It's good to keep that in the back of one's mind when making any big decision, I guess. I would not have guessed we'd see the stuff we've already seen in our time on this planet. In fact, if a person were to dwell to much on any one tragedy or event, I'd think the average person would go insane.
A decade ago I couldn't have predicted where we'd be in technology today. In general sense, I could say that things are lighter, smaller, nicer, and all around better, but the specifics are not something I was able to guess in even the slightest way.
In the grand scheme of things our time here is just a blip. I love how Neil deGrasse Tyson compares our time to the universe in the new Cosmos series with a calendar. Here's one that's more readable but not from Cosmos, Fox, or NGT.
It's good to keep that in the back of one's mind when making any big decision, I guess. I would not have guessed we'd see the stuff we've already seen in our time on this planet. In fact, if a person were to dwell to much on any one tragedy or event, I'd think the average person would go insane.
A decade ago I couldn't have predicted where we'd be in technology today. In general sense, I could say that things are lighter, smaller, nicer, and all around better, but the specifics are not something I was able to guess in even the slightest way.
In the grand scheme of things our time here is just a blip. I love how Neil deGrasse Tyson compares our time to the universe in the new Cosmos series with a calendar. Here's one that's more readable but not from Cosmos, Fox, or NGT.
If we are all energy, and there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, then we have all been here for as long as energy has existed. Just because we can only remember our current lives doesn't mean to say that we haven't been around for much longer.
I'm saying Cramer deliberately stated either opinions or desires as fact knowing full well that what he was saying might not actually happen. Whether there is some deeper nefarious action going on with Cramer, I don't know, but there is absolutely no reason for you to move the goalposts to include the qualifier, "...so that he would financially benefit from the results," of people losing their livelihood in order the proof that he lied be addressed.
I believe that to be a nasty accusation on your part. If you really believe that you should report it to the SEC. Otherwise, don't spread FUD.
For the last time, they have you in common. YOU! You made a statement about Apple being "too big" to be affected by anything. I pointed out the folly of your thinking. I could have referenced Jack and Giant Beanstalk. Would you have then said that Apple has nothing in common with magic beans and giants in living in castles in a cloud. My point is crystal clear: Never assume anything is too big, too rich, too powerful, too popular, or too protected to ever affected by something you consider to be its lesser. Apple will crumble! Perhaps not in our lifetime or our children's children's lifetime, but eventually they will no longer cease to exist in this Universe.
Let's not change the subject please!
I never said that Apple was too big to "be affected by anything". Apple is affected by things every day. But market forces are huge, and effect everything. Trying to manipulate a company's stock worth $700 billion is something else. That would be done by a small group. Apple is too big for that. If one large financial institution sold all of it's Apple holdings at once, the stock would drop a bit, but without other reasons, would move back again. Forcing a move of $300 billion in the stock price requires resources that no organization has.
Sometimes we see some person from a small firm make some nutty announcement about Apple, and the stock drops. But then others come out and state why he's wrong, and after a few days, the stock is back. That's the extent to it. Not a 40% drop. That's only possible for smaller companies.
So we're back to the original argument; stock manipulation. We're not talking about the death of the universe. We're not talking about the break-up of Apple eventually. We're talking about stock manipulation, pure and simple.
A decade ago I couldn't have predicted where we'd be in technology today. In general sense, I could say that things are lighter, smaller, nicer, and all around better, but the specifics are not something I was able to guess in even the slightest way.
In the grand scheme of things our time here is just a blip. I love how Neil deGrasse Tyson compares our time to the universe in the new Cosmos series with a calendar. Here's one that's more readable but not from Cosmos, Fox, or NGT.
Well, we can certainly find something to agree on here.
A science fiction novel (A Moté in God's Eye, and follow up novels) by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournell back in about 1974 predicted, about a thousand years from now, personal devices that could do what seemed amazing back then, but seems hopelessly mundane now, their future tech had it made of a single piece of glass, but otherwise, the functionality was much less that what we have now. Otherwise, great books.
Well, we can certainly find something to agree on here.
A science fiction novel (A Moté in God's Eye, and follow up novels) by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournell back in about 1974 predicted, about a thousand years from now, personal devices that could do what seemed amazing back then, but seems hopelessly mundane now, their future tech had it made of a single piece of glass, but otherwise, the functionality was much less that what we have now. Otherwise, great books.
1) I'll put that on the list, but I typically only seem to have time for audiobooks (or maybe I'm just too lazy to read).
2) One thing I like to mention is how ill-equipped we are understanding technological trends because we view technology as advancing while not considering how culture will change both independently from technology as well as directly. Even in a short span of time we have had MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and many other social media phenomenons rise up. Even if one could see how something like FaceBook could take over MySpace's reign, which took over Friendster (or whatever came before), I don't think anyone would have thought just how popular something like Twitter could be. I have replaced many of my RSS feeds with a simple 'follow' on Twitter. I not only still get my news, but I get much more up-to-date news. Is getting news that fast a good thing? I don't know, but I can say that I did like having felt a tremor a few years ago and being able to do a search within 30 seconds of feeling it to see that others had already posted about it. With the local news organization it would likely take a hours for them to get an article on their site, since this happened in the middle of the night.
I believe that to be a nasty accusation on your part. If you really believe that you should report it to the SEC. Otherwise, don't spread FUD.
Is there any evidence that he's making a direct financial gain on building up or breaking down companies with his show? If not, then what would the SEC investigate? His show is no different to me than FOX and Friends stating unverified opinions as fact.
1) I'll put that on the list, but I typically only seem to have time for audiobooks (or maybe I'm just too lazy to read).
2) One thing I like to mention is how ill-equipped we are understanding technological trends because we view technology as advancing while not considering how culture will change both independently from technology as well as directly. Even in a short span of time we have had MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and many other social media phenomenons rise up. Even if one could see how something like FaceBook could take over MySpace's reign, which took over Friendster (or whatever came before), I don't think anyone would have thought just how popular something like Twitter could be. I have replaced many of my RSS feeds with a simple 'follow' on Twitter. I not only still get my news, but I get much more up-to-date news. Is getting news that fast a good thing? I don't know, but I can say that I did like having felt a tremor a few years ago and being able to do a search within 30 seconds of feeling it to see that others had already posted about it. With the local news organization it would likely take a hours for them to get an article on their site, since this happened in the middle of the night.
Well, most science fiction writers up until the mid '70's, when the microprocessor was invented, thought that computing would be ubiquitous, but would have massive central units connected to local terminals, just the way it worked back then. Even those who thought differently, thought it would be house control models, built in.
When I was in Stuyvesant H S here in NYC, an executive from IBM came to give us an auditorium speech, he said that in the future (this was in the mid '60's), everyone would be using computers; and in order to do so, everyone would learn to program. He got the first part right..
Is there any evidence that he's making a direct financial gain on building up or breaking down companies with his show? If not, then what would the SEC investigate? His show is no different to me than FOX and Friends stating unverified opinions as fact.
Financial advice, whether on a website, a radio show, or a book is just opinion. Even when you pay for it, it's just opinion. There is never a guarantee that it will be correct. I've followed him for years, and he's got a pretty good record. Yeah, he makes mistakes.
But if someone is accusing someone of doing something shady, then they must provide evidence of that. Simply not liking the person, or their advice when they're wrong isn't good enough.
Financial advice, whether on a website, a radio show, or a book is just opinion. Even when you pay for it, it's just opinion. There is never a guarantee that it will be correct. I've followed him for years, and he's got a pretty good record. Yeah, he makes mistakes.
But if someone is accusing someone of doing something shady, then they must provide evidence of that. Simply not liking the person, or their advice when they're wrong isn't good enough.
I thought Jon Stewart did a great job of pointing all that out int he clips I supplied.
Comments
A decade ago I couldn't have predicted where we'd be in technology today. In general sense, I could say that things are lighter, smaller, nicer, and all around better, but the specifics are not something I was able to guess in even the slightest way.
In the grand scheme of things our time here is just a blip. I love how Neil deGrasse Tyson compares our time to the universe in the new Cosmos series with a calendar. Here's one that's more readable but not from Cosmos, Fox, or NGT.
I also like how this sole photon sees its journey from the sun.
If we are all energy, and there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, then we have all been here for as long as energy has existed. Just because we can only remember our current lives doesn't mean to say that we haven't been around for much longer.
I believe that to be a nasty accusation on your part. If you really believe that you should report it to the SEC. Otherwise, don't spread FUD.
Let's not change the subject please!
I never said that Apple was too big to "be affected by anything". Apple is affected by things every day. But market forces are huge, and effect everything. Trying to manipulate a company's stock worth $700 billion is something else. That would be done by a small group. Apple is too big for that. If one large financial institution sold all of it's Apple holdings at once, the stock would drop a bit, but without other reasons, would move back again. Forcing a move of $300 billion in the stock price requires resources that no organization has.
Sometimes we see some person from a small firm make some nutty announcement about Apple, and the stock drops. But then others come out and state why he's wrong, and after a few days, the stock is back. That's the extent to it. Not a 40% drop. That's only possible for smaller companies.
So we're back to the original argument; stock manipulation. We're not talking about the death of the universe. We're not talking about the break-up of Apple eventually. We're talking about stock manipulation, pure and simple.
Well, we can certainly find something to agree on here.
A science fiction novel (A Moté in God's Eye, and follow up novels) by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournell back in about 1974 predicted, about a thousand years from now, personal devices that could do what seemed amazing back then, but seems hopelessly mundane now, their future tech had it made of a single piece of glass, but otherwise, the functionality was much less that what we have now. Otherwise, great books.
1) I'll put that on the list, but I typically only seem to have time for audiobooks (or maybe I'm just too lazy to read).
2) One thing I like to mention is how ill-equipped we are understanding technological trends because we view technology as advancing while not considering how culture will change both independently from technology as well as directly. Even in a short span of time we have had MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and many other social media phenomenons rise up. Even if one could see how something like FaceBook could take over MySpace's reign, which took over Friendster (or whatever came before), I don't think anyone would have thought just how popular something like Twitter could be. I have replaced many of my RSS feeds with a simple 'follow' on Twitter. I not only still get my news, but I get much more up-to-date news. Is getting news that fast a good thing? I don't know, but I can say that I did like having felt a tremor a few years ago and being able to do a search within 30 seconds of feeling it to see that others had already posted about it. With the local news organization it would likely take a hours for them to get an article on their site, since this happened in the middle of the night.
Is there any evidence that he's making a direct financial gain on building up or breaking down companies with his show? If not, then what would the SEC investigate? His show is no different to me than FOX and Friends stating unverified opinions as fact.
Well, most science fiction writers up until the mid '70's, when the microprocessor was invented, thought that computing would be ubiquitous, but would have massive central units connected to local terminals, just the way it worked back then. Even those who thought differently, thought it would be house control models, built in.
When I was in Stuyvesant H S here in NYC, an executive from IBM came to give us an auditorium speech, he said that in the future (this was in the mid '60's), everyone would be using computers; and in order to do so, everyone would learn to program. He got the first part right..
Financial advice, whether on a website, a radio show, or a book is just opinion. Even when you pay for it, it's just opinion. There is never a guarantee that it will be correct. I've followed him for years, and he's got a pretty good record. Yeah, he makes mistakes.
But if someone is accusing someone of doing something shady, then they must provide evidence of that. Simply not liking the person, or their advice when they're wrong isn't good enough.
I thought Jon Stewart did a great job of pointing all that out int he clips I supplied.