Werner Speaks - 2005
Posted by Mark Nelson on 24th February 2010 | Permanent Link
Way back in 2005, Bob Werner of Euclid Discoveries gave an interview to Roger Wood. Through the magic of mp3 storage, that interview is still available on the web. Here are some of the great quotes from this interview:
Bob: EuclidVision is an object-based video compression technology built with mathematics and computer vision, which will deliver orders of magnitude, 4-15 times the performance of the world standard MPEG-4. That’s a lot but essentially what that could evolve into is you could turn your iPod into a DVD player. [...]
Roger: This seems like the right product at the right moment.
[...]
Roger: Bob what stage is this product in? I know you’ve probably done research and development, are you past that stage?
Bob: We’re past that stage. We’re ready for commercial deployment. Our exit strategy to our investors has always been when we are ready for commercial deployment the company will be sold privately. [...] We’re at the commercial deployment stage now, and we are privately seeking purchasers.
[...]
Bob: We raised money in seven different rounds. In each round, we succeeded in coming up with the technology we needed to get to the next round. [...] We went through seven phases to get to this point. Its stressful, but well worth it. The angels seem to like it.
[...]
Bob says that he and Richard were unable to get funding from west coast investors (too skeptical), and he is proud to say that he was able to get the majority of his money from investors close to home in Kentucky and Tennessee, investors who had never been offered this kind of deal before.
Bob talks a lot about how his management of his angel investors is done by constant communication, and how this keeps them happy with the relationship.
Not much public news since 2005, and of course, this leads to all sorts of speculation and rumor. If the company was up for sale almost five years ago, what happened? And how much more money had to be raised in the last five years? How much have the investors from those previous rounds lost to dilution?
Maybe a lot of questions, but if the angels are happy, as Bob claims, no worries for Euclid Discoveries.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Spot on Mark.
Spot on.
Let’s hear the ED backers defend this.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Very interesting.
59: in he seems to say you could put 1000 DVD’s on one DVD
2:20 in he says basically its done and ready to be sold
3:00 in he has a beautiful quote about technology saved is not worth a lot of money.
Listen to tape yourself. But I am wondering if they were done and technology saved is not worth a lot of money are they losing the value of this by not the selling it for all these years?
March 4th, 2010 at 5:55 am
Personally, I found amusing the part describing the technology as “built with mathematics and computer vision”… Seriously, someone who remotely knows anything about video compression would never describe a technology in such terms!
I suppose it’s a good thing Bob Werner found someone else to write his patents. They don’t make any more sense but, filled with unintelligible technobabble, at least the patents managed to get through the USPTO review.
ED supporters, you could find a competent programmer, preferably educated in video compression techniques, and have him review the patents… I think you may be surprised by what he has to tell you afterward.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:37 am
lMaloeran: They will not want to as it will burst their dream bubble of how rich they will become ‘real soon now’.
They have already been to told that statements made by Euclid’s representatives and website don’t make sense, they don’t listen.
They have been told there are no buyers at Euclid claimed valuation, they don’t listen.
They have pointed to resources to check out the facts of compression themselves, they don’t listen.
Greed is blinding them to the truth.
Pride is preventing preventing them from admitting to themselves that they made a mistake.
Blind hope to recover their money prevents them from making waves.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:58 am
Those so-called “facts of compression” may be claimed to represent a limited view of this field
March 7th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Then post your ideas to comp.compression if you know what you are talking about.
PS. To Mark Nelson, I will take *ZERO* offence to you deleting any of my off-topic posts. This after all is *YOUR* forum, and unlike Alan I am not scared to post elsewhere.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Answers:
I was a bit careless with recent posts…? Although not wthout just cause, one might say.
The situation is: if people in a forum challenge or criticise others, then natural justice requires a “right of reply”.
It was claimed that I could not (or would not) prove my claims. That is misleading.
First: my claims re “extreme data “compression”" are cautiously worded, hardly what a scamster would do. I say the ideas “apparently’ could allow dramatic effciency gains in computer or video data storage.
Secondly: my claims can be tested almost immediately by logical analysis by any appropriate party who signs a non-dsclosure agreement.
Thirdly; as my claims are in the form of theory, there is obviously the possibility of errors or oversights- but like any scientific theory, they can be tested by experiment and practical tests.
Obviously, one would not post details to comp.compression if (a) one refuses to read or agree to the presumably very long and unsignable “terms and conditions” they probably have; and (b) if one wishes to patent or sell license to utilise the technology ideas.
I post here because it is one of very few places on the internet that does not virtually insist people tell lies to participate (e.g. You-Tube effectively prohibits paticipation by aware honest people, by placing an incredibly long, badly drafted “terms and conditions” barrier with appalling demands like requiring people to agree to what they haven’t read (when they say they can change the terms at any time). I do have another place to post, I don’t really like posting here. Feel free to delete ALL my posts at any time (not some, all).
I guess I only post here nowadays because I apparently have what investors hoped for, and it seems silly my being so poor with such valuable knowledge, and maybe it is an outlet for exasparatuion at poor living conditions, plus to counter misleading assertions if/ when they are made.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Blah, blah, blah … all I see is excuses to avoid proving your claims. You made the claims, that means it is your duty to prove them, we have no duty to believe a word you say until then.
If you want to be free to post what you want then post to comp.compression or are you scared of having any lies pointed out?
March 7th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
stop teasing me please
March 8th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Mark please delete post 8. Earl makes a false accusation. I do not lie, I have apparently made a breakthrough (or several breakthroughs) in the field of data storage. Of course there may be error, it is not fully tested or computer practical tested.. I do not misrepresent the situation. Then please delete this post.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Wow, complains about censorship then demands it for others when you don’t like what is written! Your true colours are showing.
If you have a breakthru than prove it.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Mark, that was wrong what you did (deleting my reply).
How do you expect a reply to Earl’s “prove it” without adressing the issue of intellectual property value? If you do not want anything that suggest this discovery I apparently made is on the market, then please delete Earl’s post 11.
If you will not allow right of reply, please delete ALL MY POSTS.
I will repost after this.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:47 am
As I have said many times, Alan, when your post contains solicitations for sponsorship or licensing, I will delete them. These are considered spam.
- Mark
March 10th, 2010 at 9:03 am
You have shown nothing, in-fact you yourself have stated that you have not written/nor tested a working program. The burden of proof is not on me, it on you, the person making the claims.
No working example means you have proved nothing, but you are still asking people for money without any proof.
To me that mean you are a scammer.
You have been posting your claims for over a year, in that time it should have been easy to write a simple prototype.
NO-ONE, I repeat NO-ONE is required to do anything for you to support your own claims, that all rests on your shoulder - no-one else. In all the time you has been posting you could have download free programming lessons and compilers and written your so-called-compressor by now. Instead you keep spending your time begging for money and making excuses that fall apart when examined.
In every way you are doing the same scam as NetZero and Euclid by asking for money while making all sorts of lame excuses why you can’t demo your compression.
It is not defamation if it is the truth, and the truth is that after all this time you can’t show any working program to back up your claims - thus you are a scammer. Sorry if the truth hurts, but the truth is the truth, sucks to be you.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Mark, the nature of Earl’s posts makes ity difficult to avoid the appearance of breaking your rule. If it is not possible to defend myself without breaking your rule, please delete the false accusations made by Earl.
I wil try and edit my post to satisfy your rule:
Earl, you keep repeating an argument that I have already answered.
I will post the next bit separately to help identify what is a problem to Mark.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
If, for example, my method allowed 500 CDs to be stored in a part of one CD, it is the sort of thing that is too valuable (given my circumstances) to give away. If you want proof, you will have to face the reality that people do not give away or publish things that they may wish to patent.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
People who want to invest in new ideas do not necessarily have to spend anything till they have evaluated the apparent discovery for themselves.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I am not demanding censorship, I am asking for a level playing field. That involves allowing posts to be counter-argued.
Also people should not act in a way that could lead to defamation actions.
I could tell you in one sentence or two, the guts of this breakthrough, but it is too valuable to give away like this, given my present situation.
I can say it is a phenomenal (apparent) discovery, that will revoltionise a great deal in science generally, I suspect. It is like a law of Nature that has been uncovered
March 10th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Quiting: “Earl Colby Pottinger Says:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:03 am
You have shown nothing, in-fact you yourself have stated that you have not written/nor tested a working program. The burden of proof is not on me, it on you, the person making the claims.”
I only claimed an APPARENT discovery. It is easy as pie; to prove that I made an apparent discovery.
You claim I was committing a deliberate falsehood. How can you prove that? You cannot. It is you who say it.
Quote:
“No working example means you have proved nothing, but you are still asking people for money without any proof.”
That is not correct. Also, Mark’s rules prohibit me implying any money is sought. Am I allowed to say that my apparent discovery is “on the market”, but that no-one is expected to get financially involved without evaluating it (via NDA) for themselves? If I cannot say that, how Mark do you expect me to reply to Earl?
Quote:
“To me that mean you are a scammer.”
Your premise on which your belief is based, is as I have shown, wrong.
***********************************************************************
Quote:
“You have been posting your claims for over a year, in that time it should have been easy to write a simple prototype.”
I wrote a kind of simple prototype- I looked at whether the idea would work for zeroes and ones. That should provide a ready link to the technical computer world. I have a lot of other things to do. I am not a career computer-programmer.
Quote:
“NO-ONE, I repeat NO-ONE is required to do anything for you to support your own claims, that all rests on your shoulder - no-one else. In all the time you has been posting you could have download free programming lessons and compilers and written your so-called-compressor by now. Instead you keep spending your time begging for money and making excuses that fall apart when examined.”
I came to this place after reading about “Near-Zero” in the newspaper, and wondering how such a technology may work. (A Google search led here later.) When I analysed the issue, I discovered what appeared to be a solution. I have analysed similar problems before. I also found would could be evidence that both Near-Zero and Euclid discoveries may have been on to something real. My attitude was to not be prejudiced.
I had other things to do. I am not exactly begging for money, I just mentioned that my living conditions are such that if there are people who want this type of technology, and if I have it, it is logical to come to some mutually rewarding deal. If Mark doesn’t want me to say that, then Mark, please tell me in your own words how you think I can answer Earl on that issue?
Quote:
“In every way you are doing the same scam as NetZero and Euclid by asking for money while making all sorts of lame excuses why you can’t demo your compression.”
As I said, WRONG.
The demo of my APPARENT discovery is but an NDA away to an appropriate interested party.
You know that potentially patentable technology cannot be published if it is going to qualify for patent protection.
Quote:
“It is not defamation if it is the truth, and the truth is that after all this time you can’t show any working program to back up your claims - thus you are a scammer.”
I do not have to “show a so-called “working programme”, or prevent patentability by publishing detail here, to prove that I have made an apparent discovery.
As an apparent discovery allows for the possibility of having made a mistake, my word is probably enough.
To prove to a court that such “apparent discovery” exists is child’s play, but I am not interested in court action unless I suppose you want to drag yourself there, as-it-were. Perhaps i can save you.
…
If someone who claims to have made an apparent breakthrough in data-storage efficiency, does not have a “working programme”, that does NOT prove they are a scammer. It may prove nothing more than that they have only worked out a logical procedure, that exists as a theory.
Quote:
“Sorry if the truth hurts, but the truth is the truth, …”
If you are a fan of truth, then this debate is pointless, as I am very keen on truth.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Note: “the demo of my apparent discovery” refers to written explanation, i.e. it is not a formally presented computer programme “demo”, it does not have to be to describe what is purely at the level of a theory within the realm of logic.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
If an investor wanted a formally presented computer programmer “demo”, presumably they would not invest, or they would change their requirement.
March 10th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Gez Alan. If you don’t know how to code, go through a C language crash course and get started on coding a demo.
Chances are that you’ll learn a few things about information theory on the way and discover the flaws in your logic. Until then, please trust a bit the real programmers on that one : you can not compress true random data. This has been mathematically proven, and there is no flaw in the mathematical proofs.
March 10th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Maloeran, with respect,
(a) I know a mathematician who agrees with me that “there is no such thing as randomness”
(b) if data was “random” in-so-far as it was “not organised in any way that you care about”, it is by definition nothing to bother with in the first place…
Re: “information theory”, sure, it looks interesting, but remember, my area is physics (my version), which is “all about information”!
“true random data” is “neither here nor there”, there is NOTHING to “compress”
Another thing- I didn’t get your argument about n-1 combinations and so-forth, how does that add up?
Also, we probably cannot discuss what you call “true random data”, it gets too revealing about something people probably don’t notice.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
It still remains your claim. Your burden of proof!
You need to program it, not us, not some outsider based on your empty promises.
It comes down to you doing it yourself, or hiring someone to do it. But without a working demo all your words are meaningless, anyone can post claims.
You had over a year (2?) to learn, but you are still posting the same noise in the same manner as every other compression scammer has done in the past.
I see no difference between you and past scammers because you act and talk like them. That is your problem to change, not mine.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Quote:
“It still remains your claim. Your burden of proof!”
I do not have to prove anything. If someone questions whether I have made an apparent discovery , which i claimed, that is a piece of cake to prove. I already said that.
Quote:
“You need to program it, not us, not some outsider based on your empty promises.”
I do not “need to program it” necessarily. I could offer it for sale as is.
Quote:
“It comes down to you doing it yourself, or hiring someone to do it. But without a working demo all your words are meaningless, anyone can post claims.”
Anyone can post claims, and why not?
So long as they are honest about it. I am honest.
Quote:
“You had over a year (2?) to learn, but you are still posting the same noise in the same manner as every other compression scammer has done in the past.”
No, not true. I am nothing like your so-called scammers. If they had followed my procedure, there would be no grounds for anyone to complain. It appears people invested in them without evaluating adequately the technology, without knowing exactly how it worked. At present, NDA-based transparency is my approach though there may be other acceptable business models.
Quote:
“I see no difference between you and past scammers because you act and talk like them. That is your problem to change, not mine.”
That is your doing.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:23 am
Goodbye everybody (should this request be activated)
I am requesting removal (unfortunately) of all my posts, I do not wish to be involved here with the sort of abuse that is allowed to occur here.
March 11th, 2010 at 6:58 am
Alan, why don’t you learn how to code? Or if you prefer, just get a programmer to implement your “on-paper” algorithm.
Honestly, I really think that would be a more productive use of your time. These online discussions are getting nowhere, and you’ll never find any “funding” that way either. You need a preliminary demo as a proof that it works.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Saving all posts, note the this is another standard scammer move, when they can’t get any money instead admitting to having nothing or proving that they are not a scammer by showing working code they run instead.
PS. Mark if I could I would do it myself I would not ask you, but if you delete Alan’s post please delete my replies to him at the same time.
But just in-case I hope you keep a copy of all his posts to protect yourself legally. I know I will. :)
People like him will try to claim they never made certain posts in the past if they think they are erased.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:01 am
As my posts have not (yet) been deleted (my reason for requesting this was to remove myself as a victim of the attacks that have occured here), I will reply:
Quote:
“Maloeran Says:
March 11th, 2010 at 6:58 am
Alan, why don’t you learn how to code? Or if you prefer, just get a programmer to implement your “on-paper” algorithm.”
The reason is: I am trying to sell license to use this apparent discovery “as is”. If, one signing an NDA, a trustworthy person decides they like the method, they I asume will write the “programme” so-to-speak. I am trying to sell it “as is” due to very bad living conditions, which take up much time.
Quote:
“Honestly, I really think that would be a more productive use of your time. These online discussions are getting nowhere, and you’ll never find any “funding” that way either. You need a preliminary demo as a proof that it works.”[
The proof, if it is an adequate proof, already may exist in the numerous descriptions of the idea I have from a variety of perpectives. However, I may dream up a demo- but I don’t know if “Apple Basic” exists these days? Seemed like it was an easy language to use.
I’d rather hand it to a company to apply their expertise, via a negotiated business arrangement (if on signing an NDA they want to work with it).
March 17th, 2010 at 8:05 am
So you can’t even keep a simple promise to just leave. Is the anything you say that can be trusted? So far I have seen nothing.
March 17th, 2010 at 8:06 am
So you can’t even keep a simple promise to just leave. Is there anything you say that can be trusted? So far I have seen nothing.
March 17th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Plase stop this behaviour.
Mark, this is wrong and you know it!
Earl, are you “trolling”? Or is, allegedly, abusing people your idea of fun? Please cease and desist.
I wrote:
“As my posts have not (yet) been deleted”;
until my posts (and abusive references to me) have been deleted, I indicated I may return here. Also I am free to return if I chose to.
If my posts are deleted, it will be easier to stay away.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:26 am
1) No-one is forcing you to post here, that is your choice only. Stop trying to blame others for your own actions/statements.
2) The two quotes are from you. The two quotes can not be true at the same time. Thus you lied when you posted one of them. Again that was your choice.
3) You are still making excuses for not testing your compression idea, you sure post a lot of someone who does not have the time to learn programming and thus testing of your compression idea yourself.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Earl,
note:
you have, and are continuing to make, evil accusations. Please STOP.
Quite:
“1) No-one is forcing you to post here, that is your choice only. Stop trying to blame others for your own actions/statements.”
It is necessary for me to post here, to refute your false charges. Also, you accused me of scamming, which is a criminal offense. You made these accusations on this, a publicly accessible forum.
I am not blaming others for my actions. i am alerting you to your responsibility for your actions.
Quote:
“2) The two quotes are from you. The two quotes can not be true at the same time. Thus you lied when you posted one of them. Again that was your choice.”
You have completely failed to prove that in any way your accusation of lying can be sustained. If I was taught what you call “floating pioint maths”, I had forgotten this when I mentioned having done some simple fortran programmes. At the time of my comment, I was not knowing what “floating point maths ” was. Yesterday I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found it quite puzzling. It took a while to try and make sense of it.
THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN MY STATEMENTS re: “floating point maths” and having written some simple fortran programs. Your accusations are without proof, and are false and are evil.
Quote:
“3) You are still making excuses for not testing your compression idea, you sure post a lot of someone who does not have the time to learn programming and thus testing of your compression idea yourself.”
You are still repeating tired arguments that I have shown to be wrong. How I spend my time is my business, I do not have to live how you would. I already told you, I choose at this stage to sell the potential technology as is, I have every right to do so. There is nothing wrong with that. Any would-be buyer would obviously not pay anything without ascertaining it was worth buying a license to user this idea, it is up to them to test it and involve expertise as needed via appropriate NDA negotiations .
I repeat:
you have made criminal accusations against me, in a public place. If the police investigated you accusations, they could decide to lay criminal charges against you, for making false accusations- you do not seem to realise this is not a minor thing you are doing. I have showed you, and Maloeran has tried to wake you up to, the possibility that you are in error.
You need to understand how innocent people react to allegations such as you have been making.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
It is not necessary, that is still your choice. Stop trying to blame others for your own actions/statements.
You can claim you are not lying but anyone who knows Fortran programming is never going to believe you, it still comes across as you having lied. Again that was your choice.
How you spend your time is your choice, when you make the claims you have however we can tell how you must spend your time to make us believe your claims. If you refuse to spend your time following said suggestions then we have no reason to believe anything in your claims.
Tired != Wrong. The tired arguments are still valid ones because you still refuse to answer them in a matter that shows you are being honest. Again that is your choice.
It has always been your choice, nothing written here forces you that you MUST post here, stop posting about your claims, and others will stop pointing out your requests for money, errors, false claims and lack of proof. But it still is your choice.
And telling the truth and posting facts that are your own statements is not a criminal action, talk to a lawyer or the police if you wish, but you better show them *ALL* your posts first. I don’t think you will like what they will have to say afterwards. :)
PS. I want innocent people to read what I say so they can’t be scammed by you. I want they to ask you the same questions I ask before they hand over any money. The fact that you don’t like me doing so is again your choice.
March 20th, 2010 at 4:42 am
Mr. Pottinger,
please stop making false accusations against me.
I have suffered so heavily from your actions I have little realistic course of action left other than to report this alleged crime.
How would you like it if someone repeatedly made false representations about you, if they repeatedly falsly accused you of ‘”scamming” and “lying” and so-forth?
March 20th, 2010 at 4:49 am
Mr. Pottinger,
you8 write: “It is not necessary, that is still your choice. Stop trying to blame others for your own actions/statements.” This is wrong. I am posting here to defend myself. Your allegedly abusive behaviour is your own.
__________
__________
Quote:
“You can claim you are not lying but anyone who knows Fortran programming is never going to believe you, it still comes across as you having lied. Again that was your choice.”
Please stop making false claims. You have given no evidence. If I ever heard of “floating point maths”, I had forgotten, but still recalled that long ago I had written some simple fortran programmes. You have given no evidence to show how this could in any way not occur. It DID occur. I am truthful.
March 20th, 2010 at 5:10 am
Mr. Pottinger,
Quote:
“How you spend your time is your choice, when you make the claims you have however we can tell how you must spend your time to make us believe your claims.”
You do not have to believe any claims made by anyone.
I am not interested in “making” anyone believe my claims. I am interested in alerting people to possibilities that may exist but that they may have been inclined to easily throw away, but, am constrained by potential commercial issues from giving details. If someone wants to fully investigate the claims of an inventor they usually need to sign an NDA.
Given these constraints, Mark has a point of view re: how far can conversation go- but it has been useful to me to read about the theoretical arguments people make against the claim that extreme data storage is supposedly limited in various ways (such as “Shannon limit” , “counting argument”, etc.).
Quote:
“If you refuse to spend your time following said suggestions then we have no reason to believe anything in your claims.”
This is your view. others may not agree. Maloeeran came up with a reason why he could believe my claims, his view though was that I may be genuine but in error. I don’t tend to think I am in error, regarding at least, the basic idea.
Quote:
“Tired != Wrong. The tired arguments are still valid ones because you still refuse to answer them in a matter that shows you are being honest. Again that is your choice.”
Please stop making false accusations. You failed to answer or disprove my replies. I did not fail to honestly answer your comments.
Quote:
“It has always been your choice, nothing written here forces you that you MUST post here, stop posting about your claims, and others will stop pointing out your requests for money, errors, false claims and lack of proof. But it still is your choice.”
If someone came to this forum and made serious, false, criminal accusations against you; you would be put in a situation of having to defend yourself or go to the police. Please stop repeatedly making false accusations. I did not “ask for money”. Do you now admit that when you said that I asked “for money up front”, that this is wrong?
All I did was report my poor living situation, and also offered a commission (which Mark deleted).
March 20th, 2010 at 5:24 am
Ear Colby Pottinger:
“And telling the truth and posting facts that are your own statements is not a criminal action, talk to a lawyer or the police if you wish, but you better show them *ALL* your posts first. I don’t think you will like what they will have to say afterwards. :)”
Mr. Pottinger:
you have made false claims about me. You have made harming, cruel, and psychologically brutal false claims on this blog. Please stop.
I have already talked to a former top lawyer, retired judge who I know. However, my preferred course of action is to lay criminal charges through the police.
I am astonished that you are forcing me to do this to defend myself. Please stop.
Please stop. Pleae stop doing this to me.
I have NO problem, in this context, with all the evidence being presented.
I do not wish to remain your victim.
Because of what you are doing to me, I wish all my posts be removed from this place, and all your allegedly criminal abusive behaviour towards me type-posts to be also removed.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:00 am
Mr. Earl C. Pottinger,
Quote:
“PS. I want innocent people to read what I say so they can’t be scammed by you. ”
Please withdraw your false accusation. I am not a “scammer”. You have made a harmful, cruel, and false criminal accusation against me. Please stop.
Quote:
“I want they to ask you the same questions I ask before they hand over any money. ”
It is indeed right and proper, and a honourable thing for you to do as a (I presume) knowlegable person in the computer programming industry, to be concerned that persons who spend money on buying claimed “more efficient data storage” technology, do so with adequate knowledge of what they are dealing with (although it is their choice what expertise they involve).
They should be aware of all main risks in what they are doing.
The issues here are:
(1) beware of confidence-tricksters
(2) get opinions from people knowledgeable about the subject
(3) experts can be wrong or have missed something that is too different from what they are used to. In such case it is for the buyer/investor to decide about whether to find an expert to participate in full disclosure, then ultimately the buyer decides on all the evidence in front of them.
Quote:
“The fact that you don’t like me doing so is again your choice”
This is not correct. I applaud any person who is knowledgeable about computers, if there exist people who deliberately dupe others about computer-technology, to be concerned that “ignorant would-be investors, etc.” be alerted to the dangers of such deceptive practices.
Also, if there exist INNOCENT inventors, who may truly believe that they have discovered something valuable, it is right and reasonable for people knowledgable about the computer world, should there be a risk of both inventor and potential buyer failing to see some error, to be concerned that any such error be able to be uncovered.
I have nothing against this; though one should note that the final risks are up to those involved. It remains that no one should deliberately deceive another. And if there is a high risk of an innocent mutual error, the public should be alerted of the possibility by experts if they believe this to be the case. It is then for people to reach whatever result they reach, on considering the evidence they have. I , in my case, have no wish to lead anyone astray, into any error, re: “data compression” type or related potential value technology.
This blog has the potential to educate the public about the risks that people in the computer world believe to be around re: possible new data technology. That is right and proper.
I do not wish to be subjected to false accusations here.