[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Virtual Repeater

I just love how this seemingly endless thread is called "Virtual Repeater" in the subject header. Ha ha.  :-)

Best,

-Rev. Fever

On Mar 21, 2009, at 12:59 PM, mark francombe wrote:

That could be it Kevin, sure... but WHO IS IT??? Maybe there is someone, who wants to make them an offer...?

I like to think that what you say is true, that there is some cunning people protecting their work for some greater plan that they have up their sleeves, but you know, I dont think so...

I bet that when Electrix folded, the clever people were running about trying to get new jobs, servers were switched off, accounts with hosting companies were terminated and in the furore the bankruptcy lawyers collected all the laptops and shelves and tables and chairs and printers and flogged the lot... paid off who ever needed paying, took their cut, went home and moaned to the wife about the "Bloody IT business"... Meanwhile.... in a long forgoton filing cabinet...now in the basement of "Grabbit, Seezit, Sellitt and son" there stirs some atoms lying upon the surface of a dusty hard-drive... the atoms shift and move exitedly, electrons spinning around nuclei with pride, knowing that one day, somehow they will again be required to arrange themselves in a particular order, that their master so once ordained, that they will again be manipulated by enormous lifeforms into even greater and more exquisite perfection than that of their predecessors. They live for the day that may never come, that they will become ... Repeater OS. 2.6 ! ! ! ! !



you never know...



Mark

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Cheli-Colando <kevin@minds-eye.org> wrote:
I think it has something to do with the pitch shifting algorithms.
They are part of a larger line of processors and the owners are kind
of proprietary about them and didn't want that code loose in the world
for anyone else to use.  Something like that but its early, I could be
totally wrong making all of that up.

Kevin

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:31 AM, mark francombe <mark@markfrancombe.com> wrote:
> Stephen, you can't say things like     1, 2, and 3, are way off base.
> without offering some insight into the situation... were you there? I
> respect that you do seem to know something about Peter Toms role than I did
> (actually I was disapointed to hear that he has no stake - coming back to
> this point****) It seems like that from the outside, which is where we are,
> what Jeff described is EXACTLY how it looked.. I know noting of 3 different
> owners (well I do - but it hardly excuses them from a customer point of
> view) They have a very great product but its is a very poor brand, or BECAME
> a very poor brand I should say.
>
> I can see that as a real lover of Repeater Stephen, you want to applaud
> their achievements rather than trash them, and I agree.
>
> *** So who DOES have any stake inthe remains, who currently owns the
> software, either the Hardware OS... Or Any virtual Repeater...?
>
> Does ANYONE have the answer to this??? Who OWNS the software??? It must be
> someone who wants to earn back a bit of cash surely?
>
> Mark
>
>


--
Till now you seriously considered yourself to be the body and to have a
form. That is the primal ignorance which is the root cause of all trouble.

- Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950)

Sound and Vision:  http://www.minds-eye.org NEW SITE 3/01/09




--
www.markfrancombe.com
http://vimeo.com/user825094
http://uk.youtube.com/user/markfrancombe
http://www.myspace.com/markfrancombe
http://www.looop.no/shop/catlabel.php?q=Synch%20Non%20Synch