Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Barge needs the boot,
Failing to mention names does not mean one is not attacking.
Speculation that a very poorly capitilized company might be taken over is entirely germain to this thread.
The notion that a thinly capitilized company with supposedly explosive tech might be bought out is NEVER asinine. It is an idea that is ALWAYS on the table.
Barge should be TOSed from this thread for his "not so discreetly" attacking of decent people.
Logan, MSFT has never
consulted popularity polls when executing its strategic vision in the past, I rather expect them not to this time around.
do anybody, I mean anybody believe that MSFT is going to give up Nscub to Wave?
Nope.
Pray for the buy-out.
I am, I've been pulling for and prognositcating a $4.5 buyout for a couple of years now.
Its looking better every day.
logan/cmf ... none of this has anything
to do with privacy.
O.K., it DOES, but on the list of things that are going to affect this product or its relatives, privacy is a non-issue.
Some sort of merger between Osama and your average dirt-bag hacker has move that issue aside.
MSFT's failure to acquire ITRU was a
stunning collapse of vision. They would have been very well served to pick it up for anything around 4x what it went for.
Do you see a MSFT over-compensation reaction in the Wave arena?
That would be hilarious. Perhaps ITRU's and Wavx's "partnership" is enforceable (I'm killing myself in comedy here) and MSFT goes for Wave to ... o screw it, it doesn't make any sense, including legal sense.
What did ITRU go for, wasn't it about $400mill ?
The thing is ITRU is a portfolio of patents, and Wave is a bunch of first mover hype. Do you really think that Sept 2002 patent gives them a hold on applet switching, e.g. (You used to claim it amounted to a patent on the TAN, which of course you like to call an attestation server therse days) ... I love this buff jargon.
If this thing rolled for say, $375 million,
I'd be perfectly satisfied.
doma, according to SKS
Wave and MSFT have a close relationship. And certainly they would not need to walk around to buy (I'm figuring MSFT could't give a hoot what color the funiture was in Lee)
Point is, if that realtionship the SKS has so often touted is REAL (we all no he wouldn't tell a fib) then wouldn't you expect humans from the two outfits to occasionally be founf in the same office space?
Of course, this is all based on SKS being on the up-and-up :)
doma, my post was pretty clear, it had nothing to do with the thread,
It was simply me, as stated, postulating that somebody may do for Wave and that the sensible FIT was Verisgn.
Sure, somebody else could by to extinguish, but Verisign makes sense if the tech was to thrive.
alea, I was commuting 3 days ago,
postulating to myself regarding Verisign bagging Wave for something around $300 million (for all the reasons you list). I'm thinking almost entirely a stock transaction ... well except for class B.
weby, let me do a scorpio,
I think that should be neither ... nor in your post, not ... neither or.
mudbug, about 150k and expenses (likely around 50k) with say 100k-sh a year in options vesting 20% per year.
scorpio, I received
personal first-name basis instruction from TWO Nobel laureates, (and the institution had 4!). It is certainly the case that if I bumped into either they would say "Hiya BTK ..." so, do you support ME as CEO????
Goofy minds I tell ya, goofy minds.
awk, perhaps for the first time,
we are essentially in agreement.
I do not pretend to have rights other than those prescribed by law.
I have the right to vote on the BOD,
I have the right to vote on other issues as determined by my class of ownership as defined by the varies rules of incorportation,
I have the right to timely disclosure of material events as codified under law,
and ...
I have the right to scream like a stuck pig if I feel like it.
As such I made a move for a BOD seat, and I drew little support. It was an effort to remind folks what their rights were, and what they were not.
You vote, you get leadership, and you deal with until the next vote (unless you are a Rebublican in which case you sue for a dirty dress or recall because your mad at Enron).
mudbug, you posted a news clip about convictions of individuals for interent based defamation. You titled that post "for HhH and his gangs". Forgive me if I drew an incorrect conclusion from such a heading and its subordinate content.
regards,
BTK
jas, excellent piece of content /e
mudbug,
Could you provide a link where HhH and is "gangs" have been actionably "defamatory"?
Indeed, your accusation seems more fit to that which you describe than Howie's content.
Care to get sued mudbug?
folks, now THAT is a good post!
well done jas.
I tend to disagree with 24601 with regards to awk's aptitued in the follow-up, but even my cat can sniff that one out.
awk holds securly to the elitist viewpoint that if one is there, they are necessarily superior. It is functionalism, ... what was the guys name ? ... Durkeim as I recall (weby could probably clarify)
Their is a notion in intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual circles) that if something *is* then it *sensibly is*. This notion migrates from various scholars into ordinary hands and converts itself into the "how dare thy question" mantra of the likes of awk.
I'm not saying awk is dim or anything, but awk is significantly more constrained by his little box than even the likes of 24601, and that, my friends, is saying something.
returing to the more germain point of nepotism, allow me to make the following personal points:
1) I've got no problem with hiring along bloodlines
2) While the genetic or "talent" arguments are weak at best, the fact is families that live together, work together, and talk together, often develop a common interest and a common vision. There is real value in this.
3) I've been employed along bloodlines in the past. I reached a middle/senior management position in a multi-million dollar outfit with multi-million dollar revenues (essentially about the size of Wave except they had REVENUE. I personally secured meaningful increases in those revenues.
But here's the catch, as a stated part of the agreement I was:
a) paid less than my peers
b) entitled to fewer bonus opportunities than my peers
c) less likely to advance than my peers and
d) more scrutinized than my peers.
All to insure against the appearance of nepotism, and this wasn't even a public company.
So sure, hire in the family (I was just plain better at my job than any of my peers, and they would agree), but family should get less and do more. Its that simple. Its not just a matter of earning it, it is a matter of vanquishing all doubt.
I should also add that my QUALIFICATIONS DWARFED that of my peers. In that particular niche my cv. was nothing short of STUNNING, and secured real sales as I was he front-man for certain types of buyer reviews. I successfully represented the company to large corporate (Fortune 100) and International customers (e.g EU representives).
The FACT IS such hiring is bad for employee moral, bad for investor moral, and bad on the street. I know it. I've been there, and my qualifications versus those of Sprague Inc for for my placement are a pure and simple wipeout.
I enjoyed the benefit of previous work experience (and references from) senior members of industry standards groups, work experience with the heads of important federal regulatory bodies, and had an established relations with the approprites state regulatory bodies.
(
alea/HhH it will be very difficult for me to rationalise continuing to own this equity if, once again, a son is found to be the best man for the job.
smokedfish,
I recon barge pretty much handed you your head on a platter on this one.
Even HhH agrees. The effort is one of gorrillas.
The question is, are the letting the door open for a family from Lee who can only find talent based on a last name and a clonable "attestation thingy"
Maybe so.
BUT, still don't really know that the Sept 2002 patent really means (among about a thousand or so other things).
awk, sorry my first response got deleted,
but, well, the half of the paragraph you reinstated hung on the sentence:
"Because if we build things eventually we'll catch the wave that they're creating."
Which, although it must give you goosebumps, it made me want to barf.
I was trying to be generous to the silver spoon boy and overlook such pearls.
That all aside, if you follow the thread you will see that arguments have been made that the enterprise customer will lead deployment, yet in your own quote SKS states it is NOT an enterprise issue. Some intoduced a customer of the enterprise sort (or vice versa) (Amazon), as a perhaps more likely deployment vehicle than the HP/INTC/DoD/EDS/OtherGovs/Finread/CyberCON/NEC/SmallCarribeanRebublic route.
I simply supported the notion that one of the few (as there are only a few) REAL dot.coms is an interesting middle ground for such wishful enterprise deployment ambitions.
Who knows.
Odd that so many, yourself e.g., vie with such certainty about numbers within months but can't even guess where it is going to come from.
Seems almost shallow.
barge, a fun read,
... but I was calling it YOUR Amazon theory,
are you running from it, or just being nice?
awk, thanks for the content,
Im still inclined to think that SKS is both as articulate AND as visionary as a tree stump.
Don't get me wrong, I spent some time in dendrology and such, you can learn a lot from a tree stump.
But that slander aside, Mr Sprague does seem to be making the same point with his second point:
"Secondly, I think that in the computing industry, probably the biggest [error] being made is that everybody is looking at this as an enterprise security problem, and it's not. Primarily, it's a consumer security issue, but if we solved consumer security every enterprise will use it."
which goes towards my, ... er, barge's notion, that AMAZON is a more likely mover than HP or IBM.
barge, this silly notion applies ONLY to
MSFT, the one company that has a dedicated and sincere strategic interest to NOT DO IT
barge, the important thing would be,
to bring their client along. O.K. so a TCL (a trusted client LAN) would perhaps allow something of valuable security ... but as to breaches, it means nothing ... data coming into that LAN
is still derived from Joe-Blow consumer. Where's the security in that? Better, where is the VALUE and non-refutability in that?
Now, were Amazon seek to take over the world, ship dongles &/or keyboards along with their in house transition, to ANYBODY that has ever ordered a book, and drop a billion in marketing, well, then you would have something.
OOOPS, but that's not going to happen so I will stick with my 4-year PC replacement cycle window.
go-kitesurf, I'm with barge on this,
HP INTC etc are actually the last gorrillas to move these days EVEN IF they are the providers for the first to move.
Barge's Amazon bit is a good piece of speculation. Amazon got HAMMERED but a major breach resulting in TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VISA ACCOUNTS being hijacked.
I personally know TWO people (and according to folks here I have few friends) that actually were burned by the Amazon breach ... well, not exactly, Amazon and VISA ate the whole thing (contrary to HhH's lack of incentive mantra).
Curiously, for both the illegal charges came from St. Petersburg, Russia. Now, I've been to that neck of the woods, and it is all of: remarkable, stunning, decent, and criminal. In fact, the only time I have ever pulled a man's hand out of my pocket was in St Petersburg (I digress).
It wasn't INTC that got hammered by the Amazon breach or any sort of likely or already ooccured Pay-pal or Ebay breach, ... INTC is protecting corporate IP. That can be accomplished through a combination of need-to-know, compartmentalisation, good-old-software patches, and patents, attorneys etc.
Amazon, well, ... barge has a point. Amazon is trying to be everything, not just books. But to be everything, they are already PAINFULLY AWARE that the BIGGEST BLOCK to their expansion is internet INsecurity.
Internet INsecurity is NOT the biggest block to any firm on your list (IBM, HP, INTC, MSFT) indeed, internet INsecurity is a GROWTH opportunity for them.
But for Amazon and Ebay and 1800flowers and Priceline etc. .... trust and true authenticated sales are the barrier.
Barge is right, were one of those big real dot.coms to move to TPMs in a real way, it would mean something, but for it to REALLY mean something the clients would have to move as well.
Much more of a obstacle than void-think allows.
24601, as may a person who does not /e
24601, again,
let me spell it out,
I find your notion to be as fascinating as you do if you accept your premise that a frontier can be conceptually extrapolated across the likes of Ispyu, HhH, and BTK and silly if you reject that notion of a frontier.
It is silly because I never rejected client side security, but you make me part of a frontier that includes such notions.
Your use of "they" and "people" coupled to your use of "Ispyu", "BTK", and "HhH" further coupled to your use of a the singular "frontier" implies something that is far from representative of reality. So while you think it is an "amazing" idea, I again think it is a silly one.
Folks here said they expected $250 million in revenue by Q2'05, 1 million ETS systems a month has been bandied about, and all of that was variably cast with PC-life cycle of three years.
I simply suggested that the notion of a 3 year PC life cycle is dated. You find that in the "frontier" with Ispyu and HhH.
I think that is silly.
24601, that may be so,
although neither of those factors play into replacement where I work, and as stated, folks seem perfectly happy on 4 year old machines, and the same cannot be said about 4 years ago. Comparing a y2003 machine to a y1999 machine is nothing compared to the difference between y1999 and y1995 in terms of the performance of the average end-user software suite.
I use a P3-500, an hour ago I wa on a more current P4-1.8gig ... and I didn't notice the difference. Folks just don't seem to get this point. So maybe it is all y2k and a dip in spending. Or maybe its like fighter jets and once one determines the 9g is a line in the sand for humans, ... who cares if it can pull 20g?
I've been wondering about Numerium as well, but not as much as I wonder about Wave, and likely less than I wonder about Verisign.
My hunch is the "attestation server" isn't going to be that huge of a task to clone. But we'll see.
Regarding your arguement frontier bit, if one sees various individuals with widely varying views spread across a couple of continents as some sort of "frontier" then I guess its "amazing", but if one doesn't hold that synthetic frontier to exist, then the notion is comparatively silly.
doma, you are correct,
more BS, I crossed $250 million and its dependent 12.5 million machines into 25 million.
$250 million by Q2'05 are your words.
Do the math.
24601, exactly,
TPMs don't need to drive the replacement, they simply need to get in on "it".
And "it" is ca. 4+ years as opposed to 3 years these days.
(Unless, of course, an obvious *driver* emerges).
Seems most here argue that TPMs are that driver, and that replacement will migrate back to 3-year cycles. Me thinks TPMs don't have driver muscle, that the current/prevailing 4-year cycle is the case, and TPMs will be along for the ride and gain ubiquity as a rider, not as the driver.
Difference? Nothing, well, except a year or so.
If one is confident in Wave's liquidity and independence, another year ain't much, what with 7 splits in 7 years being the outcome and all.
zen, I'll accept that as
a complete capitulation.
go-kite, decent post
we will see. My initial point was essentially that the timeline is going to be about a year longer than folks think. I based that on my, and others, perception that the PC life cycle is more like 4 years than 3 years these days (or more).
Seems many interpret that to say that I think there will be no Wave and that nobody will ever replace a PC again, ever. So it goes.
I think that extra year is a big deal, and I do not see a huge hunger for TPMs driving that cycle back down to its old rate of 3 years.
The enterprise I work at has about 500 machines (small number), replacement is not controlled by IT dept, it is controlled by the end users, out of each of their own budgets.
Obviously other and larger enterprises manage PC life cycles and replacement more centrally. I don't have experience with that, but the data, and the rachelelise's seem to indicate that replacement has slowed down in those enterprises as well.
IT managers budgets are put into place, ... when, a week before spending, ... or more like a YEAR before spending.
Seems the product would have to exist for them to budget to buy it.
AND IT managers are the most conservative lot I've seen in some time. Sure, upgrade in a timely fashion ... but by no means be hasty about it.
I believe that expectations of a million customers coming online for "Essential Wave Premium Services" PER MONTH starting in DECEMBER is ludicrous.
allma, doma. /e
weby, once again ...
not IF, but WHEN.
We are talking millions of machines.
doma says 25 million NEW machines by ye'2004 with "Essential Wave Services".
care to make a bet?
zen, can't help it but
you say
"I suggest to you, that the smart people out there, running the successful enterprises, are much more proactive than reactive."
you mean companies like MSFT, right?
allman, somebody posted the pearl
that I would want more power than I have.
Well duh.
For example, I could plan to do some real-time confocal coupled to robotic micro-injection .... but that would be on one of those nasty SGI machines, and it would NEVER be networked.
I guess some telepaths could hack it?
Same goes for the primary coordinate machines backing up x-ray crystallography.
The net is a liability to them.
Big power is behind a locked door. The rest is just a bunch of bloody PCs. And yes, security breaches suck ... but they are now expected, again, reducing the pressure on IT to take the plunge.
It will happen. It must happen.
Not IF but WHEN.
e-shute,
I'm not taking HhH's side on this ... there is considerable distance between us on this ... but your point is remarkably weak.
You suggests that security failures = a demand for security.
Perhaps they should, but they never have in the past. O.K. there are exceptions, blow up a couple of sky-scrapers on one ACTUALLY sees enhanced demand for airline security. But none of the other breaches seemed to result in such demand.
Security failures in IT are like strained backs in 40-year olds. People just accept it now.
Is it cost sensible for them to accept computer security failure? NO!
Is it cost sensible for them to drive SUVs? NO!
Is it cost sensible for them to by whole life instead of term life insurance? NO!
And guess what? They DO!!
They drive SUVs while covered by whole life only pausing to say, bummer, I got hacked again.
Market movers are market movers, those things that drive platform replacement are those things that dirve platform replacement.
TPMs for security will NOT drive platform replacement at a rate that is acceptable to WAVX shareholders.
Where is barge?
The GAINED FUNCTIONALITY of trusted services, web services, and multiple independent trust domains might ... but now we are back to the chicken and the egg.
allman, you are in error,
I was not telling you what I would not do,
I was telling you what I DO NOT NEED,
and what I DO NOT NEED is what, in the past, I needed every couple of years.
That is a change in the industry.
Period.
It places a larger BURDEN on TCG / TPMs etc. They are not going to get in for free because the world feels it NEEDS Pentium6. That is a real difference.
SKS (in a demonstraion of his weakness IMHO) often compares USB integration with DVD integration). USB is a serial port, I would have to want to get a USB because I wanted to get a peripheral that required such an advancement in the serial port. DVD gives me access to boatsloads of content and, in the case of a burner, storage capacity in a heartbeat. DVD is endless, and hence a powerful mover, USB is convergent ... do I realy want that USB digital camera or scanner, or will the old RS232 work just fine?
Again, I'm not talking about one integration, but what is going to move MILLIONS of machines A MONTH starting DECEMBER.
I don't see TPMs doing it this december.
It has NOTHING to do with what I would do.
allman,
do you have a link of me saying folks should spend tons of money trying to make teir PCs hacker-proof ... or anything that resembles it in the foggiest of senses?
and rachel/ramsey,
it semms there is always one little thing extra that makes upgrading foolish compared to replacement.
Want to upgrade a chip during the old ISA to ATX chasis transition, well, you could ... but
How about doing memory when PCI was making its move. Generally, for the last 20 years the various techs have moved in tandem, and replacing one bit just moves the bottleneck, which when coupled to down-time is just a waste of time.
Again, for the forst time I see myself and a lot (lets say a few hundred) users working on 3.5 year old machines, and they are perfectly happy on them. This is a NEW thing in the PC business. Period.