SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksFBN Associates: A Perfect Company


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (2105)4/8/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk
   of 2117
 
Shhh. You Press, or what? Made me spill it!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (2100)4/8/1999 11:00:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie
   of 2117
 
Bill,
As someone with the nom de plume of a character in a Frank Herbert book, I have to agree with you. The movie version of "Dune" sucked.

JXM

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Tom C who wrote (2092)4/8/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie
   of 2117
 
I guess, in a way I should take it as a compliment...At least he didn't say "and this bonehead bought into the farce from the beginning".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Josef Svejk who wrote (2091)4/8/1999 11:11:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie
   of 2117
 
At least my Mother was impressed with what I am doing with my spare time. My wife is not terribly impressed though.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (2109)4/8/1999 11:36:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk
   of 2117
 
Crossed lines on FunPhone. Yours? stummies.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Josef Svejk who wrote (2110)4/9/1999 12:15:00 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie
   of 2117
 
geocities.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (2111)5/2/1999 10:39:00 AM
From: zonkie
   of 2117
 
Good newsletter about computers----> langa.com
_____________
You can access "Browser tune" from the URL also, it was educational to a layman like me and I was able to fix a couple of things that wern't working correctly. This is not spam, I won't post it anywhere else and I have no connection with Fred Langa.
_____________
examples from the newsletter
_____________
A)
javascript:alert("Cookie is: " + document.cookie)

in your browser's address or location bar will make the browser cough up all the
information any site you're visiting has collected in a Cookie about you.

Then, reader Lloyd Folden wrote to tell us of a Registry patch he created that lets
you right-click on a page to see the cookies.

Many, many of you wrote in with yet another easy way to view Cookies. For example,
Dante.diTommaso@se.statprobe.com wrote to say:

...you can accomplish the main objective simply by creating a bookmark (for any
javascript capable browser?) which I'm calling 'Cookie Checker' where the Target URL
is simply: javascript:alert("Cookie is: " + document.cookie)

Whatever Web page I'm viewing, I can choose this bookmark from my list, and see a
report of all cookies set by the site.

So whether by typing, Registry hacking, or creating a bookmark, you now have three
ultra-easy ways to see exactly what information any site has collected about you in a
Cookie!
_____________
B)
Your Browser Can't Count!

Most software can auto-correct the rounding errors caused by the way computers do
math. For example, even the cheapest calculator can correctly tell you that:

14.28 x 9 = 128.52

Most math-enabled computer software likewise can correct rounding errors and give
you reliable results.

But surprisingly, even though browsers can perform client-side JavaScript math (and
may even be required to do so in intranet business and online shopping
applications), most browsers are pretty bad at it. For example, many browser
JavaScript implementations calculate the above not as 128.52 but rather as
128.51999999999998.

That might seem like a small thing until you start thinking about browser-based stock
transactions, banking, taxes, inventory and ordering....

If a JavaScript programmer correctly anticipates these kinds of errors, they can be
corrected with additional JavaScript code. Still, you may find it a little unsettling that
your expensive computer hardware and software relies on a programmer's alertness
and extra code to correct the kinds of rounding errors a $5 throwaway calculator can
handle on its own!

If you'd like to see how your browser handles rounding errors, type this in the
address bar:

javascript:alert(14.28 * 9)

and see if you get 128.52. (When you type in the above, note the colon between the
"javascript" and the "alert.")

As you might expect, BrowserTune2000 will automatically check for rounding errors
for you. To see a preliminary version of the "math error test page," click over to
browsertune.com .
___________
C)
langa.com Search Engines Stink
__________
D)
langa.com Better URL For Microsoft Updates

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: zonkie who wrote (2112)8/11/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: Graystone
   of 2117
 
Perfect News
or
The Patent Thrill

FBNA has reached another milestone

SEDONA--(BIDNESS WIRE)--July 20, 1999--FBNA (UTCBB:FBNA) announced today that the Company has established beyond a doubt, they have nothing to say. In addition, they have nothing to say about a deal with IBM or Microsoft.

This statement is made by someone who likes Safe Harbour and owns a pleasant cybercottage by the sea.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2085)10/16/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell
   of 2117
 
Re: Looking for snappy answers to stupid questions about scams

For example:

Q1. If this were a scam, why did the company just (fill in something the company did lately).
A. So, what you're saying is true scam companies just close their doors and turn themselves into the SEC?

Q2. Just because the CEO was convicted of (insert crime here), what makes you think he is definitely going to do it again?
A. If I told you the guy up ahead just got out of jail for attempted murder and has a loaded gun on him, would you play it safe an avoid him if that were possible?

Q3. Can anyone prove to me this is a scam?
A. Can you prove to me it will make any difference to you if I can?

Any others? Any better answers?

- Jeff


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2114)12/28/2000 3:23:07 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!
   of 2117
 
Anyone remember Westergaard?

interactive.wsj.com

December 28, 2000

SEC Sues Analyst John Westergaard,
Two Related Firms for Stock-Touting

By JOHN CONNOR
Dow Jones Newswires

WASHINGTON
-- The Securities and Exchange Commission sued
analyst John Westergaard and two companies he controls, alleging that
they touted stocks on the Internet and through news releases without
revealing they had been paid to publish that analysis.

The two corporate entities -- Westergaard.com Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Westergaard Broadcasting Network.com Inc. -- settled the
SEC's charges without admitting or denying wrongdoing, consenting to an
order that permanently enjoins them from violating federal securities laws.
Lawrence Ginsburg, the attorney representing WCI and WBN, said the
consent agreement speaks for itself. He declined to comment further.

Mr. Westergaard is fighting the charges, which include an allegation that he
violated antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. During the period
covered by the SEC's complaint, Mr. Westergaard was chairman,
publisher and editorial director of WCI, and chairman of WBN. He also
was WCI's majority stockholder.

Mr. Westergaard, who resides in New York City, called the SEC's case
against him "bizarre" and accused the agency of conducting a "three-year
vendetta" against him.

"This is a stock-touting case," said the SEC in its complaint, filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District, in Manhattan. The agency is
seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Westergaard to bar him from
further violations of federal securities laws, as well as unspecified civil
penalties.

The SEC's complaint alleged that the defendants charged small-cap
publicly traded companies as much as $48,000 to publish positive reports
about them that were disseminated through press releases, an Internet
radio show and an Internet Web site. The complaint alleges that Mr.
Westergaard misled prospective investors by falsely claiming his analysis
was "independent."

The SEC staff previously concluded an earlier investigation into the
sufficiency of Mr. Westergaard's disclosures of compensation received in
connection with stock recommendations without recommending an
enforcement action against him.

Write to John Connor at john.connor@dowjones.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10