldn't she have just taken the doctor's advice and just pay more attention to her diet?
Of course, but that would have taken brains and some effort, which she and her boyfriend, by the sound of it, were lacking. If she wants her risk factor for several cancers (besides the obvious colon and gastrointestinal types) including breast and uterine to rise by a factor of 4-5, Burger King can have her.
As a cancer survivor who was told I had 3-5 years to live 6 years ago (and am doing fine) - you never know.
I want to say, "Congratulations" and believe me, I mean it.
15 years ago, after 6 weeks in ICU and a couple more months upstairs, I was told I would either lose my right leg, never walk unassisted if I saved it, and had 0 chance of ever regaining any kidney function whatsoever.
Upon release I walked out of the hospital, with kidneys that were at 100% healthy function, and a year later a complete physical said that all of my internal organs were in the condition of a very healthy man, 15 years my junior.
A positive attitude isn't just a "good idea" it is crucial. In 5 weeks my chemo comes to and end (necessitated as a result of blood transfusions in the same Hospital where I was supposedly losing my leg and had forever-dead kidneys). A 48 week treatment. The actual virus that necessitated it? Undetectable using state-of-the-art blood assay tests, since week #4.
I did not "beat" any of this, unassisted. That's a fact. After 8 weeks inside, and having shrinks try to convince me to "accept" the inevitability of every other day dialysis, I got a phone call from a dear friend in Ontario. He told me: "Your kidneys are going to be fine, and you aren't losing your leg, you'll walk out of there, soon." When I heard that, I cried, which was odd, because I was being fed intravenously and lacked even enough moisture to lubricate my eyeballs. Upon hanging up I had an urge to urinate, and did, a tablespoon or two, for the first time in 8 weeks and 3 days.
The doctors were too lame to tell me it was a miracle, or to admit they were dead wrong, in person. I didn't really care about that, anyway. I advise people, if you have a friend or person in a hospital, get in touch with your feelings, and make a call. Because you never know what's possible, and the doctors, because they think "they know" have even less of an idea.
The after hours drop is said to be directly attributed to Jobs health
Let me point something out. How the market opens tomorrow is based far more on overnight S&P 500 futures activity in Asia (while we're sleeping, or up all night coding, in the US). And "after hours" trading is almost always revolving around lower volume, in other words "thin" trading, so the result is much larger volatility in the bid/ask spread and the pricing. If Wall Street opens with a hefty order imbalance for Apple (more 'sell' offers than 'buy' bids) that might be a bit spooky. But "after hours"? These aren't the players, at all.
Anybody tempted to make market offers to sell Apple, based on 'after hours' activity, needs to get a grip.
I could spend time researching and trying to figure out what would be a good stock to complement AAPL
try: Food (Even in a severe depression we still have to eat)
the only company I can really say for certain that I have a sincere belief in the future of is AAPL.
The first thing I feel compelled to say about that is: I hope no "innocent" bystanders, like "kids" for example, are intended beneficiaries of your investment outcome.
I would say there's a 50-50 chance that Apple's business model will either change, against the corporate will AND fundamentally, or it, and the company won't even exist in 20 years time.
if you're concerned with longevity and business models, Consider:
IBM
Founded in 1888, 90 years before Apple (they know a few things about weathering market disruptions)
3M
107 years old in 2009.
One of the most innovative companies, from anywhere, ever. Everyone knows the "15% Rule" where scientists at 3M are allowed to spend 15% of their time on any project they wish. Forget Google for a moment. 3M formulated that 'rule' as the Depression was really ripping this country to shreds, in 1931-32.
They set up an internal venture capital fund (the Genesis Grants) that financed scientist/inventor ideas that had been turned down by management already. (Think about that for a moment).
Long ago they required that each division of the company HAD TO derive 25% of its net income from products it had invented within the last 5 years. In '93 (when they were actually "in trouble" with valuations and the Market) that was changed to 30%. (For want of a more polite term, that took some major league balls, right there)
They got diverted from these principles in the 90s, but brought in an outsider (from GE, itself no slouch when it comes to staying power, and 3M "innovated" again, in that this was the first outsider to take the helm in 3M's history) and returned to those early "rules" and spends 7% of total sales, annually on R&D.
I call that Institutionalized Innovation. Management and Economics people call it a textbook example of a Winner.
There are many others. Do not get lulled into laissez-faire attitudes toward investment. You have to diversify outside of 'sexy' industry groups. When everyone heads for the exits the fundamentally sound companies get hammered, right along with the 'pretenders' and it is sad, brutal and devastating for a lot of people when that happens.
If I sound harsh, I'm sorry, but life and some of its lessons are far harsher than anything I could come up with. And no matter who you are, I don't like seeing people get hurt. I watched some very intelligent people as their retirement nest eggs got decimated, several times. It is not something I would wish on anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, there really ought to be a prize for getting something perfectly backwards. [You must have meant "advice", I take it, but it's still backwards]
Tell me something; how much of their growth is due to tax cuts? Take a wild guess. I'll assume you aren't going to walk off a cliff and try to maintain that they latched on to his laissez-faire deregulated greedy classes will work it all out theory, are you? Because that's foolishness, if that's your "case." Reagan was Friedman's boy. He had to be, I mean do you think Ronnie did the family bookkeeping? That was Nancy. Reagan was senile, he was what stock brokers refer to as "told and sold." And no, it isn't usually a compliment.
You can stretch your hyper-elastic misread of clearly logged history all the way to Beijing and back, but the fact is laissez-faire approaches and "letting the banks regulate themselves" has the World teetering on the abyss. Totally discredited. That's your boy, Friedman, in a nutshell. He had a lot of good ideas, too. I don't see him as being stupid, at all, but wrong? That's another kettle of fish. I'm sure it looked better on paper than it played out over the last 8 years, what do you think?
Now, explain the Chinese dynamo, versus the volatile and, for the last 8 years, disastrous American economy, in terms that show Friedman impacting Chinese economics, rather than his theoretical support of American policy, and it's destructive impact on our economy over here.
The Americans bitch about China manipulating a bit of currency (really a vastly overblown "excuse" for poor American theory and economic health), and the Chinese intervene bigtime, as in nationalization, and if you're going to sit there and pretend that China is anything except intensely-regulated (The name Keynes ring any bells?), and that we aren't, well, come up with some real citations, or head back to the ivory tower, and don't worry, you guys will no doubt have another chance to ruin the world's economy, in a generation or two. Just have to be patient.
Milton Friedman, for whatever the flaws that were accentuated by an unbalnced (as in "mentally") application of his theory, definitely did not ever say that the biggest banks should devise ways to pacage "risk" in a format that nobody could evaluate with certainty, AND that regulators should overlook the fact that none of the banks had near enough capital to cover the risks in case of some systemic default. He wasn'[t fucking crazy, in other words, or greedy. But Wall Street exists for greed, and the laissez-faire dismantling of oversight, under Clinton, following Reagan, with Bush upping the ante on both of them, was, indeed, crazy, if long term health means anything to a thinking person anymore.
You're right, but their world-leading rate of growth for all 30 of the last 30 years wasn't based on bankrupting countries that represented 20% of their exports, then, either, was it? Besides, if they fucked us, like that, they'd also be fucking the Japanese, big time, and then they can kiss 35% of their export market bye-bye.
Ironically, given the brilliance of the Chicago school and all the right-wing wage slaves that vote Republican, economists, almost unanimously, cite China's huge government investments in their own economy as the primo genitur of that entire 30 years of growth. That investment, on average? 40%. And foreign investment? 2.5% at the most. Of course, any "smart" American knows that investing in your own economy is for sissies, because the only problem with our Economy is that the super-rich don't have enough money yet.
Seriously? If we really wanted to destroy them we should have sent them Reagan, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and one or two others. Oh well, better luck next time ... oh wait.
I see, I didn't realize we were talking with a mindreader or someone who was otherwise privy to the President's thoughts and motives. Thank you so much for that. Actually, your delusion, cited, fits in pretty well with your stunted, delusional world view as a whole. But I'll tell you what: The fact of "consistency" in your delusions of "insight" and "pronouncements" [Patron Saint my ass] actually makes your getting psychiatric help all the more urgent.
Don't worry, the other patients in the mental ward will probably nominate you for 'god' if you can just keep reciting your pathetic, worn-out revisionist republican talking points over and over. You're my Patron Saint of the Retarded, now. Nice goin', asshole. Oh, and by the way, loser, WE won. So kiss my fucking ass, you poor, shallow, unoriginal toad.
Anyone who has ever worked, as a real professional, in layout, be it books, novels, newspapers, etc, would beg to differ. The British had that right. Most of the layout people I know, in the US, tell me they hold their noses whilst doing it "properly," at the expense of their "better" (graphical) judgment.
While I agree that is funny, at the same time, there are precedents for these losses of data to bounce back beneficially.
Although my memory of the details is spotty, there was a bombing (Weather Underground, perhaps?) of a computer center in California (possibly Sacramento, due to the presence of DMV data) that had data destroyed, and part of that data turned out to be records of about one half of the outstanding parking tickets in the City and County of San Francisco. So, Mayor Alioto(?) of San Francisco decided that fair was fair, and they tossed out the remaining records of the outstanding tickets. I "gained" about $1500 thanks to that. Parking in SF was notoriously rough, assuming one didn't have an hour or two to roam around looking for a "legal" spot.
and
That would be "wield", I believe. And secondly, which is it Mr Wizard... a "cog' in a larger power structure, or a vessel of some gargantuan "power" as you put it?
I love it when you guys that think you're a factor, or two, smarter than you really are decide to toss up conflicting generalities and un-documented over-simplifications of people and events that you clearly have no grasp of, whatsoever. Thanks for your, uh ... , "contribution" to the bullshit factor.
Did you by any chance notice Obama's consistent use of the word "we' in those statements? Didn't think so.
The Republicans destroyed so much of our country, it's certainly understandable that they might feel a "savior" is necessary, at this point. Although a remedial reading instructor might be more helpful, in your case.
Mr. Obama has been quite clear that change requuires participation on the local level. You know, like "interactive" as opposed to sitting on your ass and letting others dictate and/or do everything for you?
Having worked on some projects related to electronic warfare, hardware and software, (on-the-fly, onboard assessment and auxiliary targeting computers, STOL craft with nothing but pressurized gas dispersal tanks as a "payload", etc.) and also having once been a "fan" of the idea that a "bluff" has to be more cost effective, people who share your "impressions" have no idea what's actually out there, what the "good guys" are actually capable of, or what they are talking about, I'm just saying.
That being said, I think the fellow in the UK could honestly benefit from a letter-writing campaign, on both sides of the pond, asking for some humane mercy here. Also, the military is not the "government", at least not here, not yet, so people "thinking about the govenment" in terms of "top secret spooky stuff" are looking in the wrong direction, totally. Try Northrup, Lockheed-Marietta, Boeing and loads of little outfits that only build anti-personnel shit as a sideline. It's a business, like any other, and it gets nasty out there; the kind of things that you don't want to know about (and neither did I).
If the guy in the UK had actually hurt somebody, in terms of the system he was in, he might have been offered a job, rather than punishment. I find that a trifle ironic. I also agree that your choice of #1 is the most likely explanation, with a long-shot idea that maybe, further inside he accidentally stumbled on a legitimate "bug" that led where it wasn't supposed to go. In which case the creator/programmers of the "honeypot" are probably in another field of work, or maybe just in a field, someplace.
Or this in CSS:
selector.class or ID {text-decoration: blink;}
and call a script on the ie-only css for out-of-it browsers. It'll be nice, someday, to be able to jettison the bulky js and just use the css.
Where have you been? I won't argue about the email bit, and I realize it's nothing to be proud of, but Canada has the best, as well as the most successful/notorious fraudulent telemarketers on Earth.
Check news articles from end of the 1990s and a year or two after. Montréal has an international reputation for having the highest grossing ongoing, organized criminal telemarketers in the Entire World (Vancouver is doing okay along those lines, also).
Interpol, in Europe and the FBI, down here in the US, had to go up there and basically "shame" the RCMP into raiding and taking down the top of that food chain. Two chains, really, one, a non-denominational consortium of Irish, Jewish, Greek and Cosa Nostra guys, and the other being the financial "fund raising" arm of the Hell's Angels, headed by Denis Morin.
The "Phonebusters", up at Thunder Bay, were outgunned and subverted once cases hit the Court system. There were rumors, underground, that the first really huge case to hit the system in Ontario (which involved two Montréalers, one of whom was Les Pinsky) was a slam dunk, requiring a $250,000 payoff to someone in the Ministry of the Attorney General to get away scot free. The Ontario Provincial judge in the case was furious at having to throw out a case against a guy who had made $12 million in the previous year ("officially", the actual figure was way up there), because of "screw-ups" by Crown lawyers.
Meanwhile, in Montréal, the RCMP had one of their people visiting owners and part-owners of a dozen seemingly separate businesses, telling them what amounts of individual Bank Drafts, etc, were going to be "flagged" in the system, which ,mail drops had been added to surveillance, etc. "Guidance" in other words.
The biggest gang didn't go down until a lady in Ontario, who was addicted to sending cash to telephone fraudsters, and was embezzling huge cash from a firm she worked at, killed herself, and the FBI just blew a gasket. And Denis Morin, who was under observation for years, by Canadian legal people, wasn't busted until he was walking into Disney World, in Orlando, by FBI agents (with OPP and RCMP guys tagging along for the photo op.
Les Pinsky, one of the old-school telemarketing guys in Montréal, died recently, before his recent case could get to Court (natural causes). If you visit the Portage, a drug and alcohol treatment facility on St antoine Street in Montréal, chances are that Les' picture is still up on the wall of grads. Even some of his closest friends knew that what he was doing was not just illegal, but all the way wrong, yet still loved him, in some cases, for the beneficial work and volunteering he had done. But the notion that man can sin with one hand and do good works with the other, and that these things "balance out" somehow, morally, are delusional. Isaiah, in the Old Testament, was very persuasive about what those who thought that they could, God-like, make these assessments and draw conclusions about their "faith saving them in the end" were in store for.
A lot of folks will be glad Les is dead. That's easy to understand. People who knew him, who knew something about him besides "his job" can only wonder how things might have gone if he had used his skills and abilities for something that was "good." But he didn't, or, rather, he did, but those numerous acts were simply outweighed by his "real" work. A lot of people got hurt, and even his close friends know that that is totally unacceptable.
Don't think for a moment that Canada isn't more than adequately "represented" as far as fraud goes. There's a reason, or two, why the gargantuan heroin importing "company" that was known as "The French Connection" had Montréal and little ports up and down the Canadian east coast as its last stop on the way to New York, Chicago and Detroit. And it wasn't smoked meat sandwiches and Molsons.
I agree with your point-of-view, in the sense that fraud artists aren't dealing in the actual goods and services that "legitimate" businesses deal in.
However, that's as far as the differences go. The psychology of sales is identical, fraudulent or not. But the poster you replied to is also 100% wrong in asuming that "repeat clients" aren't a concern of fraudulent firms. They are. As a matter of fact, "invoices" from previous scammed victims, is worth its weight in platinum.
On Wall Street every prospectus states thet "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." (And a lot of investors in shaky deals just go right past that clause with an attitude very similar to "Well, they have to put that in there, by law.") In the world of telemarketing fraud, the "past performance" of the mooch, is almost certainly a guarantee of any one, or more, of a long list of pre-existing pathologies that come into play on the buyer's end. (If none existed, no sale would take place, as a rule, with more or less statistically insignificant exceptions, of course)
Anyone who thinks that so-called legitimate businesses are immune to taking advantage of the same character defects, that are predominant in the general population, is in for a surprise.
Fraud is harmful and cynically sociopathic. I want to be clear on my stance. The fact that it may, indeed, "take two to tango" is absolutely not an exculpatory factor, except in the fragmented minds of the most self-serving (and pathological) types out there. But it does take two, and the fact that humans are, by default, creatures who rely on an instinctive predilection toward habituation, makes "repeat business" a serious factor in business and marketing ... again, fraudulently-based or not.
Plenty, and I'll tell you why.
When I sold encyclopedias, door-to-door, about forty years ago, I took a couple guys out with me as training one afternoon to show them that going "by the book" wasn't the only way to do things. For example, guys with a lousy pitch will just keep knocking on more doors, relentlessly, until they get in (the same thing happens in bars). That's the equivalent of SPAM.
I didn't go for that, so, besides looking for visual clues such as tricycles or kids things in the yard, orange curtains in the kitchen window (don't ask), I had other bits of evidence that made a place worth knocking on.
My favorite item was a little plaque that said something very similar to:
So there we were, faced with that old favorite sign, and the kid asked me, "If they don't like salepeople, why are you knocking on the door?"
And I said, "You know why people really put these things up?"
"Well sure, they don't like salesmen."
"That's what they want you to think, but the "real" reason is: If the doorbell rings and it's a salesman, they're afraid they're going to buy something ... again."
To be sure, there were other forces motivating the people; being entertained, for one, as silly as it might seem. But the first time I saw this thing about the creation of a no-call list it was obvious that this would be the best place to start, in terms of more profits per phone number called. Guaranteed, zero doubt about it.
For one thing, consider this: Assume that everyone out there is, collectively, more average than the readership here. If an otherwise decent-sounding caller has just called you, and even volunteers that he knows you are on a no-call list, before he goes into whatever the "pitch" is, most people will have already assumed that if the guy called, despite the "Law", then "there must be something to it."
The no-call list as source, is the opposite of the strength-in-numbers, law-of-averages (spam-like) approach of the amateurs. It is, literally, money in the bank, for the people who "believe in their own pitch" and abilities.
This is the easiest way to prevent any app/process from piggy-backing onto a legit process that has queried the system as to whether we have an Internet connection:
open the sudoers file, located here: /etc/sudoers
add the following:
Defaults:ALL timestamp_timeout=0
Save. Done.
OS X comes with a default 5 minute "window" on the use of an admin to get privilage escalation. When that window is shrunk to zero, that means that the escalation is disabled instantly. All processes are serial, so two processes cannot occur at the same moment in time. Period.
Running as a non-admin user is okay, but the timestamp is what really has to go.
I ran a small network for homeless Vets at a VA Community Center, back in Syracuse. It was a drop-in place with psych people and all sorts of resources for mostly Vietnam-era vets. First Gulf War guys were beginning to show up, also. The Network was no problem. The rewarding part of it was helping the guys sort things out and giving them search ideas, etc. It was an eye-opener, no question about that.
Guess what, AC? Straight A's in math, and yeah, all the way up, Bitch. Kiss my ass cowboy. Oh and shove your acronym dictionary up your ass, too, sideways. You know, to get the maximum benefit.
What is this? The Dawn of the Dullards?
Listen and listen good you atrociously dull limey cunt. Here's another definition of monetize. Instead of reading, your life is wrapped up in video games and Nintendo bullshit, right? Do they have basements over there, yet? Last time I was there you had be downtown to find a doorway over 4 feet tall. So while you were in the root cellar, or whatever, playing your Nintendo games and shit, guess what Nintendo was monetizing? Your useless, pointlees and pathetic fat fuck lifestyle. Bite that, Bitches
Nonsense? Oh, I get it. People should just dumb down, everywhere, like a new lowest common denominator applied to learning or reading? I have a constructive idea: Why don't you buy a fucking dictionary, and read it, rather than brag about your ignorance in public?
I appreciate your comment(s) and consider your point(s) taken, by me. I was in a very grumpy, nauseous state, and even I knew I was giving the post that I responded to, meaning that wasn't even there. And I hit submit anyway, which is dumb, and what can I say, except that I'll make an effort to be constructive, and respectful going forward.
I get a lot out of this site, specifically because I *normally* do read well. You'd never it from my post up there. I don't enjoy being wrong, but, truth is, I'd rather have it pointed out than "tolerated" or encouraged. I apologize to the OP, and anyone else who was annoyed.
Dude, first I want to say thank you for providing such a huge laugh. It's hard to know where to begin, it's like pick an angle. any angle. I assume you know nothing about business, and the same, or less, about money. (Think of it as "allowance.")
So, we'll start with the easy ones:
Let's run with your "take" on things. The fixed cost idea. I see. so, if I want to take out ads for a new artist, I'd be silly to advertise on re-runs of "Bonanza", because I could put the ads on prime time HBO for the same cost, huh? By the way, if you're working at HBO in sales, please contact me. I don't have a product, but I'll think of something.
I'll just let my marketing guys come up with something cheap, that they are certain will sell, because of quality and the dead certain knowledge of what a lot of kids are going to want to buy 5 months from now. Oops, there's that the old fucker "Marketing" again. What are we gonna do, dude?
Oh wait, that's right, you said it is a constant, and therefore, not a factor. I'll let you in on a little secret, my coffee came right out my nose when I got to that part of your "thesis." Let's look at life in a new way, courtesy of your Constant Expense Equals No Net Impact Theory.
So, if we buy an SUV, for instance, and put 40 gallons of premium gas a week into it, at the end of the year the total cost of ownership is ... the cost of the vehicle purchase (amortized) minus nothing? I like it, I like it a lot. Food is sort of a constant, too, isn't it? Sure, so where do I get my rebate of wages for everything I ate last year? Because, forgive my stupidity, but it looks like it made a nasty hit on my bottom line, as far as retained income is concerned. If the guys at the grocery see the brilliance of your theory, a rebate should be obvious.
I realize that nobody (I hope) is stupid enough to suggest the ideas that made that coffee come flying out of my nose. It only "looked" stupid. But, seriously, business is not exactly a case of an entity existing in a world of ubiquitous "Constants." (Little hint: It's closer to the opposite of that)
In other words, let's pretend that that small part of marketing, that you think IS marketing (advertising, in other words) is a Constant. It's not, but hey, you know, we're pretending, in an effort to try to understand, ok? Are sales a Constant? Is the price of transportation? How about the ratio of products that are hits as opposed to misses? Let's assume that anyone working for you will be getting the same pay in 35 years as they did when they signed on. That would be a constant. Of course constantly spending money on HR to replace your perpetually dissatisfied workforce might be another Constant, too, wouldn't it?
All those things, and a whole lot more, come from the bottom line. There are probably 50,000 guys at any given time, who have bleeding ulcers because their job is to estimate, in advance, and within a "tolerance" as far as "accuracy," all the non-Constants involved in their companies cost of doing business. I suppose it goes without saying that this doesn't sound like your best choice of career path.
That is correct, they couldn't possibly make as much off the physical CDs. I hate being boring "on purpose" but, manufacturing cost, shipment, advertising, returns policies, middleman (jobber) profit margins and last retail outlet margins cut into the list price something fierce.
Sure they have some economies of scale, but not even remotely enough to negate the cost of incidentals.
One thing though, about CDs, is that they are a lot easier for Artist management to enumerate, for purposes of figuring the artist share. And that "share" is usually subtracted from advances, given at the time of signing "For hire" contracts, and is the artist's only non-touring, non-merchandising income.
Contracts almost always have a per unit rate (minus a percentage for breakage/returns) that is considered the artist share. There are exceptions, of course, and some artists have the wherewithal to initiate touring and merchandising business models that allow them to recoup a lot of the actual cash that was sacrificed when they signed away their publishing rights. But that is rare when we look at the industry and its "workers" as a whole.
Things are stacked against the workers, in many of the same ways that are common all across the board in our work for hire system. But the cool thing is that, although the labels can make more money with less accountability, by using all-digital means of production, that same tech is available to musicians, and, if utilized, will put growing numbers of them in control of the "means of production."
If that scenario were to gain the force of momentum and become the rule, rather than the "exception," we'd have a small revolution on our hands, at least in terms of workers' rights and fairness in that industry.
It would be a rather classic case of a monopoly based on shared objectives, rather than negotiation or collective agreements, etc., with the "workers" on the dealing, rather than the receiving, end of the game.
First, you are sincerely welcome. And secondly, your message points up a valid point that I also recommend to people and that is: Invest in what you understand. What one "knows" in other words. Everyone who works has some instinct about what they encounter as to what works and what doesn't. A really "plain" example might be an auto worker who puts part of his 401k in a specific parts supplier, etc.
When China was really heating up, and guys were buying into shoe factories in the middle of nowhere, that employed almost zero accountability, I looked for American and European companies that were "participating" in the expansion in China, as far as building things and infrastructure-related moves. We did pretty well that way, and when guys I knew were moaning about this or that "unknown" entity being taken over by the People's Army, or having more holes in their finances than yen, I always felt, "Well, what did you expect?"
Go with what you know. That should be rule #1, and thanks for reminding me of that.
People who sell stocks and bonds on the retail level are notorious for pulling out the charts and throwing together what sounds, even to someone who understands the hackneyed terminology, like "gobbledy-gook." And, in that situation, the worst thing we can do (I've done it myself) is to "go along" with the "story" that doesn't actually make clear sense to us. Many of us have an inclination to say we understand something when it's still "fuzzy." But doing so when we're being "pitched" by a salesman is the worst possible time for this. (And again, this has happened to me, and I was straight A's in math, all the way up, somewhat well-read and "traveled", so I wasn't a complete idiot, but ... I felt like one later, believe me).
I think it was Peter Lynch who first brought that idea to my attention; the notion of "go with what you know" and "get out there and kick the tires." Even if someone read the 3M piece, and was impressed with "the story" I always suggest that individuals contact the person at a company whose function is "Investor Relations." Those people are generally pretty conservative, and they avoid "hard sell" tactics, as a rule.
Also, you mentioned larger "Index Funds" and I'm definitely a proponent of them. They are not so much a "get rich quick" scheme, but they do conform to strategies related to "slow and steady wins the race." There are total market funds out there, as well as the usual S&P 500 and S&P 100 funds. But there are also large funds that "mirror" the Russell 2000 (that include smaller exchange-listed firms) and "sector" funds. So, while the bulk of an index-based account might lean heavily towards broader market measures, the presence of a sector or "small-cap" fund can often provide a serious run-up in paper values when a Market turns upward.
And of course, Index Options are a smart move when one is holding primarily index funds, because they can act as "insurance" to maintain 'real' value when paper losses occur, and are also so leveraged that a total loss on an index option, when the underlying Index is held, is always accompanied by a larger move upward in terms of the underlying Index, itself. They can act as insurance, to keep one's net worth steady in turbulent times (for the Market, as a whole).
Of course, but that would have taken brains and some effort, which she and her boyfriend, by the sound of it, were lacking. If she wants her risk factor for several cancers (besides the obvious colon and gastrointestinal types) including breast and uterine to rise by a factor of 4-5, Burger King can have her.
I want to say, "Congratulations" and believe me, I mean it.
15 years ago, after 6 weeks in ICU and a couple more months upstairs, I was told I would either lose my right leg, never walk unassisted if I saved it, and had 0 chance of ever regaining any kidney function whatsoever.
Upon release I walked out of the hospital, with kidneys that were at 100% healthy function, and a year later a complete physical said that all of my internal organs were in the condition of a very healthy man, 15 years my junior.
A positive attitude isn't just a "good idea" it is crucial. In 5 weeks my chemo comes to and end (necessitated as a result of blood transfusions in the same Hospital where I was supposedly losing my leg and had forever-dead kidneys). A 48 week treatment. The actual virus that necessitated it? Undetectable using state-of-the-art blood assay tests, since week #4.
I did not "beat" any of this, unassisted. That's a fact. After 8 weeks inside, and having shrinks try to convince me to "accept" the inevitability of every other day dialysis, I got a phone call from a dear friend in Ontario. He told me: "Your kidneys are going to be fine, and you aren't losing your leg, you'll walk out of there, soon." When I heard that, I cried, which was odd, because I was being fed intravenously and lacked even enough moisture to lubricate my eyeballs. Upon hanging up I had an urge to urinate, and did, a tablespoon or two, for the first time in 8 weeks and 3 days.
The doctors were too lame to tell me it was a miracle, or to admit they were dead wrong, in person. I didn't really care about that, anyway. I advise people, if you have a friend or person in a hospital, get in touch with your feelings, and make a call. Because you never know what's possible, and the doctors, because they think "they know" have even less of an idea.
Let me point something out. How the market opens tomorrow is based far more on overnight S&P 500 futures activity in Asia (while we're sleeping, or up all night coding, in the US). And "after hours" trading is almost always revolving around lower volume, in other words "thin" trading, so the result is much larger volatility in the bid/ask spread and the pricing. If Wall Street opens with a hefty order imbalance for Apple (more 'sell' offers than 'buy' bids) that might be a bit spooky. But "after hours"? These aren't the players, at all.
Anybody tempted to make market offers to sell Apple, based on 'after hours' activity, needs to get a grip.
try: Food (Even in a severe depression we still have to eat)
if you're concerned with longevity and business models, Consider:
There are many others. Do not get lulled into laissez-faire attitudes toward investment. You have to diversify outside of 'sexy' industry groups. When everyone heads for the exits the fundamentally sound companies get hammered, right along with the 'pretenders' and it is sad, brutal and devastating for a lot of people when that happens.
If I sound harsh, I'm sorry, but life and some of its lessons are far harsher than anything I could come up with. And no matter who you are, I don't like seeing people get hurt. I watched some very intelligent people as their retirement nest eggs got decimated, several times. It is not something I would wish on anyone.