You said a friend of your friend is investing in the company. I assume therefore that that is possible. If that is the case, your doubt is justified. Most investments don't work. When you try to hit home runs as in the case of entrepreneurial efforts, most go bust. 1 out of 20 private individual efforts to form a company go bust and lose all of the contribution capital whether from one or several persons. This is the nature of capitalism.
You have expressed some experience with this and what you have experienced is exactly what you should expect. I keep getting the impression that you expect something for nothing. This is the American tradition in the 20th century. I also get the impression these previous bad investments of yours have soured you not only to speculation, but also to the possibility that others might succeed. That's a problem.
You have made a lot of attacks against me. You haven't attacked SR's technology or business plan except to give your 6 points. I will address them one by one.
1. Why should the electronics journals necessarily know about what's happening here? There are many exciting discoveries happening that aren't covered. How can this be a valid criticism? It is good news when others don't know or are too prejudiced to accept what presumably should have been discovered at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Berkeley. It is all part of faith in authority. You sure don't know the history of invention.
2. If I say, "your claims are drivel", does that make my statement true? Oh, only if you say something is drivel, is it so. You apparently expect others to believe you are an authority. You also then have faith in your own authority. You sure don't know the history of blunders.
3. Incoherent. I didn't even understand, "There is hype, but then there is way over the top."
4. "The vaunted 'demo' is easily repeated using off the shelf
compression technology." I've heard some reports from Ciena engineers, a Sprint spokesperson, some commentators on this thread, say the same or similar things. Some of participants in this thread were actually at the demo. They don't criticize what was displayed, but they say something down the lines that it is possible to mimic something almost as impressive, but it would be too expensive to do so. Certainly way too expensive for a weakly supported start-up and technologically beyond what should be realistic by the alternative expensive technologies. As far as off the shelf is concerned you simply are wrong. It may not even be possible for Lucent's best WDM to pull off the equivalent at any cost. It is a greater speculation that they could than that SR's demo was a fraud. Further the best WDM system wouldn't accomplish the feat by compression. They would use multiple beams in multiple lasers, not one beam in one laser.
5. since the claims you are getting are third hand, it is getting pretty thin. Assuming it is correct, you say, "They 'offered' to 'let' him invest even though it was a violation of the law since he had a net worth of less than $1 million and income less than $200,000 a year. But they said he would still have to come up with the $50,000." The standard practice is to place minimum requirements on people making speculative investments. This has arisen because in the past greedy individuals lost a significant amount of their personal wealth and then went crying to the SEC that they had been deceived. The spineless weakness of greed driven people transcends human understanding and the public is always on the side of the poor suffering greed mongers. So the companies seeking capital have had to put up barriers to entry. If this person deceived the company by falsely filling out the required SEC forms, in what way has the company failed? Should they have hired a private detective to investigate? If this person decided not to invest, why do you consider this hearsay proof that the company is dishonest?
6. The creation of this thread happened 4 days after the NY demo. I learned about it through Reuters and it seemed interesting because I'm interested in advanced telecommunications technologies and over the last several years I've intensely studied DSL and cable modem in hope they would supply a means out of 28.8. When I first read the press release, I was impressed and started trying to find out more. I had a hard time finding the company's site. What they had previously there wasn't much and so I had to literally invent a lot of what I said in those early posts. I am a theoretical physicist. That's a mathematician who deals with the most abstruse and usually unphysical concepts. I haven't been in a physics lab for 30 years. What I know about Photonics is primitive as noted by the early thread commentators.
Together with what "rest"?
Photonics is not like Quantum Electrodynamics which is very well theoretically known and fits nature extremely well. I have also stated in various parts of this thread that Maxwell's field equations in their standard linear form are incompatible with the quantized energy field called the photon. Indeed, QED assumes the photon is a point, but real photons have spin, angular momentum, and energy, all of which necessitate a spatially extended entity. In QED we can't give the photon that and preserve the theory. To retain Maxwell we have to extend his field equations non-linearly, and so we get a 3 + 1 soliton-like entity which has a z directed helicity as a result.
Now, as for what fits...
7. I have answered this indirectly above, but you will find that the field of physics is vast. It is like the Tower of Babel. Most physicists do not understand what other physicists are talking about. I am unusual. There is no area of physics where I feel uncomfortable. If you ask any physicist about that accomplishment, they will tell you it is most impressive. That doesn't mean I am familiar with diverse areas like someone who is working in a particular area everyday. It just means that if they explain what they are doing, I can follow the discussion to whatever level of sophistication they would like to invoke. It doesn't take me long to come up to snuff in any field. Photonics is especially vague. It is like alchemy because the mechanics of it border on the mysterious and almost intractable concepts of quantum physics. The field advances mostly by doing, leastly by theoretics.
You claim to be a programmer. You have the same thing happening there. I know Basic, Fortran, C, C++, and Java. I know that most programmers never made the jump to C++, so most of the older guys can't do Java. You're a "senior programmer" so that means you must know C++ and Java. Right?
What I said was no one is paying me to take a sample product from SR and back engineering it, so how could they expect me to know how the thing works without blueprints? They would have to pay me a lot, because it would take a long time and some good equipment. What would I know then? I would know that it should work.
Another example of my presumed contradictions "is that the originator posted a "response" from the chief 'technologist' that within the italicized post contained statements that contradict the contention that it was a reposting of anything but marketing material." This sentence is incoherent. I have been able to decipher it though. It is a combination of language and metalanguage enjambed which means that the content of Gorman's comments allowed me to imply that Gorman's comments were false(advertising material). Told you I could follow just about anyone's crap or did I? |
