Y2HH

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 23, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) So LinkedIn has 40 times the growth potential as Apple? I don't buy that for a second. This is more in line by what I mean. I'm not saying LinkedIn has NO value. But it's growth will be minimal, at best, especially when Facebook goes public. I just don't see it with LinkedIn, and if they weren't a .com going IPO right now, they'd be trading at 12$.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) I don't know if it's overvalued or not, but LinkedIn has a very strong chance of becoming essentially Facebook for business, a market that Facebook will never be able to capture and a market that has no other competitors. 5 years ago if Facebook had gone public with a high price like this I'm sure your reaction would have been the same. Not at all. My reaction isn't based on what I "think" a company should be worth...it's based on what the company is actually worth. The nice thing about public companies is their books are open in the legal sense of the word, so unless they're cheating, we know how much money they're making. Knowing that, and the number of shares outstanding, we can easily compute what a share is worth based on how much money they generate. If you are generating BILLIONS in profit, your valuation is probably high, unless you have 10's of billions of shares outstanding, which most companies do not. LinkedIn cleared 15 Million dollars in profit last year, and has already said they expect to LOSE money in 2011. That does not = a high value.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2011 -> 07:52 AM) I don't think I have a problem with it and I see why its done, but without the context I had to ask. He could have just been a real jerk Better he be the jerk now and try to wake these kids up to reality than wait for the world to be the jerk, instead.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 23, 2011 -> 07:12 AM) I personally blame the idiots buying the stock up that high, as much as the underwriters. Seriously, I looked a bit at LinkedIn before the IPO... for that stock to run up like that, to establish that level of market cap, for a business whose revenue streams are very limited in my eyes... its a little reminiscent of some of the tech stock run-ups of the late 90's. I would avoid that stock like the plague. It's CLEARLY .com 2.0. Anyone that says LinkedIn is a good investment at this valuation knows nothing about investing. LinkedIn makes ~15M per YEAR profit. Not per quarter. Not per month. Per YEAR. That pegs their current stock price at about a 600 P/E ratio. For comparison sake, Apples P/E ratio 15. That means people are only willing to pay 15 times what Apple makes per share...and this is a company that makes more profit in a single DAY than LinkedIn makes in an entire year. At the same time, people are saying they're willing to pay SIX HUNDRED times earnings for a social network with almost no revenue stream that will be an afterthought when Facebook goes public? This run up is speculation and day traders, not investment. They're hopes are that people run LinkedIn's price into the 200 range so they can dump it all, trying to not repeat the same mistake they made in the .com 1 bubble, where instead of dumping it all, they held it thinking it would go even higher...only it crashed instead. The market hasn't changed...companies are worth what they're worth, and the tried and true calculation of what they're worth ALWAYS ends up being the real value in the end. Bottom line, LinkedIn isn't worth half of it's current price, no, scratch that, it's not worth 15% of it's current price...so if you got in the IPO and made a profit, just get out while you can.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ May 20, 2011 -> 09:41 PM) We've been waiting for that since the turn of the century. I think thats why they called it, thinking he'd be thinking theres no way he'd throw another fastball.. This was in response to fathom...not you...don't know what happened.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2011 -> 09:39 PM) Crap. This game is on you now for talking about bad ass closer music.

See what you did?

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 20, 2011 -> 09:33 PM) You're acting like Thornton and Crain are on equal ground, they're clearly not, not this season. One one hand, you have a guy who hasn't given up a run in I don't know how long, on the other, you have a guy with a 6 ERA. You tell me which guy is the better choice to go to in a 1 run game. We aren't arguing that Crain is the better pitcher. We are arguing that Ozzie made a bad decision, but if you look at the score, he didn't... The prosecution, on the other hand, wants to play fancy woulda coulda shoulda games...something he could never prove either way. Fact remains, we held the lead...thus it wasn't a bad decision...as there is nothing you could say to prove that the single out Thornton recorded would have been the same result with Crain. I, on the other hand, don't have to prove that we got the 3 outs we needed the way we got them...because we did. The defense rests, your honor.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 20, 2011 -> 09:30 PM) Crain hasn't pitched in two days. And Thornton is our setup man...and its the 8th, when setup men pitch. If Ozzie had put in Crain, as you asked, at the start of the inning, and Crain blew the hold, you'd be b****ing that Ozzie didnt go with our regular setup man...so in the end, this was a lose lose situation for Ozzie, because you are openly and obviously biased.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 20, 2011 -> 09:27 PM) That should have been the case to begin the inning. Or...a pitcher making 4 million dollars could get a few outs. Ozzie doesn't make the team, KW does. Thornton is what Ozzie has, so he uses him. Can't pitch Crain in place of Thornton every night...otherwise there's no point in having Thronton. Bottom line, that wasn't crappy managing, it was good managing, he took out the wrong guy at the right time.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 20, 2011 -> 09:25 PM) Great pitching by Crain. Crappy managing by Ozzie. Yes, what a crappy decision to go with Crain.

RIP Macho Man

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ May 19, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) I'll be 61 July 5th. Christ almighty! Tex is just a young whippersnapper, by crackie.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 19, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) I think I said that. Not sure, I didn't read a bunch of previous posts, I just responded. So we agree then...for a change. It's about time you're right about something.

Let me make this simple for you... If the US defaults, it doesn't matter if you sold or not. The difference would be having a bunch of worthless paper vs wishing you had sold so you could have a bunch of worthless paper. Don't sell on fear, that's what the suckers do. It doesn't matter what the asset is worth now, or during a depression, it matters what it's worth when you sell it. People never seem to learn from the past. I don't know how many times I've seen the market crash and hear people say the era of the stock market is over...only to see it recover again...and again. Imagine if you were one of the suckers that panicked in 2008 and sold before you "lost everything" because some "financial manager" told you too get out before it's too late...instead of just waiting a few short years (if that), and being right back where you were (or very close too it), in 2007. The market, be it stocks, bonds, or commodities, are not for the feint of heart...if you look at your portfolio everyday and say damnit, I just lost X...it means you're doing it wrong. You didn't lose X unless you sold it, so long as you didn't, just wait...if it's a viable asset, it WILL recover in time. The good news is, we are all pretty young, and we have time.

You two need to get out more...there is a whole world outside of the City, you know... http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...linois&z=12

It's a very nice place...but it's a remote location without many job possibilities. So, if you have a job there that you'll never lose, and it pays well enough to not want to move, it's great...otherwise your looking at 2 hour commutes each way, every day.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:34 PM) well we already know how it'll go next year, the republicans will want to extend them all again, Obama will talk about why that's a bad idea and then they'll extend them all again Then he needs to put more pressure on them...he can get it done if he tries hard enough to do so. Bush got a ton of stuff done HIS way with a democratic controlled congress/senate...so it CAN be done if Obama makes the right moves. If reelected, and with a full term under his belt, I think Obama will know how to maneuver the landscape a LOT better, just like Clinton learned to do in his second term.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 05:41 PM) Well, since it is a deficit thread and no one has posted it yet, here's the graph. We can call them Obama era tax cuts now, right? And those are now Obama's wars, as he clearly campaigned we'd not be there still if he was elected. Oh, plus Libya. Time to move on. Oh, and I'm not blaming Obama either, he's doing what he needs to do. But let's get past the blame Bush garbage already...if we're going to do that, we can still point to Carter, Nixon, etc, too...it's old now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 17, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) This smoking idea is intriguing. I think I'm going to have to try it in a couple weeks. Keep in mind that depending on the type of wood chips you use, the meat will taste different, such as using apple wood vs mesquite...you'll have to experiment to figure out which you like. There are many types of wood used for smoking, for example, one of the most famous amongst smokers (but you'd have to order it) is Alder Wood...there is pretty much no better wood for smoking meats. Give it a try if you haven't.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) They have those little camping stoves that work off of small propane tanks and are pretty cheap. Those small tanks are only a couple of bucks each. Those small tanks don't last long, and then have to be refilled or tossed, both of which are annoying to have to do constantly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) Learn the guitar, obviously. You'll never make it big out of Seattle unless you 1) learn the guitar and 2) live out of your car.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) If oil speculators are buying oil at $100 a barrel that should be sold for $70 a barrel, then the response is going to be a glut of oil being put into storage as consumers cut back, and eventually things will have to swing the other way, to prices well below $70, to remove that excess. That will happen, but in the mean time, it's not helping people.

The CEO of Exxon said this isn't a supply/demand issue...he outright said that a barrel of oil *should* be between 60-70$ based on stock/supply/demand and availability. He said this in response to a question about whether speculators are the cause. While he never outright said it was speculators, you can do the math yourself: Q: Are speculators influencing the cost of oil? A: If you said: 'If I had access to the next marketable barrel, what would it cost? When we look at it, it's going to be somewhere in the $60 to $70 range. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/...E74B4NQ20110512

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:44 AM) Welcome back, jerk! This place tryin' to keep me down!