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.

Technology Stocks : Identix (IDNX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biometrizilla who wrote (9870)	8/10/1998 8:36:00 PM
From: David	Respond to of 26039

We are all so honored to have you visit us here.

To: Biometrizilla who wrote (9870)	8/10/1998 10:21:00 PM
From: David	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 26039

That previous post was short and snippy. Sorry, I just had a moment and then had to run. Let me try again; I will be longer this time. Your post was truthful enough to sting and deceitful enough to be unreliable. In fact, you have the same style as ndTOTO2, a DBII sniper who inhabits the Yahoo threads. Anyone who purports to know more than other posters on this thread is not asking innocent questions, but trying to spring traps. For what purpose? Either ego problems, or hidden motives, or both. On to your comments. . . . Any of the cheap sensors has to have a function interpreting its "view" of the fingerprint. So in that sense there has to be an algorithm. But it doesn't have to be more than primitive, given the uses to which it is presently being put. And a discussion of a "silicon sensor" versus a "silicon camera" is a good example of finding a truly ridiculous and beside the point distinction to try to make yourself look good. These components are very cheap and far from a major biometric system . . . that's the point. No one has said that the Compaq system can't be adapted as a biometric lock for a local network. It does save the administrator from having extra password assistance expense, as I've already posted. Big deal. That is still low value. And it will take more than $99 per machine. . . . Which brings us to another point that is mysteriously missing from a poster as technically oriented as you want to appear to be: How much power are you going to need in your desktop computer, and extra space, to run this accessory? How much for a frame grabber or whatever additional hardware is needed? How much is the total cost per machine? The IDX accessories, definitely more expensive, are essentially self-contained and do their work without putting external demands on the accompanying computer. Identicator and IDX perform the same function in about the way that an adding machine and a computer perform the same function. I mean, really, they are both electronic devices that compute. Given your belief that lockout devices are not "low level," I guess that you would have us believe the two companies are presenting equivalent products for really different prices. They are not. As for corporate strategies, we can disagree over whether a high-end application that meets extensive demands will result in lower-cost applications through economies of scale and technical advancements before a low-tech commodity supplier can become state of the art. As I've said a number of times on this thread, I am not an engineer, and don't claim to be employed in the biometrics industry. My reasoning, and usually my sources, are posted here. My interest is in figuring out what is going on in front of us, including figuring out the occasional, anonymous* poster who emerges from hiding only long enough to fire on those of us in the open. In the end, though, I only have one question for you: Who are you, and who are you pretending to be? David * Just like a Yahoo poster, you have provided no e-mail identifier.