Hi nammuang: I am guessing English is a 2nd language for you. whogo is quoting from a post on an RA forum. AFAIK, s/he is not the person answering Chartreux (another long-time poster and sufferer on the forum). Another poster, here, cacheflash, or some such, also has not grasped the vocative case of "Chartreux", and thinks it is Chartreux himself talking, so even English-as-1st-language people can have basic comprehension problems.
whogo is apparently offering a hypothesis as to the continuing low rate of growth of O Rx. He has previously indicated he works as a nurse, so I doubt he's a long-term RA sufferer. I do not know whether whogo is capable of, or has a taste for, pointing all this out to you.
loko: please just post what you know - or suspect. Sigh. Lose the drama.............and the periods. The comedy can stay.
Your posts remind me of someone that ate a huge mess of pig swill, thinking it was a vitamin supplement. But it is known that, somehow, a few possibly high-carat diamonds were accidentally dropped into the swill.
You periodically vomit up your meal, and we investors sort through the swill-vomit with our bare hands...................looking for diamonds.
I thought the case had been well made that pure sapphire display covers are just too expensive? And that what AAPL is really into, with GT, is using Hyperion to exfoliate sapphire for a laminated material? Since GT appears to have 2-3 years of "moat" with Hyperion, and since AAPL has locked them up, then that means APPL has locked up 2-3 years of unscratchable, unbreakable, CHEAPish iPad and iPhone displays, without that dreaded Korean company being able to match or copy them? After all, anyone can make a pure sapphire display. But it's still breakable, and not cheap.
:) that thought popped up in my head too! THAT kind of rat would be at a higher level, eh?
I can see an entire sub-department walking (or being fired, en masse, for incompetence), but these job postings appear to be in dribs and drabs in many areas. So, no rats, methinks...
camry: you might enjoy the "Unexpected Hanging" paradox (also rendered as "The Surprise Exam Paradox". If you enjoy anything, that is.
The programming's fine, the system design was awful. The logic FIRST has to be laid out as top-down/modular, or use-cases/objects, whatever method you're using.
You're a health pro, my career area was just this system design and programming. You can tell tell the design was appalling, because efforts to fix bugs make others pop up, and cause recurrence of the SAME bugs! It's very hard to progam your way out of a bad design, and the code is then usually even harder to maintain than before.
The algorithm to create the thread ("Topic") list appears to be:
. threads initiated by non -ignored readers, most recent 8 hours
. threads initiated by ignored readers, most recent 8 hours
. threads initiated by non -ignored readers, previous date (may run over weekend)
. threads initiated by ignored readers, previous date (may run over weekend)
For really busy boards you don't see ignoreds for several pages. If there are only 1 or 2 posts by your non-ignoreds in the recent period, then almost the entire front pane may be ignored threads.
Regarding ignoreds WITHIN a thread (detail page, such as where you are now), it's hard to believe you never noticed that posts are in time order,, with nested responses. If any post therein was by an ignored, it is greyed out. Obviously nothing would make sense if ignored posts were relegated to the bottom, since they relate to other posts on a detail page, which they do NOT on the header page.
What a pointless thread. FWIW, nammuang is hovering REAL close to my ignores, due to schoolmarm-ish, proto-fascist posts (suppressing others, eg. treatment of whogo, andre, etc.), and irrelevance (such as this). However, once in a while he does come up with something worth reading, which may be more than can be said for yours truly.
Thanks to neil and bulldog for input. I just wanted to know what others have experienced. In all likelihood, my broker will eventually provide the same information and experience as it sounds like you two have had.
Bottom line - I guess we'll all be looking hard for a rebound effect in the data this coming Friday. I agree with Andre that there should be little slow down in refills because of / in a 4-day week, but agree with you and the dreaded school-ma'am, that there might well be a slowdown of NRx, due to offices simply not having appoinment space. As I said, no need to get emotional, we'll see this Friday. Those NRxs ain't gonna wait any longer than that.
yes, nqg, right on. So far my "proceeds at conversion" were accounted as precisely $30 per share! My cost basis (for old Q shares, NOT MNKs that I already had) happened to be 42. I had bought in the 20s and 30s in the old days., and continued in the 50s and 60s. They accounted for this as (30 - 42) so I am actually showing short- and long-term losses (they messed short-and-long up too, but leave well enough alone) in "realized gains" under QCOR.
But they still have not filled in the cost basis for the converted MNK shares. Will post again if and when they do...
Thanks, bulldog. Yes, I know I can request the broker change the cost basis. Sometimes they require evidence, sometimes not.
You spoke of QCOR sales price, and then equated that to cost basis, but that is surely not correct. Somewhere, the difference between the price paid for the original Q share, and the value obtained in MNK and cash, post-conversion "ought" to be accounted for, for income tax purposes.
However, to my utter delight, that absolutely did not happen, in what I have so far seen from my brokerage. If they would now just plug in $70.88 for the cost basis for my converted MNKs (ie. 897 M for each 1000 Q previously held) then my delight would be complete.
If you do not know what I mean, and would like to see a worked example, I can do that...
Thanks nqg! Don't want to cite my broker here. Their treatment of tax on the conversion was so bizarre (to my way of thinking), and startlingly favorable in relation to expectations (see eg. bulldog's numerous posts before the conversion), that I do not want to risk anyone bringing weight to bear on them.
Has your brokerage supplied a cost basis for shares converted from Q to M? Mine still has not, despite requests for clarification.
So far, the tax accounting for the conversion has been jaw-droppingly more favorable than expected/feared. Instead of booking a massive gain, there's actually a loss, because the cost basis of a Q share was compared only to the $30 cash received. Of course, if they NEVER supply any other cost basis for the converted MNK shares, the grin will be well and truly wiped off my face.
Poster l_yoni is correct. This is a RE-POST of a video first posted in early August. Sorry, I did not know that when posting the above..
My mouse hovered over the Remove link, but I decided to leave it, and add this instead. After all the post is not wrong as such, but there is the major, additional uncertainty of whether MB really has the actually released screen in hand.
[I am not casting any aspersion on MB in saying this. He may have really had the proper hardware in hand, or believed he did, but actually they released something else, etc.]
Well done, imapatientfellow, for this post, and for patiently following the logic through against less persuasive posters.
It occurs to me that your hypothesis would explain the strange phenomenon where people called 1-800-MY-APPLE and were assured that the screens were not sapphire, and did contain sapphire, depending on whom one spoke to.