truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
|  reply to truth1
Re: A prediction that will come true...
TRUTH: Misscleo stated "Their last claim said 128 bits became 10." I can't find that quote.
Your "quote" of "128 bits down to 100 bits" seems to be the same one I've seen, BUT IS NOT WHAT MISSCLEO STATED.
Misscleo also appears to link herself(?) to the US Patent Office ("anonymous from domain uspto.gov"). That link has the potential to infer she(?) has information that you and I don't have.
Anyway, if you know anything about the issues then you know that the 128 down to 100 on a "random" file is (supposed to be) impossible. Most of the press reaction is that the claim is outright fraud.
ZeoSync has never demonstrated anything publicly (that I can find). On the other hand, ECEC has demonstrated technology. ECEC has submitted technology to independent testing. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE PUBLISHED CLAIMS OTHER THAN THE WORD COMPRESSION.
ECEC has a product and is trying to come to market with it. You go into ECEC and you can buy a copy. If you go into ZeoSync, all you will get is promises of things to come in the next two years (I never tried it but, it's a reasonable bet).
Linking the two is fraud and harming my investment.
truth_too |
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| said by truth_too:
ZeoSync has never demonstrated anything publicly...If you go into ZeoSync, all you will get is promises...I never tried it...it's a reasonable bet
I'm having trouble, based on your statement, figuring how you get to the reasonable part of that. In reality, ZeoSync is asking the public to take those promises on faith and on the good character of the individuals they have offered on there website as experts in this field. The outsided scientific team seems to have abandoned any association with ZeoSync, in fact, Zeosync's presumption of their association might be fraud. All that then remains is the management team of ZeoSync. But at least one of those "experts in telecommunications", Hamby Hutcheson, cannot even stand up to the simplest scrutiny: a background check that any outside investor would presume had been made by ZeoSync before publicly offering the person to bolster its claims.
You should reconsider your "investment".
-truth |
|
truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| TRUTH: What part of my statement are you unable to comprehend ("I'm having trouble, based on your statement, figuring how you get to the reasonable part of that.")
All I said was it is a "reasonable bet" that all you will get is promises if you go into ZeoSync --- whereas ECEC has a product they can hand you.
You are starting to sound like another alias hereabouts. You hiding under multiple names?
truth_too |
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21 | Sorry, it sounded like you were saying ZeoSync is a reasonable bet. But I stand corrected, that is, it is not your intention. Agreed, ZeoSync is not a reasonable bet. |
|
truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| TRUTH: Got it! Any idea where the 100 to 10 claim was published?
I think she(?) misquoted (IMO). However, if it was a true quote it further illustrates the difference in the form of compression being developed by ECEC and ZeoSync.
Anyway, you and others a probably going to be right in at least one area ... it (ECEC) is looking more and more like a bad move for my wallet.
truth_too |
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Well, the references are numerous, so I am suprised that you pretend to be so naive about it. Just use Google and the word "ZeoSync".
Are you trying to back away from the claims or is this just the beginning of a disinformation campaign by ZeoSync now that so many have debunked and rejected the claims?
from ZeoSyncs own press page:
»www.zeosync.com/flash/pressrelease.htm
quote:
"What we've developed is a new plateau in communications theory," said company founder and CEO Peter St. George in a statement. "...There are potentially fantastic ramifications of this new approach in both communications and storage." ...
Current technologies that enable the compression of data for transmission and storage are generally limited to compression ratios of ten-to-one. ZeoSync's Zero Space Tuner™ and BinaryAccelerator™ solutions, once fully developed, will offer compression ratios that are anticipated to approach the hundreds-to-one range.
Typical of interview quotes from St. George which are consistent with above ratios:
by Tim McDonald from an interview with Peter St. George.
»www.wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/···ry-start
quote:
Ten-Fold Increases
ZeoSync said that its discovery challenges the classic treatise on information theory, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication," published in 1948 and written by Dr. Claude Shannon. The gist of the theory is that information is limited by the capacity of the data channel over which it flows.
Using a technology it calls Zero Space Tuner combined with a Binary Accelerator, ZeoSync officials said they can reduce data that has already been reduced. Once fully developed, it will offer compression rates that approach hundreds-to-one ratios, the company said, compared to current technologies that are limited to ratios of 10 to one.
|
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| reply to truth_too
said by truth_too:
Misscleo also appears to link herself(?) to the US Patent Office ("anonymous from domain uspto.gov"). That link has the potential to infer she(?) has information that you and I don't have.
One piece of information that Misscleo (uspto.gov) probably has, that You and I can have simply by searching the U.S. Patent database at »www.uspto.gov, is that Borko Furht doesn't seem to hold any patents as he claims on his resume (»www.cse.fau.edu/~borko/resume.html), at least not any US Patents since 1976. From Borko's page:
quote:
He has published numerous scientific and technical papers, books, and holds several patents...
Perhaps you could persuade him to drop by here and clarify that. I see only references to some of his publications in the citations of other person's patents.
- truth |
|
truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| reply to truth1
TRUTH: "Pretend to be naive"? Just because I asked the source of a quote from MISSCLEO? Give me a break! Just answer the question or get off your soap box!
Actually, we know you can't so it is probably best if be dropped because it doesn't exist.
truth_too
[text was edited by author 2002-02-28 07:59:02] |
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Yes, it is hard to get off the soap box because for ZeoSyncs claims to be true, they will not only have invalidated Shannon's theory but the foundations of modern mathmatics as we know it. That's a pretty big claim. Any college sophmore in CS is taught how to proceed with a proof and when to admit that it is time to explore the contradiction. St. George seems to have ignored that and proceeded with increasingly elaborate claims, while his own technical process page says
quote:
at which point our multi-dimensional circumvention of the pigeonhole principle breaks down.
QED
I think St. George will have to admit that point is no better, and probably worse, than Shannon's limit.
When is the big demo?  |
|
truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367 | TRUTH: So ... after all this posturing ... no such quote exists? Let's just assume MISSCLEO just "made an error" (noting that she elects to not speak for "herself"?).
By the way ... what other alias / names do you use here?
truth_too |
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Peter St. George said in his published interview with Wired News: quote:
We can compress every single permutation of an N-member set. ..You need at least 100 bits, let's say, to create a multidimensional construct. Everything in an N-member set can be expressed in an N-1 set. You can reconstruct the H set without losing a bit in the process.
So MISSCLEO made no error - the above statement by St. George, CEO of ZeoSync, says the same thing. Ignorance is no defense here or in a court of law.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-06 08:31:26] |
|
truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| TRUTH: What you are quoting is not what MISSCLEO claimed. From her (supposed) perch on the USPTO, she claimed to have seen "128 down to 10".
All I want is MISSCLEO to point me to that "exact" quote.
Why don't you shut up and let MISSCLEO respond?
truth_too |
|
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| So your not bothered by that claim from St. George? If what Peter St. George says is true, then the MISSCLEO statement is the least of the problems here - in fact, if what St. George and ZeoSync says is true, your computer might stop working at any moment.
Why, you might ask? Well if you didn't I'm going to tell you anyway. Our computers are bounded by "Theory of Computation" on the one hand and "Analysis of Algorithms" (Complexity) on the other. Both are undergraduate courses in any CS curriculm, BTW. So it's sort of a two-dimensional world after all. Either the counting argument gets you or, passing that, the complexity gets you. There's no free lunch, dude.
If ZeoSync is right, then most of the math rules that govern how my computer works are broken. And Microsoft not withstanding, my computer continues to work and I suspect ZeoSync is certainly wrong and Claude Shannon was right.
So this adds up to a monumental fraud unless ZeoSync can either do a plausible demonstration or show up next month at DCC with a brief explanation of itself and answer some qustions by peers.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-06 17:30:11] |
|
truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| TRUTH: Your blatherings are a bore.
All I want is MISSCLEO to point me to that "exact" quote.
Why don't you shut up and let MISSCLEO respond --- or are you running your mouth because you know that the alias "MISSCLEO" is a fraud and the claimed link to the USPTO is a fraud?
You are sounding more and more like "CRAPBOY"?
truth_too |
|
