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.
Oh BTW, if AstroBoy is such an insider, why does he not appear by name in the company quarterly reports. Rubbish.
The question is, if you do not talk to Dr. Carlson, then how do you know if you can trust him? Presuming the worst in everybody means that no one can be believed. Everyone has something to gain with their opinion. Even if it is boosting their credability.
Reporters go to the source, even it they do not believe him. That is called completeness. Any paper must quote the source, and Dr. Carlson IS the SOURCE. We have collaborating statements as to sincerity and honesty from at least one poster on the board - one who did full DD. Any teacher would give a failing grade for incomplete research if the author failed to quote the source of the material. Oh, and reading the basis of the material is also required for a passing grade.
Nope, you don't sign contracts without talking to the principles. Since he is the authority in this area (find others who publish that are outside of that circle), omitting him is like trying to do math without reading the book or having a math teacher. This is common sense. Going to ask his competition about it? Aren't they biases, having ugly babies of their own. The logic fails, again, completely.
You may not believe him, but you have to talk to him for completeness. Calling a baby ugly without seeing it is like doing DD without talking to the inventor.
What a load of supposition and projection onto another person!
Fact: No sane person sells their failed company and technology for shares of a startup pink company unless it is nearly, or completely, worthless..
Math means using PROVEN facts. Afraid that math is short of any kinds of facts.
Fact: CipherLoc is provable
Fact: CipherLoc exists
Fact: The market for encryption is huge
Fact: No outsider KNOWS what the company is doing in marketing, sales, research, and development. Nor does anyone else, outside of the Carlson family, why the deal was done. Nor does anyone outside of Dr. Carlson and NSCT know the details of the deal.
Fact: Math NEVER changes. What is true now is always true
Fact: Haven't done/studied the math, no standing to challenge
Fact: No one doing DD has done it completely without talking to Dr. Carlson
Fact: NSCT is now fully reporting
Fact: Stock price is UP from $0.0006
Fact: Pam resigned
Fact: R/S has NOT been rejected
All else is just innuendo and supposition. There is a difference between prediction and reality. Stick with the facts.
Like what? Name names and show why they are superior.
Yahoo says it went up. I believe I will stay with Yahoo rather than an unfulfilled ask.
Oh, and in case it was not noticed, it was up today.
That is an opinion. And just an opinion. BTW, is there a definition for POS?
Factually wrong. It was up one day this week and several over the last two weeks.
Please note that an in-depth discussion of the math is not possible on this site, as it does not support the proper math symbols. Of course, refusing to do DD can lead to erroneous claims, and often does. Those 1000's of pages of "technical garbage" are the foundations of this product and of modern thought concerning STE and information theory. But, no matter, don't call the inventor, the best source of information. Dismiss the data without ever looking at it. Form an opinion on incomplete information. Please.
Nothing of the sort. Do we agree you won't read the relevant data, INCLUDING the work of the inventor?
Again, not true. Vaporware is code that does not exist. CipherLoc exists and works.
Want to talk math? Talk to Dr. Carlson. I will no longer follow the thread set out that cherry picks my responses and attempts to dismiss the work of the inventor that is freely available. He has over a dozen papers on the subject and developed the math. Of course, the same was said about Einstein when he introduced relativity. I will discuss counter MATH - if it can be found.
So, we agree, you have not read the relevant math?
The words describe it, but that is only half of the information. There is a lot of math in those documents. Follow the links I put out there and the references. You must do your own DD. Just reading Dr. Carlson's dissertation will tell you a lot. Several hundred pages of math in those papers.
BTW, they contain mathematical proofs, not innuendo and nonsense. Still waiting while the crickets become extinct.
Not so. It is where I picked up the math.
Been posted, see the web site, see the cited works. Its there. You could also call the inventor. Ring, ring.
The long and short of it is that the company IS real, the designer IS real, the software IS real, good things ARE happening, and the stock IS up yesterday.
FACT, not opinion. Anyone who ignores it does so at their own loss. I know the potential of the product and understand the math. I also know how long it takes for people to understand revolutionary thinking.
No counter math, never will be, and the crickets will go extinct.
I am referring to all of the explanations already given PLUS the information on the company web site (who else knows what is IN the software), and the papers that show that all of the design methodologies are well founded and correct.
Nonsense again. Utter nonsense.
Summary has been posted by the company, all that is needed is accessing the site. Background papers links have been posted. So, it has been posted and discussed here several times. It is nonsense that the summary is not available. It has been there quite a while.
Well I find it interesting that this piece of common knowledge was overlooked. Doesn't this render the patent thing nonsense? Other protections can, and are, used. So, can we get back to math?
Unlike other things, math does not change. It it was good then, it still is now. There is no debate because there is no counter math. Still waiting for it... Never comes...
Who has patents on a cipher? Actually no one. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that software algorithms cannot be patented. That overturned everyone's ability to patent ciphers.
Therefore, this question is now nonsense and has no meaning.
Also, remember that DOS was purchased for %50,000. No value there. Manhatten was purchased for $24 in beads. No value there. Lesson: purchase price does not equal value.
Utter nonsense! The technology is good and it works. It has been demonstrated. Is is old? No. The facts and links to proof have been posted several times. All one has to do is call. No one has ever posted counter proof, just posed situations then drawn incorrect conclusions.
Facts are facts. Opinions not withstanding. Show the proof!
Please, call. Remember that no answer from the company can be trusted. Why not ask the "doctor" in a "major market". That is so trustworthy. BTW, the math is there, posted links to it, but no one would even look at it. Seems that the inventor is somehow "tainted".
I have repeated asked for someone to show the counter math to how it works. No one has come forward. I call bull on the claim it does not work. I have listed third party papers on the components of the theory. Sorry, the math is up. It is now the job of counter math arguments.
BTW, PGP is not patented. That is the basis of block ciphers and AES. Must be a scam!
Facts, not nonsense rules.
And the doctor is who? And his/her degree is in what? No proof the doctor even exists. Please post credentials are particulars.
No evidence it is outdated. Still waiting for any verifiable math. The rest is just nonsense. It took more than 20 years for most of the revolutionary ideas to catch on...
Well, if the source is irrelevant, then the numbers derived from them are also irrelevant. Having seen no reference, those numbers offered for math are smoke and mirrors and should be ignored.
Yahoo Finance shows the price up Friday. That is my source.
The sellers are running into the deafening silence
Not WANT to but are willing to. Every stock has five kinds of stock holders:
Those unwilling to buy at any price
Those that want to BUY at a price
Those that want to SELL at a price
Those WILLING to sell at a price
Those unwilling to sell at any price
The middle class of people make a market run. The existence of the middle three does not imply no people of the outlying types and does NOT comment on the size of any of the groups. Wanting to buy at a lower price is natural but does not mean that the buyers are not willing to pay more. I WANT to buy a car for $1 and will bid it if I think that I can get the seller to take that price. That does not mean I will not negotiate if he says no. That is simple bargain hunting. If a seller proposes a higher price, that does not mean he WANTS OUT NOW, since he will wait for a better price. If they were meeting the buy bid, then it MIGHT mean they want out now, or that they met their goals. Which is it? Only the seller knows...
That is what is elementary.
Pardon me, but doesn't that say that shareholders have that much more confidence in the company than those trying to buy? Doesn't it also say that lots of people want to buy?
Let us note that it we are being told both that EVERYONE was running from the stock and then that NO ONE is selling due to unrealistic expectations. So which is it?
Actually, it is nonsense.
On the shelf? No, it was in development. Get the story right. It takes time to develop a product and get it ready for use. TV took almost 25 years to develop. The light bulb took even longer. The transistor took more than a decade. Saying otherwise is, again, nonsense.
Gee, makes one wonder what the people on the ask side know about the future, doesn't it?
More nonsense. Go ahead and tell the story, but tell it right. Garage sale? Only if it was Beverly Hills. This is the most revolutionary cipher technology since the One Time Pad. It is factually unchallenged. Every request for factual counter math is ignored. That is because it does not exist. Willing to debate math, not nonsense.
Insults are just that - nonsense. They are worth the same amount as nonsense, nothing.
Let the Geeks debate? That is a problem. Not KNOWING if and HOW a product works means that any criticism is mere heresay and not worth discussing. It is all innuendo and nonsense.
BTW, error does not equal fraudulent. After all, no company other than NSCT has CORRECTED a filing and still stayed in business, right? There is a little problem called intent...
Nonsense, again. Watermarking is Digital Rights Management, no crypto. NOT a conflict of interest. Research is NOT the same as employment. Is there proof that DR. Carlson did not inform the company? If so, post it.
BTW, I can all ANYTHING an dog. That does not make it a dog. In all the calls for counter math NONE HAS EVER BEEN FORTHCOMING. And, it never will. That is because there is none. It is the most advanced crypto out there. Period. So, now that it is clearly established, we can go on.
Absolutely true! There is no need to defend against nonsense. Professors often consult with more than one company simultaneously. That is part of the research they do. It takes time to get patents and to do the research necessary necessary for them. This work was years in the making. Dumping a research partner? Don't think so. Of course, if someone has talked to Dr. Carlson and asked him, that would be a different story. To my knowledge, only CLOC-ROCKS has the knowledge. All else is speculation and innuendo.
This is just more indication that the man has brains and ability. Too bad it takes so long for the market to understand revolutionary thinking and design, but they ARE beginning to recognize it now. Some designers and thinkers ARE a DECADE ahead of their time. Then the rest of the world catches up. That is what is happening now.
BTW, CipherLoc cannot defend against asteroids, either. The comparison is just as valid as with passwords. A hammer is NOT a screwdriver...
No, that is not what I said. There are many more factors to an attack than the ONE thing stated. It is NOT useless in many cases. However, as I previously stated, very few attacks start with that knowledge. VERY FEW. Stacking the deck does NOT make a tool useless. This is like saying, so you admit that a hammer is useless because it will not properly drive a screw.
Still waiting on the answer about quantum in the same situation...
Security is a matter of matching the right measure against a vulnerability to the right attack. CipherLoc fixes a whole lot of problems. Not all, nothing does t CipherLoc is vastly superior to anything out there now.hat except to turn off the computer and bury it under 6 feet of concrete. BTW, concrete solves the physical security issue. Unfortunately, it is not a practical solution. CipherLoc is.
That is a completely different question than the one I answered. I have already given my opinion on that. Unfortunately, that is NOT as common as would be believed. In the context of this discussion the question is meaningless.
Please explain how quantum would fix that problem. Or any other security measure for that example. Security has many facets. CipherLoc solves a multitude of problems as it closes a multitude of windows and vulnerabilities.
Don't use a hammer when driving a screw.
Not really. You would have to explain WHY this is so. Simply stated a mutating cipher would have rejected part, or all, of an attempt to remain connected. Also, it would have detected the attempt because of the failed attempts and the fact that the attempts would have been temporally collocated, along with the same origin. I could go on, but that is enough to make the point.
So, waiting for the counter proof. It will be like all the other calls for counter math, I suppose. But JMHO.
No, it is relevant. EVERY company or organization is dependent on computers. They all need security. This could have been stopped by CipherLoc (but not by other encryptions, like quantum). The world is waiting for this tech, not some 20 year old, or 50 year old dinosaur.
Dilution? Nope. Numbers do not support it. Unfounded assertions are required to even get close to the numbers. BTW, since MDLG, the stock is up 1667% as of today.
Maybe as soon as when the R/S ANNOUNCEMENT tracking begins?