Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:46 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

CenturyLink, Inc. Message Board

jj27713 73 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 22, 2015 1:50 PM Member since: Jan 11, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • jj27713 jj27713 Jan 22, 2015 1:50 PM Flag

    Jake,
    A good article filled with good details.

  • Reply to

    Dividend

    by steveore Jan 21, 2015 12:13 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 21, 2015 4:40 PM Flag

    The Board of Directors of Chimera today announced the declaration of its fourth quarter 2014 cash dividend of $0.09 per common share. This dividend is payable January 29, 2015, to common shareholders of record on December 31, 2014. The ex-dividend date is December 29, 2014.
    ___________________________
    December 28.

  • Reply to

    Republicans are after your soc. security

    by redshoe77 Jan 20, 2015 11:16 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 20, 2015 7:40 PM Flag

    And your point is...? Everything has become worse since I posted those haven't they?
    More people on government support.
    More deficit spending on social programs.
    More evidence that CO2 is only a very minor player in global climate change.

    Thanks for helping make my case.

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Republicans are after your soc. security

    by redshoe77 Jan 20, 2015 11:16 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 20, 2015 3:07 PM Flag

    Jake,
    I would like to see mandatory retirement benefits deducted from every paycheck to the tune of 5% of the gross wages paid regardless of income. Invested in 30 years T-Bonds. No chance of withdrawal for any reason except death or 65 years of age. All other additional retirement savings packages would be offered, and up to the discretion of, the wage earner. The government takes care of the most basic retirement safety net and it is up to the wage earner to take personal responsibility of any more savings they wish to accumulate. If you start work early, you get more in the end. Start work later and you get less accumulation. If you don't work much in your lifetime it will be to your own detriment as far as the governments benefits you will have available.
    Federal and state employees should be under the same rules as the rest of us.

    The original SS funds were set up like that, but have been raided and modified so many times for so many reasons that they don't resemble much of the original intent anymore. The 120+ poverty programs on the books have been more of a disincentive overall and just create a bias of dependence.

  • Reply to

    Who you gonna believe

    by redshoe77 Jan 20, 2015 9:57 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 20, 2015 10:25 AM Flag

    Hey Red,
    NASA's Gavin Schmidt, a confirmed warmist, admitted that there is a 52% possibility that another year other than 2014 was warmer in NOAA's analysis and that there was a 62% possibility that another year was warmer than 2014 in NASA's analysis.

    So the heat is on, climate warmists... Was 2014 really the warmest year or not? The only thing 'confirmed' is that they really don't know, regardless of what the media says.
    Global warming has 'stopped' for 17 years, global ice extent is back to the mean of the last 32 years (satellite era), there is a modest recovery in Arctic ice the last 4 years, there is record Antarctic ice extent, there is more food grown that ever before, the models predictions are 99% wrong to the high side, not a single scientist has claimed that we haven't yet stopped warming from the Little Ice Age...

    Who is manufacturing a crisis where a crisis may not exist?
    JJ

  • Reply to

    NASA says 2014 warmest year

    by jwogdn Jan 19, 2015 10:40 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 19, 2015 2:34 PM Flag

    Yes, red.
    ONE of the 5 or 6 databases says it was the warmest (with an error range much larger than the actual anomaly). The other 5 or 6 say it wasn't the warmest year.
    Why do you believe the one and not the others? Is it because you are an alarmist and easily swayed by other alarmists? Is it that you don't really want to understand the science of the numbers? Is it because you just don't care?
    If one tax preparer said you were getting a refund of $100 and 5 others said you had to pay $100..which would you believe? Would you go with the weight of the evidence of the five or would you align with the least probable outcome?

    My guess is that you would want to check out all the preparers data, methods and conclusions rather than just wait for an audit because you didn't pay you taxes...

    But regarding the temperatures you throw the weight of the evidence out the window and vociferously hang on to the least likely and most improbable result. So my guess is that you just don't care...

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Man has slapped nature in the face

    by redshoe77 Jan 15, 2015 9:51 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 16, 2015 10:52 AM Flag

    O/T
    You know, red, that I believe in God. If there is no God, then we all pass away dust-to-dust and that is the end. In this case you can be as mean, sarcastic, cruel and irresponsible as you want to be and you never need to worry about any repercussions.
    If there is a God, then on Judgement Day there could be hell to pay. Are you sure you are on the side you want to be?

  • Reply to

    Man has slapped nature in the face

    by redshoe77 Jan 15, 2015 9:51 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 16, 2015 10:45 AM Flag

    Excellent reply, jwo! Humankind began a mass migration into urban life about 200 years ago in an attempt to escape the complications of raw nature. Anyone who does any backpacking can tell you just how much comfort comes from the benefits of food, clothing, heat and shelter...almost all of which is provided by the blessing of fossil fuels.
    Nature still calls the shots by the widest of margins. Man's effect on nature, while measureable, is tiny in comparison.
    Regards,
    JJ

  • jj27713 jj27713 Jan 14, 2015 9:45 PM Flag

    In Spokane, 'Frisco was used all the time when I lived there in the 60's and 70's.

  • jj27713 jj27713 Jan 13, 2015 9:11 PM Flag

    Solid mid-western values.
    JJ

  • Reply to

    Say Hello to.....Deflation

    by blueflamedave Jan 7, 2015 6:14 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 7, 2015 7:56 AM Flag

    Hopefully you all will have some cash to invest when the current economic cycle bottoms out...

    I am feeling that the 'current economic cycle' you speak of is the time between now and ~2020 and will be relatively weak in terms of economic prosperity and spending...so another 5-6 years of 'flat to down' is ahead. Come early the next decade will be an upsurge in spending as the current 30-something generation (baby-boomlet) enters their high spending years.
    2015 may have some growth ahead for the US because unemployment is trending down and therefore some new money available to spend. We still have a large percentage of the population that will be in continuous lower middle class status, though, and this does not bode well for long term growth. Accumulating cash is not a bad idea in any case as better opportunities lie ahead.
    The JJ family will be hard at work spending money on new real estate in the mountains this year helping keep the local CMEP group employed. It's a shame that the natural resource sector portion of the portfolio has taken such a hit, but that will eventually rebound.
    GLTY this new year!

  • Small, but significant, in light of the carnage in the fossil fuel sector. Implies TGP is not suffering needlessly due to the overall psychology of depressed crude oil prices...

  • Reply to

    Allure

    by farfenugenager Jan 2, 2015 8:22 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jan 2, 2015 9:43 AM Flag

    I commented on this issue of the Chinese having a history of stealing IP and not paying for it way back when this deal was mentioned and was roundly criticized for my view. I, too, have experienced this with some earlier investments and work related IP. Now the Chinese have what they want and Ballard won't be able to do anything about it. They can try to sue, but it will cost them a lot more than the 4.5 million and there is a good chance they will lose. China will just change the tech a little bit and claim it was their own idea and IP.
    It is a huge risk to do any work with the Chinese system working 100% against you...

  • jj27713 jj27713 Dec 31, 2014 4:11 PM Flag

    With free hydrogen being about 0.00005% by volume in the atmosphere, do they say just how much air needs to be filtered by a graphene membrane at 100% efficiency to gather 1 kg of hydrogen? Do they say how they will extract it from the graphene?

  • Reply to

    The sad state of 'science'

    by jj27713 Dec 23, 2014 3:16 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Dec 23, 2014 4:40 PM Flag

    long,

    I think you have really missed the point(s), but reading the article and links about this issue found on WUWT should help.
    I said or implied nothing about the greenhouse effect and neither does the article. I have no idea where you came up with that...

    Have a great Christmas with your family and friends.

    JJ

  • This is the kind of stuff that gives science a bad name.
    A researcher who has spent a full career in the ocean science field was concerned that recently published data showing 'ocean acidification' did not seem right or complete in the paper. When the author of the paper was asked for the raw data set he worked with and why it didn't include the larger history of 2 million other data points he responded...
    ________________
    Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.”
    ________________

    But it turns out that the latest data was a model output that did not include real data or the actual complete database and portrayed a highly questionable result. When the real data was tabulated, the papers results were contradicted. So what is more correct? The entire body of data for the last century? Or the modeled data generated by a computer in a cherry-picked time frame? I am not sure that anyone really knows, but hiding data, misrepresentation of data, and intimidation of those who question data...is not science, but manipulative fraud.

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Biggest lie of the year

    by redshoe77 Dec 18, 2014 2:03 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Dec 23, 2014 2:44 PM Flag

    I understand now...
    For a measured data point, a collection of measured data points, a careful review of factual observations, a massive collection of carefully calibrated satellite observations, a comparison with similar databases to reveal discrepancies and careful, public critiques of such data...you find these false and misleading.

    But emotional innuendos, political commentary, Club of Rome global manifestos, unsupported claims, carefully hidden raw data, exploding 'denier' head videos, model outputs, unfortunate reveals of adjusted data and embarrassing lack of real world correlation to such data...you find as truthful and settled?

    But in the interest of keeping this season as relevant as it should be, I am wishing you and yours a joyous, meaningful and reflective Christmas with friends and family and wish you well as we enter the new year in this troubled world.

    Regards,

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Biggest lie of the year

    by redshoe77 Dec 18, 2014 2:03 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Dec 22, 2014 4:09 PM Flag

    Red,
    William is referring to a cross-nation study published in the Journal of Quaternary Science that shows no warming, but cooling, over the past 2000 years. It shows that todays temperatures have not even reached the levels of the Medieval or Roman periods. In fact it shows almost no warming at all the past century that can be deemed significant. There is no evidence of a 'hockey stick'. No runaway warming. No unusual warming of any kind.
    It is just one more study that shows there is nothing unusual is happening and that there is very little evidence that ties CO2 levels to planetary temperatures...higher or lower.
    The media probably isn't much interested in the new study because it negates the headlines they are trying to stir up the public opinion with. Nonetheless, it is one more data point that shows AGW is not a fact, but only an increasingly battered theory. Whether you want to believe facts or not is your call...

  • Reply to

    Biggest lie of the year

    by redshoe77 Dec 18, 2014 2:03 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Dec 20, 2014 12:04 AM Flag

    red,
    Yes, wrong again. You said I was one that gave you a thumbs down and I did not. Don't try to change the subject of your post to something else do deflect your error.
    And yes, I see that six years later more and more papers are showing that CO2 is only very slightly tied to global temperatures. The CO2 climate models continue to be more and more wrong with each passing day showing an incorrect relationship between CO2 and warming. Even the modelers themselves are reducing the factors they place on CO2 forcing in the models to meet the numbers determined experimentally...and each passing year the models are still over-predicting the temperatures...but coming closer. You still cling to the extremism of catastrophic global warming which has utterly failed to come to pass. You still can't find a single scientist that can prove or not prove that we still aren't warming from the LIA...
    Humans tend to cling to extreme emotionalism as it relates to their primitive fears of the unknown. You are no exception to the rule. Yet when the fears don't have any sound mathematical basis to support them will you dispose of the irrational fears and accept reality? Some do. Many don't.
    Regards,

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Biggest lie of the year

    by redshoe77 Dec 18, 2014 2:03 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Dec 19, 2014 2:28 PM Flag

    Hey red,
    Unfortunately you are wrong, yet again, about me. Your record of correct assumptions is still dragging the ground at about 0%. There must be others that get a little tired of your childish digs, too.

CTL
39.24-0.13(-0.33%)Jan 23 4:01 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.