Jim Cramer... Here he is giving investment advice about Bear Stearns at $62/share. Six days later they were gobbled up in a fire sale for a whopping $2/share losing billions upon billions in investors money. That idiot is a Wall Street clown act whose whole purpose is to soften the blow to sheeple losing $100k from their 401k's while his real paymasters reap tens of billions with derivatives and default swaps.
Jim Cramer Sucks Up To Knightscope
Published Jan 19, 2017 17:44 PM
Credit must be given to Knightscope.
They are raising money right now and despite their $80 million pre-money valuation against a lowly sub $1 million 2016 revenue, having Jim Cramer endorse them is a great step to securing their desired $20 million investment.
**** ** *** *** ****** / Mad ***** / *********** *****:
*** ****** **** *** *********:
****** ***** ** ************** ***********'* "****** machine ** * ******* ******** *****." Later **** ***********'* *** **** **** robot ***** $* ** ****, ****** feigns ********, **********, "****'* ***?".
** ******, *********** ** ******* **** a **** *** *** $* ** hour ** ******* **********. ** ** a $**,*** ***** *** ***** *** year. **** **** ******** *** ******** guards ***** *** *********** ** ****** / ******* ***** ********. *********** ******** the $**,*** *** ****, ********** *** much ** ****** *** ***** ** needed. *** *** $* ****** ******* the ********** - ** **** *** required recharging *** ***********.
***********'* *** **** ******:
**** ***** ******** ***** ***** ***** powers
** ******, *** **** ******** ****** ** dealing **** ****** ******** ** ******** * 13 **** **** * ********* *** - *** ****** ***** *********** ****** do *** ****** ******* *****. ******, Knightscope *** ******** **** ***** ******* can:
**** *** ******* ****** * ******... that ****** *** **** *********, **** were ******* *** ***** *** **** came **** *** *** ******, *** day ******, ***** * ****** *** somebody ****
****** ******* **** ***********'* *** ***** these ** *****. *************, * ****** that ***** ** **** ** *** going ** **** ******** ***** ** 300 ******* ****** * ******. *** the ****** **** *********** / '******* the *****' ***** ** ******* *******. And **** ** ** *** *** science *******, **** ****** ***** ** done **** *** ***** **** ***** surveillance **************.
****, ****** ******** **** *********** ****** are "**** ** ******* ** ***** and ******* ************", ********** ******** *************** ** **** ****** *** - running **** * *****.
****** **** ********* ** *********:
"* **** ****** *** ***** ** watch **** *** *** '* **** to ****** ** ***********'"
*** ** ********** ******* ***. ****** has *********** ********** *** ***** *** ****** fools *** ***** **** **** **** to ****** ***** ** ****** ********** uncritical ******** ** ***********.
****** ********** ********* *** **** *** no *** *** *** ** ***** every ****. *** **** ********* * company's ****** *** ******* **** *** as ***** ** * **** *** to * **** * *** ** money. ****, ** ***** *** *** people *********, **** ** *** *** TV ************* ********* **** ******.
Comments (13)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Jan 19, 2017JH
John Honovich
Jan 19, 2017And there's Jon Stewart's famous response / criticism of Cramer on Bear:
Not as funny but more interesting to me is how, just in the past year, Cramer repeatedly turned Mad Money into a PR response mechanism for now disgraced Theranos, e.g.:
It is actually sad to see someone as smart as Cramer turn his platform into marketing vehicle for corporations.
Ross Vander Klok
Jan 19, 2017"see someone as smart as Cramer" Hasn't he gone bankrupt like four or five times? I think at least once was while he had his show?
Ari Erenthal
Jan 19, 2017Anybody good enough to keep their job as a financial wizard while going bankrupt multiple times must be pretty smart.
Ross Vander Klok
Jan 19, 2017UD
Undisclosed Distributor #4
Jan 19, 2017Every professional broker loses it all at some point, unless they're hedging. At least they all say that in their books...
JH
John Honovich
Jan 19, 2017Hasn't he gone bankrupt like four or five times?
Cramer might have bankrupted people taking his advice but for him personally, I see no records of him going bankrupt.
Further as for his smarts, he went to Harvard, Harvard Law School, worked as a research assistant to the famous attorney Alan Dershowitz, was a reporter covering Ted Bundy, worked at Goldman Sachs, etc. Anyone who can do that is easily capable of asking tough questions of a startup. He chooses not to.
EP
Eddie Perry
Jan 19, 2017Hahahahaha I luv this clown though if you want to make money just do the opposite of what he says
U
Undisclosed #2
Jan 20, 2017Article title is three words too long.
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #3
Jan 20, 2017TV is inundated with "ex-lawyers", "ex-traders", etc all authoritatively dispensing advise about fields they no longer practice. If they were any good they would be practicing their trade instead of talking on TV. People would have to be nuts to listen to any of them, they aren't accountable.
RL
Randy Lines
Jan 20, 201760K per year can place a great deal of fixed security infrastructure. The audio capabilities are very interesting for security ... looking forward to the privacy people's take on this and I expect it won't be favorable. It will be good in ambassador roles, wayfinding etc.. Bad for rapid response and vulnerable to being disabled (lay a 2 by 4 across the floor).
AI is the future however I am not seeing an ROI on this one just yet. Notwithstanding I am cheering for them and other AI security initiatives.
Joe Mirolli
Jan 25, 2017I want to know how it determines a repeat visitor as threat to someone scoping the place instead of an employee reporting for work everyday.....
JH
John Honovich
Jan 25, 2017I want to know how it determines a repeat visitor as threat to someone scoping the place instead of an employee reporting for work everyday.....
Don't ask perfectly reasonable questions like that ;)
Presumably, it has facial recognition and a database of every employee and excludes those matches to employees. Of course, even if that works, you might have a customer come on multiple days, or the mailman, etc.
Perhaps they will definitely an analytic that knows when someone is 'scoping' vs just coming by.
What's weird to me is that this is clearly something they don't have, so why lead with it?