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.
I'm "Blinded" by how awesome this is. Hi-laireous. "2000 years from now, if you don't have Elastolite, you will be flogged in the streets!" Everyone who has ever lived has awaited this product to complete them.
Hey Hondaboost, you didn't finish your list!
Just watch a series of great events coming:
1. Going back to OTCBB;
2. More good news for its tech;
3. Contracts/agreements;
4. Partnerships;
Last but Best: Short Squeezing and it'll be going back to $2's ranges.
We'll see.
I was able to get back in yesterday at 2.63. Feeling so glad that I did!
Well, IMO that is a good thing because it makes it predictable. In my book predictable spells profitable.
Good morning all and good luck to you in your trading today. My opinionated price estimate is 1.25 high today and closing at 1.16. Tomorrow we should see a bull run and a close above 1.20. IMO
I won't even be able to buy until tomorrow so I have no choice but to wait and see and make a choice.
Good stock, GREAT position. Makes me feel bad. I am still a rookie and haven't quite finnessed my stop sell orders. Was trading at 2.27 on Friday so I moved up my stop order from $1.95 to $2.15. Then came the dip that just so happened to slightly touch that price for an instant. Bam. Now I can't buy again until Tuesday. :(
Yes, in response to your inquery, "did you get in under 2$?" my response was no, 2.06
no, 2.06
New here and glad I am. Should be some real traffic in here soon.
So is this building in anticipation of thier earnings report coming up and off of their new casino? I haven't seen any spam yet.
What is WDCO?
I've just discovered that Rays appears to possibly be what is known as a "pump and dump". This could indicate that this company is fraudulent in nature. More to come as I investigate deeper!
My last post of the day: Can someone please sticky Jason's second email. It completes his official view.
Oops!
Why would RAYS even ask for a license?
Because they need one.
Yes, but only to distribute, which they aren't doing.
Probably jump in the air and click his heels yelling, "TO THE MOOOOOON!!!!!!!!".........imo
Why would RAYS make CoreCodec sign an NDA? Why wouldn't CoreCodec issue them a license? Why would RAYS even ask for a license? They signed an NDA, so we may never know. Maybe RAYS didn't like the conditions? Or maybe CoreCodec took a look and said no way?
Re: concerning Raystream
I should note it's quite theoretically possible -- if they wanted to
-- for Raystream to try to become a legitimate company like Zencoder
and sell a useful encoding service. However:
1. They don't appear to have hired the relevant technical people to
be able to do this. Zencoder has had enough difficulty getting them
-- if you look at Hacker News, you'll often see their hiring posts
(they're a YC company, iirc). People who have wide-ranging technical
knowledge about multimedia are *shockingly* rare.
2. They have no real advantage over the existing competitors; they'd
be starting from a blank slate.
3. They will not be able to legally distribute anything that uses
x264 in it unless they open-source the whole software (i.e. GPL it) in
order to use the GPL version of x264. This will probably restrict
them to server-side activities. This is because we will not sell them
a commercial license. Unfortunately, CoreCodec had to sign an NDA to
start initial negotiations, so I can't give any details about what led
to this decision (beyond the obvious publicly-visible information,
which, to be fair, would be enough on its own).
The only advantage I can see is that they have slick marketing/sales
people, but even the world's best used car salesman can't sell a
product that doesn't exist. And why bother trying when you can just
run off with the money from investors who aren't paying enough
attention? ;)
If you have any other questions in the future, I'd be happy to try to answer.
Jason
Who says I haven't?
And I suggest you read my post again and check the subject of the previous sentence. They = Not Rays.
Yes, those were the answers I was looking for. My position on stocks aren't set in stone and I am not nor will I ever be a "true believer" in any company. What I do believe in is trying to find complete info on any investment and sniffing out bias. You most likely hit all nails on their heads, but your tone just turns me off. I am suspicious of anyone shouting the end of the world or the fountain of youth. Can you understand my position as a curious cat in this murky realm?
But I will continue to try all sources for my own peace of mind.
Who knows? I may come to value your opinion one day, I don't know.
One point about Mr Glaser's response. He said that Raystream would be ok if they weren't distributing compression software. Well. They aren't. They do keep the compression servor side. Never once have I seen them state that they would dole out the software. Yes, they do seem to be offering exactly what these older companies have been for a while. They are still here and making profits, too. I don't have any clue about the difference between LGPL and GPL, but I will take his word for it there.
Also, I will be in the Orlando area next month and am planning on swinging by their office that is located there. After I call a few numbers of course. Still a potential for goodness. ....Go Rays...
> After this article a Raystream press release
> stated,"Raystream announced an independent international property rights
> management law firm conducted a thorough investigation of Raystream’s
> algorithm and has issued an opinion letter verifying that all aspects of
> Raystream’s software and technology are in compliance with the GNU Lesser
> General Public License (LGPL) held by the Free Software Foundation.
This is a lie: x264 is not licensed under the LGPL, it is licensed
under the GPL. They are two very different licenses.
> Raystream’s compression algorithm is built on the x264 encoder
> licensed by CoreCodec, making it compliant with the worldwide standard
> format for video output."
This is a lie: CoreCodec has not licensed to Raystream, and will never
license to Raystream.
> I know I have been longwinded here so here are my main questions for you.
>
> Does this change anything?
Does what change anything? The company still looks like a bunch of
lying scammers to me.
> Does X264 compress live HD/3D video as it is being created?
Of course it does, what else would it do?
> Would a compression algorithm built on X264 still be called X264? Or even
> possible?
x264 is GPL. If they modified x264 to improve it, and integrated it
into their software, they would have to distribute their improvements.
This could be avoided if they just kept the software server-side, but
I recall that they intended to distribute their encoding software.
> Have you kept up with Raystream or are even more than passingly interested
> in what they claim?
Of course not. Raystream is just another scam company (there's lots
of these). They may backpedal on everything they say to try to sound
more legitimate, but that doesn't change the fact that they lied
through their teeth repeatedly -- something that legitimate companies
generally don't do, especially about things with direct legal
consequences.
> What would be the benefits of hiring a company like Raystream to compress
> and stream your video as opposed to doing it yourself? Is this practice
> commonplace?
There are many companies that provide *legitimate* encoding services.
Zencoder and encoding.com are two of these, but there's lots of others
too. These can be useful because they provide legitimate value-adds
which they are very clear about:
1. They handle outputs to many different devices with different
requirements, so you don't have to worry about it.
2. Some of them have a lot of code to deal with weird inputs --
ranging from simple stuff like automatic deinterlacing to more
complicated things. This is especially useful if your input is very
heterogenous. Having worked at Facebook, the scripting required to
deal with all the junk people upload can get rather painful.
3. They often provide CDN services or direct hookups with existing
CDN services, so you don't have to worry about that part yourself.
4. They often provide things like on the fly bitrate switching,
"smooth streaming", etc, and more complicated features that -- while
not terribly hard to implement -- are a nice convenience if it's not
worth doing it yourself.
5. They provide CPU power; you don't have to worry about dispatching
your own EC2 instances or the like.
(and lots more, just see their sites!)
These companies happily admit the encoders they use, and do not claim
impossible improvements in compression. This is because they are
confident that these sorts of value-adds make them useful to some
customers.
Raystream is a scam, so I doubt they would provide any benefits over
someone legitimate.
> Are there any companies that currently use x264 and profit from it in the
> way Raystream is trying to?
Most "encoding companies" that use x264 are open about the fact that
they do, and as per the above, they don't attempt to claim credit for
it. At this point, anyone who *doesn't* use x264 is doing it wrong --
"we use x264" is much akin to "we have a clue what we're doing".
There have been a few companies that tried what Raystream was trying
to. At one point I saw a website for a (terribly named) company
called "Digital Blonde" that claimed "revolutionary compression
improvements" with their encoding service, using their "proprietary
compression algorithm". Of course they were just ripping off x264 and
claiming it was their own work.
Legitimate companies don't plagiarize.
> Would you allow me to post this email and/or your reply to the
> message board community?
Sure.
> If not then I will myself rest assured with your
> opinion on this matter for myself. Please know that I am trying to get my
> own answers about this company which I am currently invested in. I will be
> making phone calls, emails and literally beating the door down to find out
> for myself if my investment is folly. I am not a wealthy man but I have
> saved enough to try and get in with a startup company like Raystream.
Sorry, but you got scammed hard. Next time, try not buying penny
stocks; you'd probably have more fun putting your money into a pyre
and burning it.
Jason
Dear Jason Garret-Glaser,
In December a reporter for thestreetsweeper.org published an article about a startup company called Raystream Inc. In this article by Janice Shell, she quotes you stating that Raystream's video compression software is the exact same as X264, of which you are a lead developer. I have recently been talking with Janice and had some questions regarding whether or not this company really is a fraudulent hoax or if it were possibly misunderstood initially and has a real intent to be a real business. She told me to contact you myself to ask my questions. Also, she referred me to her article and what she printed from you. I was previously unaware I was speaking to the author. I read her article and my impression of it was one filled with bias and intent to do direct material harm to this company. TheStreetsweeper.org published a disclaimer at the end of this article expressing that they had a short position in this company and stood to directly profit from a decline in its value. Incidently once the article broke there was an immediate drop in its share price. Of course the large decline in its price cannot be entirely attributed to this lone article. I do believe that Raystream's intitial price movement was way overvalued, but In my opinion I do not believe Raystream to have no value at all or to even be an outright fraud.
My suspician is that you have a much more detailed, interested, and expert opinion on Raystream's product/service to share than was reported in that article. In it you were referenced as saying,
"Raystream could have better concealed its secret by simply removing the header that included the telling “x264” within it. Thanks to that oversight, however, that four-digit introductory code jumps out as the first thing that anyone who examines the code will see.
Garret-Glaser offered two more important observations as well. For starters, he said, any company that distributes x264 as part of its commercial proprietary software without purchasing an appropriate license from x264 LLC has violated copyright infringement rules. It remains unclear whether Raystream itself has complied with those mandatory guidelines.
Secondly, Garret-Glaser indicated, Raystream has touted a compression rate that – even when boosted toward 90% -- falls well short of that recorded by others in the field.
“Modern video compression can achieve 100 to 1,000 times compression over raw video, or "99.9%,” he said. “For example, raw 1080p RGB is 1.5 gigabits per second, but can be compressed to 3-6 megabits at relatively reasonable quality.” "
After this article a Raystream press release stated,"Raystream announced an independent international property rights management law firm conducted a thorough investigation of Raystream’s algorithm and has issued an opinion letter verifying that all aspects of Raystream’s software and technology are in compliance with the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) held by the Free Software Foundation.
Raystream’s compression algorithm is built on the x264 encoder licensed by CoreCodec, making it compliant with the worldwide standard format for video output."
I know I have been longwinded here so here are my main questions for you.
Does this change anything?
Does X264 compress live HD/3D video as it is being created?
Would a compression algorithm built on X264 still be called X264? Or even possible?
Have you kept up with Raystream or are even more than passingly interested in what they claim?
What would be the benefits of hiring a company like Raystream to compress and stream your video as opposed to doing it yourself? Is this practice commonplace?
Are there any companies that currently use x264 and profit from it in the way Raystream is trying to?
Would you allow me to post this email and/or your reply to the message board community? If not then I will myself rest assured with your opinion on this matter for myself. Please know that I am trying to get my own answers about this company which I am currently invested in. I will be making phone calls, emails and literally beating the door down to find out for myself if my investment is folly. I am not a wealthy man but I have saved enough to try and get in with a startup company like Raystream. Please help spare me the potential agony of going broke. If you do not wish to answer these questions then please let me know that you have no further comments. I am eagerly awaiting your reply.
Your right, I am sure none of your emails or other articles had the same tone. For the record I did read your entire article and I especially enjoyed your supporting links. Some in German, a crappy video or a stairwell (what was that?) Although it did lead me to an even older post by Tim Sykes. You should study his style, it makes it easier not to roll my eyes.
no contracts until recently and we will see what revenues if any when financial year ends. April 30 I think?
yeah, just celebrated 20millionth upload
He probably read some of your work. I would not want to talk to you either. It sounded like a conspiracy theory to me. Maybe if your words weren't dripping with opinion so much he may have responded. Janice I suggest you go back and read your own article again and see how it would come off to the average reader. I am reminded of The Montauk Project.
Also he mentioned multiple companies building products off of X264 so RAYS may have more competition than we know. I do believe RAYS is real and that it will be their marketing that will ultimately lead its success. But we can't know any of this for certain.
@ janice, I have found Jason's email from a pdf of his resume and will be asking him some questions tomorrow when I get some down time at work. Also I just re read the article that you wrote for Streetsweeper.org. Thanks for telling me about that. It will make my correspondence with him more effective. And he didn't know about them until you asked? Eh, just a thought.
@ avocet, I agree with your comparisons to Linux, etc and how RAYS can offer more of a service than a one time compression. Lets keep in mind that in their SEC filing RAYS stated their business will focus in two areas. Compression and streaming. I know its cheaper to change my own oil and I have done so in the past, but I made a mess of things and now I "waste" money on it every time. WORTH IT!!
One more tidbit. I just checked RAYS Facebook page and someone asked if Eye54 was one of those 8 mystery companies that they announced deals with after close on Friday. They stated No, so there are 9 trials going on now since Friday.
Well... what did he say? I doubt he wants to repeat an at length conversation multiple times. If it was very helpful, then could you share it with all of us?
How do I get in touch with him? Have you talked to him before, yourself? I don't know that he would respond to me, but you seem to have more notoriety than I do. Could you ask him what is up? The original article just stated that they asked him and then stated a short response. I think he probably has more to say than a couple sentences. Honestly awaiting good info.-Catbird103
Sorry I tried to edit my post but it took too long and failed me... Arrgh!
Here was my finalized post
I found this while trying to determine if X264 was capable of compressing live video that is being simultaneously streamed. Turns out it isn't capable but theoretically possible. I believe that RAYS is one of the companies he mentions trying to develop off of this advancement. Written by Dark Shakiri AKA Jason Garret-Glaser.
Wait... didn't he say that Rays tech WAS X264, and therefore thieving it and "re-labeling" it? If that was true and what he said here is true, then....might they both be true? Sure, both can compress, but Rays is offering a cloud based platform to aid in distribution and Live compression. Now, granted that this article is a bit old, but if Rays employees were in on developing X264 it is possible that they could have figured out more steps in advancing this tech. If they did, then it is well within their right to market that innovation. That is, after all, one of the ENTIRE POINTS of open source software. Like the Human Genome Project, many software developers create software that others can use for free and use to try to create something more than they did. The secrets of our very DNA were released for the entire world to PROFIT FROM!!! So lets all just stop whining about how Raystream's tech started and focus more on where it is going!
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/249
Now THIS is a good read. See if you can find the unofficial mention of Raystream:)
I found this while trying to determine if X264 was capable of compressing live video that is being simultaneously streamed. Turns out it isn't capable but theoretically possible. I believe that RAYS has bridged the gap and is the "not to be named" company, IMO
Yeah, that is the same video I mentioned.
Nice video of RAYS marketing at the conferenc on their Facebook page.
"Check out the ad for Raystream's HD video compression services running in the USA Today Superbowl magazine!"
Posted 3 hrs ago to Raystream's Facebook page.
SOOOOOOOOO Sayeth THHHHHEEEEEEEE Lo-ooord!!!!!!!!
Congratulations on having the best price prediction I have seen yet on here.