Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : International Automated Systems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wynn who wrote (1296)	7/24/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: Ronald Leland Daniels	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7618

I'll take a stab at that one- Paul has been asked these very same questions in the past. Let's see if I can guess his response: "I'm trying to protect others from greedy people like Neldon. I don't like the industry I work in to be soiled by the likes of IAS. Blah, blah, blah." If you take a look at Paul's postings at SI on other threads, you'll see that he spends a great deal of time decreeing whether or not various companies are worthy of his approval. Honestly, it is hard to see what motivates a person to do these kinds of things. He does it under the guise of taking a proactive stance against fraudulent companies. Sounds noble enough... well, maybe not. To all you who have been persuaded by Paul's unchallenged postings on this thread, just remember that there is a whole different side to the IAS story. You should do your own homework, and maybe even take the time to visit IAS. There are plenty of reputable and qualified people on the other side of the fence. Check it out yourself. Regards, >>Ron P.S. Nice to meet you Wynn.

To: Wynn who wrote (1296)	7/25/1998 3:38:00 PM
From: paulmcg0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7618

I guess I need to clarify some things: * I find it amusing that I get blamed for causing the stock price to collapse. If you look at my profile, I joined -SI- some time after the demo that didn't happen. Actually, this was after I had contacted the SEC, and sent them various information, such as an engineering analysis of the DWM claims, and the ads that IAS ran hyping the stock. I also provided them information from Prophet Information showing that the stock price of IAS had climbed from 1/8 (12 1/2 cents a share) to 57 dollars a share before it collapsed. * As far as I know, the SEC investigation is still ongoing. Then again, some of the SEC district offices seem to work quite slowly. Based on cases I've looked at on the SEC Web site (http://www.sec.gov/), it may take the SEC Salt Lake District office another year before they do anything. * The reason that I never signed a non-disclosure agreement to look at DWM is that verifiable science is not conducted in secrecy. I have sophisticated labs at my disposal, and I could accurately check both the raw bits per second of any DWM device, but more importantly, the bit error rate. In modern communications protocols data is packetized. For example a packet in a communications protocol might have 2 bytes of flags, 5 bytes of protocol overhead, 1024 bytes of data, and 2 bytes that form a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Checksum) for a total of 1033 bytes or 1033*8 = 8264 bits. The CRC is a mathematical algorithm that can detect errors. If just one of those 8264 bits is in error, the entire packet will be discarded and have to be retransmitted, adversely affecting the true data throughput. I would also use incompressible data, i.e., ZIP or JPEG files, to guard against the possibility that a device was basing its throughput claims on data compression, instead of real throughput. Bottom line: the scientific method says that people should be able to do their own tests and verify other people's claims. Since there is no commercially available DWM product, any claim for DWM's performance is purely speculative on the part of IAS. As IAS themselves used to say, "you'll believe it when you see it", but I've never seen it nor have I been able to buy it to test it. Paul M.