Hello Wolff,
As I stated before, I have to admit that I look forward to your posts! I had a wonderful day today, and even got to come home to see the market rebounding well from the, IMHO, necessary correction.
I will admit that I am somewhat disappointed, as I had hoped that you would be addressing some of the points that I had raised - I was (and am!) really looking forward to your comparative analysis of simple storage products - the Sony Memory Stick vs. Sandisk CompactFlash vs. IBM Microdrive. I'd like to understand more on why you believe that Sony will prevail in this battle of standards.
But I digress ...
> Lemon, your continued driveling diatribe remains a warm
> compost of self-indulgent speeches to yourself.
I'm not so sure that this addresses any of the technical points that we were discussing, and obviously from the posts from readers here this is yet another *lie* that you have decided to share with us. Well ... I guess that it might fall into the category of "opinion" ... which you are welcome to.
> You manipulative rewriting of my words is a
> disappointment and discredit to you. May you perceive
> your words to be of wisdom, so that your bloated
> ego remains fooled.
I apologize if your words need such frequent rewriting ... I'm sure that with some basic schooling you would be able to write clearly on your own. Actually, if we look at the situation honestly, I have asked you to clarify your statements on several occasions ... yet you have decided that it was not worth the effort. Obviously this speaks volumes for the value of your contributions.
> I find you to be a dishonest commentator on technology
> with an abundance of obvious word traps and
> linguistic methods of deceit. What I post is clear, while
> your recanting of my text is often a manglement of what
> you know is to be true. I see no purpose to in attempting
> to redress you false representations. It is clear by you
> statement, of "having fun" the facts and realistic
> apprasials are not paramount to your efforts.
Ah, so back to making the assertions which are not supported by facts. I have to admit that I am surprised at how you flip and flop. You ask that all statements be backed by fact ... yet you fail to provide them yourself. I can see that this angers you tremendously ...
As for having fun ... yes. I am enjoying myself in my work, and in my life. I tend to be a pretty happy person, and I enjoy seeing the fruits of labor unveiled as new learning, technology, products and services. You, on the other hand, seem to be content in being angry and allowing some strange sense of reality fester in your head to be spewed forth as insults against people who question anything that you suggest. It's amazing that you can be so closed minded in this industry ... and that you can still doubt what is possible. It will be fun to see what you think of things five years from now ...
> I am unimpressed by you technical evaluations on XYBR and
> in general your ignorance of technology trends.
And so we are both content. I am not here to "impress" you or anyone else. I am simply here to tear at ideas - mine or anyone else's - to explore all of the potential avenues that might exist. And I am interested in pursuing these ideas far beyond the superficial levels of average newspapers and press releases. As for technology trends? I have to admit that you making such an accusation is quite amusing, and is just plain silly. As I have responded to your posts, where you recite only press releases and shallow thoughts, it seems that I have continuously had to educate you about the reality of the market space. It seems that it has been you who has demonstrated complete ignorance of some of the simplest innovations which are well known by industry participants.
We can circle around this for as long as you like ... I truly enjoy the learning experience ...
> You foolhardy statement on XYBR CORE patent are
> particularly choice, as you know a docking station is
> specifically omitted from what XYBR has patented.
Hmmm ... first, I'm not sure that I have commented on the Patent. Please ... feel free to quote me where I stated this ...
As for what I know and don't know, please do not continue your silly assumptions. How is it that I would know such a thing? I'm hoping that through our continuing technical discussions we *will* begin to have a much better idea of what we each know and don't know ... but you are far from that at this point. Please ... continue to underestimate ...
I will suggest that you have concocted a "Wolff docking station" in your own head, and put strict limitations and restrictions on it's design and capabilities, only to attempt to cater to your own arguments. I'm just glad that there are far smarter people than you and I who are looking at ways to *solve* problems ... not create them.
> As you are aware to make the CORE unique, XYBR had to
> write it such that the core will not function unless
> within an "Enclosure". If the module functions without an
> "enclosure" it is not covered by the Patent.
Ok ... so let's take a look at this in depth. We'll take your statement and walk through the progression and evolution ...
> A logical outgrowth of the docking station is not
> protected by the XYBR patent. Said another way: a CORE
> that functions without an Enclosure is not Patent
> protected, by my reading of the patent.
Now ... you have obviously made some huge assumptions here ... you have created in your mind a *single* solution for this particular problem space. And you have carefully crafted your solution ... well ... so that it is *not* a solution.
What you really should have stated, to be factual, was "Wolff's logical outgrowth of the docking station is not protected by the XYBR patent." But you decided not to say this. You instead have decided to make a statement which misleads the casual reader into thinking that *all possible* logical outgrowths lead in this same direction. But in reality ... only yours has such strict limitations.
Another, more intelligent direction, would be the case where the laptop vendors evolve the laptop to be an "enclosure" with a screen and keyboard, maybe floppy and CD-ROM, batteries and power control/charge controller. So now I slip my "core" into the "laptop enclosure" to have the equivalent of today's laptops.
Now if this is the case, then what happens to today's docking station? Well, instead of inserting the entire laptop into the "home docking station enclosure" I now remove the "core" from my "laptop enclosure" and insert it into the "home docking station enclosure" ... and I now have my "desktop" computer.
This becomes even more evident as a direction to go, since when laptops are used with most of today's docking stations, much of the laptop hardware (screen, keyboard, pointing device, etc.) is not even used.
So the key difference between our approaches to looking at this "problem" is that you are looking at it determined to "not solve" the problem ... you are looking to insert your alternative solution to all problems. (I believe this is what people are referring to when they talk about "having a hammer, and every problem looks like a nail." or "A solution looking for a problem.")
I, on the other hand, will examine the problem to look for a solution which is optimal for the parties involved. I've actually found that companies working to accomplish things in the industry, and which desire to be successful, tend to like people who can "think out of the box" and explore a wide range of solutions to problems which others find difficult.
I've noticed that you seem to spend your time with the intent to "destroy" possibilities while my focus is always to "create" possibilities ... I guess if you're happy doing that ...
> Again, I do not think you are a poster who has truth as
> an intrinsic element of their writings, nor do I think
> you intellectually honest, and I am generally unimpressed
> with you simplistic view of what future technologies may
> bring.
On several other occasions, I have expressed that I really don't care what you think of me. This is still the case. It's useless information that I have no need for. I guess that if I were some insecure individual who depends on others for confirmation of my value and existence, then maybe your words would have some impact. But I'm not ... and so they don't.
As for simplistic views, I hate to tell you but they often are the best solutions. Particularly in today's rapidly evolving world. I would suggest that you try reading a little bit about "Extreme Programming" and the learning that has gone on related to object oriented programming and techniques. In short, what has been found (and proven by companies like Microsoft, and now the Open Source movements!) is that quick and *simple* iterative programming will always tend to "beat" the grand and complex architectures. In fact, if you were to look at the battle of inter-networking architectures, if your beliefs were true, then we would be using OSI protocol stacks and be talking about FTAM ... but instead we are using the far "simpler" TCP/IP and FTP. What's really amusing is that the arguments that went on 10 years ago accused the "Internet" and TCP/IP folks of being "simplistic" ... sounds like I'm hearing history repeat itself. ;-)
Another thing is what I learned early in life ... and in engineering. KISS ... Keep It Simple Stupid! This is a mantra to live by ... not criticize ...
> Remember that the stock that you have been hyping has
> fallen consistently since March 2nd.
I'm sorry ... but again you seem to have to stretch to lying to try and make some feeble point. I would love to see the posts where I have ever "hyped" this stock. I have no problem at all discussing the technologies that I feel are inevitable, and looking for companies who fit into those spaces. But I have continued to repeat my position over and over ...
I am convinced of the future of wearable computers, and massively intelligent devices, capable of running full blown operating systems, being sold into the business and consumer markets. These computers will become a part of our identity, and we will "carry" them with us everywhere. They will have a variety of connectivity, including one or more wireless technologies.
I am convinced that Intel and AMD are not just going to roll over and play dead. They are both continuing to evolve their product lines and reduce the chip counts, power requirements, and size of full blown PCs. And several companies are now shipping products based on these chipsets.
In this particular space of wearable computers, I have not found any other publicly traded company to invest in. So for now ... I invest in XYBR. Due to their current position, IMHO, they will succeed or be bought for intellectual property and patents. And I am quite content with my holdings and my gain ... even at today's prices.
It's all kinda' standard business stuff ...
And as for the "fallen consistently" I will admit that the market got me thinking, and I was hesitant to double up again at ~$8. I cleared all my margin over a month ago, a good two weeks before the correction really took place. I did double up on some of my tech stocks a week ago ... and am going to watch for the next week or so to decide when I adjust my holdings. Oh ... and as a "long" on inevitable technologies that would be increasing positions on a variety of stocks ... I'm not selling any of my XYBR right now ...
> Enjoy yourself, and often.
Thanks! There's no other way to live! I hope that you can find a way to enjoy yourself also ...
Scott C. Lemon |
