I don't think that Hulbert's information for the 90s is on the net. As I recall, Prechter was VERY wrong for almost the entire boom years, calling for a crash. The fact that one happened was no credit to him as he bills himself as a market timer and yet, through this crucial period, was very bad. I could declare a market boom coming, but my prediction would be quite useless as there will be many booms and busts to come. He missed the profits from the boom, as did Charlie Allman of the Growth Stock Outlook. Market letter writers are market timers and if they are often wrong it is of no value. Timing does matter as you will have to take your money out for retirement, or buying a house or sending your kids to college at some particular time, and if it is in a major downturn, and you didn't know it was coming, you lose. On another note, I tried various wave theories myself, and read market letters of wave timers such as Precter. They all fail, given a long enough time to be representative of bull and bear cycles.
I have followed the market for 35 years and watched Prechter make some amazingly good predictions, then follow that by horrible ones. His calls on the stock market bubble were poor and quite useless for traders or investors. Check with Mark Hulbert's magazine for a better description of his failures.
Also, about Elliott's "discovery" of fractals before Mandelbrot: it didn't happen. Just because he noticed self-similarity ( so did a lot of others: Poincare, etc. ) didn't mean that he knew what fractal dimensions were ( which is the basis of the name ).
Finally, for the reviewer: the word you were looking for several times was "cite", not "site".
Now I'll come down off my high-horse and become normal again...
Re: Grace Hopper
1) The Smithsonian had a display about computers and bugs 10 or 15 years ago. The log page referred to, AND the moth, were displayed, along with a discussion about how the term "bug" was actually very old. The moth was extremely faded and much the worse for wear, so I couldn't identify it.
2) A neighbor, civilian working for the military, got to go to a Grace Hopper lecture ( about 1990?? ) and she gave out the nano-second wires at the end. He said that it was very funny watching multi-starred generals elbowing each other for position to get the souvenirs! ( but, I guess that military people are SUPPOSED to fight! ).
That makes sense. The probability that one person will get hit, of the millions in the area, could be 1 in 2000. I was reading it as "a given person", so that if you were in the area, YOUR chance would be 1 in 2000. English is an ambiguous language and we would be better off speaking in math!
"In other words, if 2000 satellites came out of orbit, only one person would be hit by debris. The population density is already taken into account."
I don't think so: only 1 person hit by the debris, of the millions in the path, from 2000 satellites is not the same statement that the chance of being hit is 1 in 2000, when the reference is to a single crashing satellite.
I can imagine that your version was the one that the scientists stated and then the non-tech journalists garbaged it up to be the one we read.
The statement that your probability of being hit is 1 in 2000 can't be right!? The means that, out of 2000 people, one is likely to be hit?? Out of millions of people ( that DO live in the path ) thousands WILL be hit? The number must be a mistake.
> You've got to be kidding.
I am. The post was tongue-in-cheek
>There's a tons of stuff wrong with this.
See above
> But you're forgetting the biggest law of thermodynamics: CONSERVATION OF MASS. Just because the dinosaurs died, doesn't mean that the carbon atoms which composed their bodies disappeared...
There was no such reference in my post.
>The earth was formed LONG before life emerged. I'm not sure where the 'race to be the biggest object orbiting the sun' thing came from....
I invented that "race", that's where.
How is your life better now that you know where it came from?
Actually it was a GOOD day for the earth as it got a major influx of material and upped its accretion rate, helping out in the race to be the biggest object orbiting the sun, though it still trails several other bodies, as of this writing.
It WAS a BAD day for the life forms that inhabited the skin of the earth, but they didn't contribute a lot to the total mass.
It WAS a GOOD day, though, for the minor life forms called mammals, as many of their predators and competitors were disposed of.
Tough call on Good vs. Bad.
I remember when stuffed shirts would say that the micro-computer OSs weren't really OSs since the didn't have some specific text editor, as if these bundled programs WERE the operating system! But they all were OSs, just not as complex as the Unix - VMS types were.
Science, correctly done, uses repeatable experiments to confirm or deny a hypothesis. Single variables are adjusted so that the effects of each is determined and "cause and effect" is established. The studies that use the name "Science" in their name do not do this and are not sciences.
Barry
Anything with the name science in it isn't. Political Science, Social Science and Computer Science are not sciences ( and if you believe that Computer Science is a branch of math: Math is not a science! ). Nobody ever uses the phrases "Physics Science" or "Chemistry Science".
Beyond the problem of the crowded look, it would have been great if we could have tilted the view and seen it from different angles. Since the orbits are not exactly in the plane of the ecliptic, it would have been interesting to see how they "really" are. Also, it would have cut down on the density by pulling some out of the way of the view of others. And then, if it could have been done in stereo...
I taught an 8th grader, about 1968, who, as a high school student, took radio telescope sounds and built a rock song around them, releasing it as a record ( vinyl ). I had a copy at one time and thought it was pretty good. Does anybody know who this was? Like so much of my past, I've forgotten...
Unbelievable that we should take seriously the complaints of TV, which drowns us in commercials, covers us with misinformation and biased reporting and is soft on corporate abuses until they reach the Enron-like level that can't be ignored. While all software contains bugs, and it may be impossible to root out all bugs in adequately complex programs, most software does it job almost all of the time. My word processor processes words, my spread sheet spreads sheets of numbers and my browser allows me to browse. These are MUCH more reliable than TV!!
The Nuremburg trials after WWII covered this moral ground. The fact that there are many people who would lie, cheat and steal, if you yourself refuse to do so in that position, does not make it right for you to lie, cheat and steal. Our society doesn't work if everybody is morally corrupt. I guess an anarchist would think that the collapse of society is cool, but others don't. And preachy stuff is SO boring to read...
The effect is similar to a heads-up display for a pilot with a screen of transparent GUIs 1" in front of a normal screen. The "stereo" effect was best when a 3-d text (as in the screen saver) rotated on the top layer. There was an illusion of depth at that point. The cheapest model was going for $8K. FWIW, Dimensional Media had a true stereo-without-glasses monitor ( $95K ) that allowed 20 layers of depth and looked good, though the depth was not great ( looked good showing a Doom demo, tho ).
The phrase "3-d" is thrown around, but I don't see anything about HOW the distances are determined. I understand doppler shifts for distance, standard brightness of a type, etc. but we are talking about having computer analysis of the billions of points of light and calculating a distance for each to produce a 3-d map? HOW?
Barry
Two additional confounding variables are: 1) The study used self-reported results. Sometimes people will report that they didn't sleep a wink, when someone in the same room, suffering their snoring, will disagree. 2) A lot of drugs are sold over-the-counter to "help" a person sleep. Someone with some medical conditon that requires drugs will be in greater danger of dying, even though the drugs cause him to sleep more ( and may even precipitate the accident that causes the death! )
Didn't Bill Joy say...?
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
I seem to remember the Bill Joy article as stating he believed the coming computer growth as a problem, and it was somebody else, in a followup article that pointed out that the extreme bugginess of programs would prevent them from working properly.
However, since so many of my bugs become "features", do these bugs become parts of the personality of the machines, with surprising consequences for us all??
Since EVERYTHING he said, above, is wrong or highly questionable ( including that pacifism causes war: "You are going to kill me because I DIDN'T try to kill you????" ) can we assume that it was written by a linux guru setting up strawmen to knock down? No real human would say those things.
I played around with the MA IV and found the curved silvered mirror to be comfortable and easy on the eye. I don't believe the light source could get to the "dangerous" level. I'd be happy to use the head display for an extended period of time, but the MA IV was heavy in the vest we wore. Since the company has moved on to smaller devices the weight might not be relevant now.
Also, according to this:
http://www.xybernautonline.com/eCommerce/Poma/Plac _Poma.htm
the screen is 640x480, not 800x600.
Yes! Mate people who never have a buffer overflow with others who always comment their code heavily. Then mate THAT child with one who has never had a memory leak and codes furiously for hours!
Can you imagine a set of alchemists ( chemists ) or bleeders ( doctors ) in the 17th Century getting together to make certification standards? Extreme programming and Design Patterns are an interesting start, but programming is still thrashing around where science was many centuries ago. Do you really want bleeders certifying YOU?
Protect us from the mandated socializing! If you have a friend at work who wants to stop for a drink, fine. If your wife can stand his wife, have dinner and a movie. But if people in the company EXPECT you to join the happy hour ( for 3 hours! ) this is just extra strain on top of work. If they EXPECT you to get a gag gift for the Christmas party for someone you hardly know, this, too, is just extra strain. Enjoy your own friends and keep the company people at work!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that Hulbert's information for the 90s is on the net. As I recall, Prechter was VERY wrong for almost the entire boom years, calling for a crash. The fact that one happened was no credit to him as he bills himself as a market timer and yet, through this crucial period, was very bad. I could declare a market boom coming, but my prediction would be quite useless as there will be many booms and busts to come. He missed the profits from the boom, as did Charlie Allman of the Growth Stock Outlook. Market letter writers are market timers and if they are often wrong it is of no value. Timing does matter as you will have to take your money out for retirement, or buying a house or sending your kids to college at some particular time, and if it is in a major downturn, and you didn't know it was coming, you lose. On another note, I tried various wave theories myself, and read market letters of wave timers such as Precter. They all fail, given a long enough time to be representative of bull and bear cycles.
I have followed the market for 35 years and watched Prechter make some amazingly good predictions, then follow that by horrible ones. His calls on the stock market bubble were poor and quite useless for traders or investors. Check with Mark Hulbert's magazine for a better description of his failures. Also, about Elliott's "discovery" of fractals before Mandelbrot: it didn't happen. Just because he noticed self-similarity ( so did a lot of others: Poincare, etc. ) didn't mean that he knew what fractal dimensions were ( which is the basis of the name ). Finally, for the reviewer: the word you were looking for several times was "cite", not "site". Now I'll come down off my high-horse and become normal again...
Re: Grace Hopper 1) The Smithsonian had a display about computers and bugs 10 or 15 years ago. The log page referred to, AND the moth, were displayed, along with a discussion about how the term "bug" was actually very old. The moth was extremely faded and much the worse for wear, so I couldn't identify it. 2) A neighbor, civilian working for the military, got to go to a Grace Hopper lecture ( about 1990?? ) and she gave out the nano-second wires at the end. He said that it was very funny watching multi-starred generals elbowing each other for position to get the souvenirs! ( but, I guess that military people are SUPPOSED to fight! ).
That makes sense. The probability that one person will get hit, of the millions in the area, could be 1 in 2000. I was reading it as "a given person", so that if you were in the area, YOUR chance would be 1 in 2000. English is an ambiguous language and we would be better off speaking in math!
"In other words, if 2000 satellites came out of orbit, only one person would be hit by debris. The population density is already taken into account." I don't think so: only 1 person hit by the debris, of the millions in the path, from 2000 satellites is not the same statement that the chance of being hit is 1 in 2000, when the reference is to a single crashing satellite. I can imagine that your version was the one that the scientists stated and then the non-tech journalists garbaged it up to be the one we read.
The statement that your probability of being hit is 1 in 2000 can't be right!? The means that, out of 2000 people, one is likely to be hit?? Out of millions of people ( that DO live in the path ) thousands WILL be hit? The number must be a mistake.
> You've got to be kidding. I am. The post was tongue-in-cheek >There's a tons of stuff wrong with this. See above > But you're forgetting the biggest law of thermodynamics: CONSERVATION OF MASS. Just because the dinosaurs died, doesn't mean that the carbon atoms which composed their bodies disappeared... There was no such reference in my post. >The earth was formed LONG before life emerged. I'm not sure where the 'race to be the biggest object orbiting the sun' thing came from.... I invented that "race", that's where. How is your life better now that you know where it came from?
Actually it was a GOOD day for the earth as it got a major influx of material and upped its accretion rate, helping out in the race to be the biggest object orbiting the sun, though it still trails several other bodies, as of this writing. It WAS a BAD day for the life forms that inhabited the skin of the earth, but they didn't contribute a lot to the total mass. It WAS a GOOD day, though, for the minor life forms called mammals, as many of their predators and competitors were disposed of. Tough call on Good vs. Bad.
I remember when stuffed shirts would say that the micro-computer OSs weren't really OSs since the didn't have some specific text editor, as if these bundled programs WERE the operating system! But they all were OSs, just not as complex as the Unix - VMS types were.
Science, correctly done, uses repeatable experiments to confirm or deny a hypothesis. Single variables are adjusted so that the effects of each is determined and "cause and effect" is established. The studies that use the name "Science" in their name do not do this and are not sciences. Barry
Anything with the name science in it isn't. Political Science, Social Science and Computer Science are not sciences ( and if you believe that Computer Science is a branch of math: Math is not a science! ). Nobody ever uses the phrases "Physics Science" or "Chemistry Science".
Beyond the problem of the crowded look, it would have been great if we could have tilted the view and seen it from different angles. Since the orbits are not exactly in the plane of the ecliptic, it would have been interesting to see how they "really" are. Also, it would have cut down on the density by pulling some out of the way of the view of others. And then, if it could have been done in stereo...
I taught an 8th grader, about 1968, who, as a high school student, took radio telescope sounds and built a rock song around them, releasing it as a record ( vinyl ). I had a copy at one time and thought it was pretty good. Does anybody know who this was? Like so much of my past, I've forgotten...
Unbelievable that we should take seriously the complaints of TV, which drowns us in commercials, covers us with misinformation and biased reporting and is soft on corporate abuses until they reach the Enron-like level that can't be ignored.
While all software contains bugs, and it may be impossible to root out all bugs in adequately complex programs, most software does it job almost all of the time. My word processor processes words, my spread sheet spreads sheets of numbers and my browser allows me to browse. These are MUCH more reliable than TV!!
The Nuremburg trials after WWII covered this moral ground. The fact that there are many people who would lie, cheat and steal, if you yourself refuse to do so in that position, does not make it right for you to lie, cheat and steal. Our society doesn't work if everybody is morally corrupt. I guess an anarchist would think that the collapse of society is cool, but others don't. And preachy stuff is SO boring to read ...
The effect is similar to a heads-up display for a pilot with a screen of transparent GUIs 1" in front of a normal screen. The "stereo" effect was best when a 3-d text (as in the screen saver) rotated on the top layer. There was an illusion of depth at that point.
The cheapest model was going for $8K.
FWIW, Dimensional Media had a true stereo-without-glasses monitor ( $95K ) that allowed 20 layers of depth and looked good, though the depth was not great ( looked good showing a Doom demo, tho ).
The phrase "3-d" is thrown around, but I don't see anything about HOW the distances are determined. I understand doppler shifts for distance, standard brightness of a type, etc. but we are talking about having computer analysis of the billions of points of light and calculating a distance for each to produce a 3-d map? HOW? Barry
Two additional confounding variables are: 1) The study used self-reported results. Sometimes people will report that they didn't sleep a wink, when someone in the same room, suffering their snoring, will disagree. 2) A lot of drugs are sold over-the-counter to "help" a person sleep. Someone with some medical conditon that requires drugs will be in greater danger of dying, even though the drugs cause him to sleep more ( and may even precipitate the accident that causes the death! )
I seem to remember the Bill Joy article as stating he believed the coming computer growth as a problem, and it was somebody else, in a followup article that pointed out that the extreme bugginess of programs would prevent them from working properly. However, since so many of my bugs become "features", do these bugs become parts of the personality of the machines, with surprising consequences for us all??
Since EVERYTHING he said, above, is wrong or highly questionable ( including that pacifism causes war: "You are going to kill me because I DIDN'T try to kill you????" ) can we assume that it was written by a linux guru setting up strawmen to knock down? No real human would say those things.
I played around with the MA IV and found the curved silvered mirror to be comfortable and easy on the eye. I don't believe the light source could get to the "dangerous" level. I'd be happy to use the head display for an extended period of time, but the MA IV was heavy in the vest we wore. Since the company has moved on to smaller devices the weight might not be relevant now. Also, according to this: http://www.xybernautonline.com/eCommerce/Poma/Plac _Poma.htm
the screen is 640x480, not 800x600.
Yes! Mate people who never have a buffer overflow with others who always comment their code heavily. Then mate THAT child with one who has never had a memory leak and codes furiously for hours!
Can you imagine a set of alchemists ( chemists ) or bleeders ( doctors ) in the 17th Century getting together to make certification standards? Extreme programming and Design Patterns are an interesting start, but programming is still thrashing around where science was many centuries ago. Do you really want bleeders certifying YOU?
Protect us from the mandated socializing! If you have a friend at work who wants to stop for a drink, fine. If your wife can stand his wife, have dinner and a movie. But if people in the company EXPECT you to join the happy hour ( for 3 hours! ) this is just extra strain on top of work. If they EXPECT you to get a gag gift for the Christmas party for someone you hardly know, this, too, is just extra strain. Enjoy your own friends and keep the company people at work!