It is interesting reading these posts.
Even those with (historically) a pumper bias can't really think of anything positive to say about AT. I read a lot of "gullible", "trusting", "naive" and as for lying... "yes, but...".
If AT were a $35K-$50K project leader, then these shortcomings might be acceptable as he matures into a skilled executive. BUT, he's helping himself to about $1 million/year in total compensation!!
His track record is long enough to be relevant.
And, that track record speaks volumes about what he's actually worth to this company.
But, hey. You already know what I think he's worth... I sold my stock.
Ok Flog me now.
AT may be guilty as much of believing as anything else. Suppliers make promises and commitments that are often left unfulfilled. I am not one to use words like cheating and lying without having more to go on than what is "known" here. My losses are significant and so am not wanting to appear polly anna but have trouble believing AT is malicious. Gullible, trusting, hopeful and maybe even negligent but personal attacks from my POV are misguided.
Got to agree with you Rave. I do not feel AT is malicious - perhaps a bit gullible and naive in the ways of a small company in a big boys world. He was wonderful out of the gate but stumbled as we went around the first turn (to get away from his superbowl analogy). I appreciated his original plan to trim the company and to focus on the engine. But then he started expanding again, i.e. Ben in eyewear, etc. Spent a lot of money on off the goal things, including parties, etc. Perhaps I am a bit biased as I did not think the movie about Dr. Evil was all that funny the first time. let alone using it for promotions for something we didn't really have. Sure, it may have lured in a dweeb or two but certainly not any EOMs.
In spite of it all, and the frustrations of watching as we limp around the track, I am hopeful we can get a final spurt and come around for the win. Seventeen years of being with this old nag and I still have faith.
and he still cheating
Laser scanning picoprojectors present a new challenge in the field of laser safety with methods of calculating accessible emission limits still in their infancy. We present a laser safety analysis and a calculation of an example picoprojector. We show that, due to its scanning operation, a picoprojector should be considered an extended laser source, and we also show that a picoprojector with two separate one-axis microelectromechanical systems mirrors offers a higher safe power limit than a projector with a single scanning mirror. Finally, a safety analysis is done under conditions of mirror failure. We show that, if the projector fails to scan in just one of the axes, the ocular hazard rises sharply, highlighting the need for a fail-safe system to be built into laser scanning picoprojectors.
© 2012 Optical Society of America
Everybody does, that is why he doesn't speak or give promissed updates. He knows what he has done. He lied since the launch back in '09 and hasn't stopped. the Lawyers have him muzzled. Under his leadership we will be luck to bring this tech to fruition. Having him as the CEO is like betting on the lottery.