Not so. He is the one who made the original statement. The onus of proof is on him to show what is "completely made up". It's a fairly extreme statement after all.
Sorry, but that wasn't his statement. It's quite clear that he states that what is presented as new technology is completely made up nonsense. He may be right, but he needs to show what in the article is completely made up nonsense so that we know if he is.
It was my statement, and it was a reply to the previous unsupported assertion which I quoted here.
> It's quite clear that he states that what is presented as new technology is completely made up nonsense.
Yes.
> He may be right, but he needs to show what in the article is completely made up nonsense so that we know if he is.
There is jack shit in the article supporting the existence or likelihood of "new technology". It's window dressing, a PR release with no meat or bones promising a bright and spotless future out of essentially nothing. It has as much technological content as Blindsight, Altered Carbon, or I, Robot. Possibly less.
It really is. I've actually argued with people (multiple times in multiple companies) about the press release containing false information, and they told me "that's just what we do."
What do you think PR is if not making something up to present a positive story? There isn't even a law that says it has to be truthful, so long as you aren't soliciting something. I can make a claim that I developed a working nuclear fusion reactor and put out a press release for it. Anyone with a brain would know it's bullshit but it's still PR. It's completely legal and standard practice.
No offense, but I think you should educate yourself further.
