BUY BUY BUY BUY

Whatever the high was/is between the 1st of the year and now, that's the peak.  $14.3x, I don't care to look up exactly what it is.  Let's just say $14.40.

Exactly! They could have shown at least one working ASIC chip at CES. At least one single Jalapeno hashing ...

They didn't, which means they don't have a working prototype. Which means:
a) going into mass production without a working prototype is suicide.
or
b) they never intended to ship a product and it's all a scam.

Seems to me, if you had a working test product, you'd have shown it by now, but maybe not.  Seems silly, though...
if you wanted to be the first, you would show your working prototype, that would qualify you as first at this point.  

What possible reason could you have for not showing a working unit 6 days before you are scheduled to ship?  

I don't care.  You are here, in the BFL thread trolling and you won't even demo a working product 5 days before you are shipping.

Seems like a crazy way go about things, but whatever man.

Like I said, if you're delayed, your project is dead and I believe you know this.

I hope you aren't rushing things just to be first and shipping a brick in a box that fails to perform or breaks in a month.

Ok so is this like stealing books out of a library.?

Politico: Copyright protection bill foe charged in data theft
By JENNIFER MARTINEZ | 7/19/11 4:09 PM EDT

...

Demand Progress, the nonprofit political organization Swartz founded, is among the loudest opponents of the PROTECT IP Act, also known as PIPA, which is aimed at wiping out online copyright infringement.

Swartz also co-founded the social online news service Reddit. Demand Progress contends the charges against Swartz are unfounded and “bizarre.”

"This makes no sense," said David Segal, the group’s executive director. "It's like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59397.html#ixzz2HxM6BVc6

Seems to me, if you had a working test product, you'd have shown it by now, but maybe not.  Seems silly, though...
if you wanted to be the first, you would show your working prototype, that would qualify you as first at this point.  

What possible reason could you have for not showing a working unit 6 days before you are scheduled to ship?  

I don't care.  You are here, in the BFL thread trolling and you won't even demo a working product 5 days before you are shipping.

Seems like a crazy way go about things, but whatever man.

Like I said, if you're delayed, your project is dead and I believe you know this.  

I hope you aren't rushing things just to be first and shipping a brick in a box that fails to perform or breaks in a month.

Seems to me, if you had a working test product, you'd have shown it by now, but maybe not.  Seems silly, though... if you wanted to be the first, you would show your working prototype, that would qualify you as first at this point.  What possible reason could you have for not showing a working unit 6 days before you are scheduled to ship?  

I don't care.  You are here, in the BFL thread trolling and you won't even demo a working product 5 days before you are shipping.  Seems like a crazy way go about things, but whatever man.  

Like I said, if you're delayed, your project is dead and I believe you know this.  I hope you aren't rushing things just to be first and shipping a brick in a box that fails to perform or breaks in a month.

Inaba's question could simply be rephrased as a request for external arbitration by an acknowledged expert in a field, who would need to provide provable conclusions. It's not an appeal to authority, which instead would be  a statement such as "Well, Stephen Hawking thinks you're wrong".

Would you want medical advice from an engineer, or engineering advice from a circus gymnast? Or an opinion about climate change from a geologist?

That's all. Please do continue.

You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof

"Modern man is so committed to empirical knowledge, that he sets the standard for evidence higher than either side in his disputes can attain, thus suffering his disputes to be settled by philosophical arguments as to which party must be crushed under the burden of proof."
        -- Alan Crowe

There's a story - in accordance with Poe's Law, I have no idea whether it's a joke or it actually happened - about a creationist who was trying to claim a "gap" in the fossil record, two species without an intermediate fossil having been discovered.  When an intermediate species was discovered, the creationist responded, "Aha!  Now there are two gaps."

[...]

After all - in the absence of your unobtainable particular proof, there may be plenty of other arguments by which you can hope to figure out whether you live in a world where the hypothesis of interest is true, or alternatively false.  It takes work to provide you with those arguments.  It takes work to provide you with extrapolations of existing knowledge to prior probabilities, and items of evidence with which to update those prior probabilities, to form a prediction about the unseen.  Someone who does the work to provide those arguments is doing the best they can by you; throwing the arguments out the window is not just irrational, but logically rude.

And I emphasize this, because it seems to me that the underlying metaphor of demanding particular proof is to say as if, "You are supposed to provide me with a video of apes evolving into humans, I am entitled to see it with my own eyes, and it is your responsibility to make that happen; and if you do not provide me with that particular proof, you are deficient in your duties of argument, and I have no obligation to believe you."  And this is, in the first place, bad math as probability theory.  And it is, in the second place, an attitude of trying to be defensible rather than accurate, the attitude of someone who wants to be allowed to retain the beliefs they have, and not the attitude of someone who is honestly curious and trying to figure out which possible world they live in, by whatever signs are available.  But if these considerations do not move you, then even in terms of the original and flawed metaphor, you are in the wrong: you are entitled to arguments, but not that particular proof.

Ignoring someone's hard work to provide you with the arguments you need - the extrapolations from existing knowledge to make predictions about events not yet observed, the items of evidence that are suggestive even if not definite and that fit some possible worlds better than others - and instead demanding proof they can't possibly give you, proof they couldn't be expected to provide even if they were right - that is logically rude.  It is invalid as probability theory, foolish on the face of it, and logically rude.

And of course if you go so far as to act smug about the absence of an unobtainable proof, or chide the other for their credulity, then you have crossed the line into outright ordinary rudeness as well.

It is likewise a madness of decision theory to hold off pending positive proof until it's too late to do anything; the whole point of decision theory is to choose under conditions of uncertainty, and that is not how the expected value of information is likely to work out.  Or in terms of plain common sense:  There are signs and portents, smoke alarms and hot doorknobs, by which you can hope to determine whether your house is on fire before your face melts off your skull; and to delay leaving the house until after your face melts off, because only this is the positive and particular proof that you demand, is decision-theoretical insanity.  It doesn't matter if you cloak your demand for that unobtainable proof under the heading of scientific procedure, saying, "These are the proofs you could not obtain even if you were right, which I know you will not be able to obtain until the time for action has long passed, which surely any scientist would demand before confirming your proposition as a scientific truth."  It's still nuts.

Knowledge =/= Proof

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

The misconception that knowledge needs authority to be genuine or reliable dates back to antiquity, and it still prevails. To this day, most courses in the philosophy of knowledge teach that knowledge is some form of justified, true belief, where ‘justified’ means designated as true (orat least ‘probable’) by reference to some authoritative source or touch­stone of knowledge. Thus ‘how do we know … ?’ is transformed into ‘by what authority do we claim … ?’ The latter question is a chimera that may well have wasted more philosophers’ time and effort than any other idea. It converts the quest for truth into a quest for certainty (a feeling) or for endorsement (a social status). This misconception is called justificationism.

-- The Beginning of Infinity - Chapter 1: The Reach of Explanations - pages 8-9.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3), restitution is not ordered because (1) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable [3663A(c)(3)(A)]; and

(2) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process [3663A(c)(3)(B)].

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: It is further ordered defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment fee of $100, which is due immediately to the Clerk of the Court.

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Three quick questions:
2: What is the contact information of his parole probation officer?

Also, even Duke Nukem Forever came out eventually

"You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!"

I'm saying the truth. Period.

I think you miss the point of these threads entirely Josh or you're again playing dumb.

Oops!  There you go, lying again!  Back up your claim with some facts or it didn't happen.  You just can't help yourself can you?  You lie more than CreativeX.


And you know this how?  Oh, you don't know this, you are just making things up and hoping they are true... ergo, you are also a liar.  Again, back up your claim with facts.  If you can't, then you are lying.  Please prove that if we had received the chips in early December (or December 11th if it please you) that we could not have shipped by the end of December.  Go on, lets see you prove it.

...should make any reasonable person cautious run the hell away...

I had many sleepless nights thinking about how I can make this tight. I just need some help with this.

2 year forum anniversary bump