I’ve been back to Toronto three times since I moved out to Belleville, each time for less than a day.

First time was with my parents because they had a bunch of appointments and I really wanted to go back to get some stuff.

Second time was this past Sat. for Irene’s wedding (which was awesome, btw!) Ran into an old high school friend at the Sheppard Centre. She knew I’d moved out to Belleville so she thought it was really weird to see me. It was of course, because I was only there for about 15 minutes to buy a paper while waiting to meet Kate and Wilson (get a blog, dude).

Second Random People Spotting was today, I decided to go into Toronto with my parents (more appointments for them) and when I got onto the subway at Sheppard Ave. there was another friend of mine on the car, right at the door where I was getting in. Weird eh? I see my friends so often when I don’t make plans to see them that I wonder why I have a phone.

Categories: Random People Spotting
1 Comment »

Sucked.

For one thing, Star Trek villains always stink. This guy’s motivation was stupid. Leonard Nimoy was in it, can’t figure out why.

Simon Pegg was awesome, but the rest of the movie sucked liked everything else Star Trek.

Ooooh, I can’t wait for the G.I. Joe movie to come out later this summer, that’s just going to be awesome, I bet.

Categories: Movies
3 Comments »

From the Motley Fool in 1999 (emphasis mine):

But not all deferred revenues are created equal. I recently came across a company for which I viewed deferred revenue as not being very meaningful. The company was X-ray device maker Hologic (Nasdaq: HOLX). In the Revenue Recognition section of the company’s financial statement footnotes, it said the following: “The Company has reserved for potential losses under these contracts by deferring revenue of an amount equal to 10% of the contracts funded.” While on the surface this seems to be conservative accounting, it’s certainly not deferred revenue that you can count on to make its way to the income statement in the future like you can with Microsoft or AOL.

From a Smart Money article in 2000 (just after the beginning of the .com shakeout) about AOL:

“The trend in backlog and deferred revenue reflects a shift to more established advertisers and is not a reflection of slowing ad/commerce momentum,” Kiggen said.

From a CNET News article in 2000:

These AOL sourpusses said the company’s ad/commerce backlog, which was flat at $3 billion, and deferred revenue, which fell, proved AOL was hurt by the dot-com implosion.

But that bearish case doesn’t hold up. For a reality check, I called William Blair analyst Abhishek Gami, who calls it straight and isn’t tangled up with the sheep crowd. Gami was surprised by the negativity from some analysts, who were obviously playing along with the market sentiment. “I’d almost call AOL a value play,” said Gami, who rates AOL a “strong buy.”

“I’d almost call AOL a value play,” said Gami, who rates AOL a “strong buy.”

In 2000.

Categories: Money
No Comments »