No, it is a scam. You would have to be working with shit equipment for electrical noise from an SD card to contribute anything meaningful to the quality of your audio playback/recording.
The big draw of the OUYA console was its binary compatibility with Android, letting it use well-known tools such as Eclipse and Xamarin. Yet OUYA fizzled for some reason.
"For some reason"? Were you one of those blind fanbois? It's many issues were pointed out all over the place. Penny Arcade pointed out that it was just mostly hype and then all the Ouya fanbois across the Internet got butthurt. Acting as if the failure of Ouya was some freak accident that no one expected, is revisionist history.
Calling someone a "quack like this guy", without any reason to do so, is embarrassing to those of us trying to be objective and scientific. However it is surprisingly common among academics.
He's given plenty of reasons for being called a quack. Mythical proof that he won't share in public, invents academic conspiracies, won't post it to places like arXiv for made-up and patently false reasons, and then falls back to wanting to keep it to himself so that he can work on it alone and because someone is going to steal credit for it. Those are all tell-tale signs of quackery.
I have seen outright hostility. I have seen expressed interest that leads to non-communication without reasons. I have had the "crackpot" label leveled against me. And I have seen, above all else, a total lack of expressed interest or any effort at analysis, by academics.
I'm sure you have, but that's because there are tons of charlatans out there hawking phony proofs. You actually have to work to prove yourself just like all the other scientists/mathematicians/etc in front of you.
These are the behaviors of a group who feel their gravy train is threatened. And yes it is.
Yep, the fallback of the quack. Despite the fact that there are numerous examples of scientists and mathematicians who have come along with ideas that threaten and change established theory and persevered to prove themselves. On the other hand, the quacks and charlatans just hide behind their persecution complex.
There are certianly hundreds, maybe thousands, of jobs in businesses that utilize the gear in that data center.
Which doesn't help the community unless those jobs are paying in tax revenue to Hillsboro to offset the tax breaks. You're clearly being intentionally dense if you don't understand the complaints.
Yeah, you have to get an endorsement to post in those cases, but it's never really that hard to get if you have something of value to post. This guy is just inventing reasons for why he's going to hiding his mystical proof.
Another excuse. First it's some conspiracy of the "acadrmic industry", then it's the imaginary requirement of an academic email for why you don't post to arXiv, and now it's some claim of your credit being stolen. And you wonder why no one buys your story?
Then post your proof to the Internet and link to it on places that discuss math/science topics. You'll get plenty of feedback. But then that would require actually proving you have this mystical proof.
I've tried to post to arXiv.org but they demand an academic email address.
If true, why is this "demand" not listed on either their page about about registering or on the registration form? Even their primer lists no such "demand". The only thing required if you don't have an recognized academic affiliation is to get an endorsement in order for them to process your submission. As the person below said, this reeks of quackery.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would Intel pay McAfee? They own them.
They sell malware for computer OEMs to preinstall. Also for some reason the US government loves the product.
No, it is a scam. You would have to be working with shit equipment for electrical noise from an SD card to contribute anything meaningful to the quality of your audio playback/recording.
The big draw of the OUYA console was its binary compatibility with Android, letting it use well-known tools such as Eclipse and Xamarin. Yet OUYA fizzled for some reason.
"For some reason"? Were you one of those blind fanbois? It's many issues were pointed out all over the place. Penny Arcade pointed out that it was just mostly hype and then all the Ouya fanbois across the Internet got butthurt. Acting as if the failure of Ouya was some freak accident that no one expected, is revisionist history.
Actually many people were pointing out its numerous issues before its release. Its fanbois just didn't want to believe them.
There is no doubt the guy's a crank.
Calling someone a "quack like this guy", without any reason to do so, is embarrassing to those of us trying to be objective and scientific. However it is surprisingly common among academics.
He's given plenty of reasons for being called a quack. Mythical proof that he won't share in public, invents academic conspiracies, won't post it to places like arXiv for made-up and patently false reasons, and then falls back to wanting to keep it to himself so that he can work on it alone and because someone is going to steal credit for it. Those are all tell-tale signs of quackery.
I have seen outright hostility. I have seen expressed interest that leads to non-communication without reasons. I have had the "crackpot" label leveled against me. And I have seen, above all else, a total lack of expressed interest or any effort at analysis, by academics.
I'm sure you have, but that's because there are tons of charlatans out there hawking phony proofs. You actually have to work to prove yourself just like all the other scientists/mathematicians/etc in front of you.
These are the behaviors of a group who feel their gravy train is threatened. And yes it is.
Yep, the fallback of the quack. Despite the fact that there are numerous examples of scientists and mathematicians who have come along with ideas that threaten and change established theory and persevered to prove themselves. On the other hand, the quacks and charlatans just hide behind their persecution complex.
That's because they encounter tons of quacks like this guy and his elusive proof.
Because you act like one of those infomercial snake-oil people.
arXiv asks that you get an endorsement if you don't have an academic affiliation. What you claim has never been true.
There are certianly hundreds, maybe thousands, of jobs in businesses that utilize the gear in that data center.
Which doesn't help the community unless those jobs are paying in tax revenue to Hillsboro to offset the tax breaks. You're clearly being intentionally dense if you don't understand the complaints.
Because he's now apparently afraid someone is going to steal credit for it: http://features.slashdot.org/c...
Basically he's going to keep making excuses for why he won't publicly publish this supposed proof.
*keep hiding*
The ego that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
Yeah, you have to get an endorsement to post in those cases, but it's never really that hard to get if you have something of value to post. This guy is just inventing reasons for why he's going to hiding his mystical proof.
Another excuse. First it's some conspiracy of the "acadrmic industry", then it's the imaginary requirement of an academic email for why you don't post to arXiv, and now it's some claim of your credit being stolen. And you wonder why no one buys your story?
arXiv does not require an academic email.
Have you never watched one of these videos before? They are always completely vacuous.
If it's full of self-aggrandizement you know it's Stephen Wolfram.
Then post your proof to the Internet and link to it on places that discuss math/science topics. You'll get plenty of feedback. But then that would require actually proving you have this mystical proof.
Hmm, seems my link to the registration help page got dropped.
I've tried to post to arXiv.org but they demand an academic email address.
If true, why is this "demand" not listed on either their page about about registering or on the registration form? Even their primer lists no such "demand". The only thing required if you don't have an recognized academic affiliation is to get an endorsement in order for them to process your submission. As the person below said, this reeks of quackery.
But do you have some in a special CIA napkin?
Why care what those people think? Just publish your proof and show them up.
Or he can just not take your terrible advice.