Aren't memories great? My guess is you had the CoCo (TRS Color Computer). Released in 1980. The original models had cassette (if my memory is correct) and a couple years later were offered with disk drive.
Floppies were a great step forward then... now I'm glad we don't have to deal with them. That is the cure of technology... nothing ever remains great.
I am almost positive that the hard card I got was for the Model IV. It is possible that I am confusing it with the Tandy 1000, but I don't think so. I remember getting the "card" which was almost the full length of the case and was heavy enough to kill a water buffalo. Now that i am typing this, I am trying to visualize puting it in the case... maybe it was the 1000 after all.
I'll have to ask my dad if he remembers.... this is really bugging me now:)
TRS-80 Model I with 4K of RAM. I was 6 and the thing came with a wonderfully put together BASIC programming manual. The beauty of the system is that you didn't need a lot of theory (any really) to get started.
10 CLS 20 PRINT "JOE WAS HERE" 30 GOTO 10
This was amazing to me. I ended up writing a few games, some math function and anything else I could do in 4K. Later on I went into programming as a career before turning to the dark side of management.
How does joining one group preclude you from associating with others outside of that group? I serve on the board of a technology group and a chess group.
Second question: If you think joining a high IQ group precludes you from interacting with folks with other skills not measured on an IQ test, then doesn't joining a special interest group also exclude you from really cool people that might excel in areas other than that special group?
Third question: Where did I say IQ isn't a measure of something valuable? I do think it isn't everything.
Initially curiosity. Over the past couple of years I have found the social interaction to be beneficial.Higher signal to noise ratio in the conversation department. I woldn't want to hand around with smart folk all the time, hence my travels to Slashdot:)
I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.
What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.
At some point, science just got too weird. We had this nice model of the universe with atoms, some laws of motion and thermodynamics. The universe was basically a giant billiards match. It made sense. It was easy to explain. Then we get into quantum mechanics and everything is crap shoot. Multiple universes. Particles that behave differently when being observed. Spooky action at a distance.
Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?
Gotta love how libertarians keep blabbing about "fiat currencies" and how the currencies can collapse "at any time". While technically true, currencies collapsed under gold standards, and probably at a rate faster than what you see in today's economy. What folks don't seem to understand is that money has no value in and of itself, but is based on a population's ability to produce goods and services. Whether you use bitcoins, greenbacks, electrons on a hard drive or gold doesn't change this truth.
By definition, money is simply a means of exchange... tying it to an arbitrary material is silly. In the old days, countries manipulated currencies through artificial means and like today when those means run their course, bad things happen.
So, gold, paper or electrons, a country's prosperity is tied to the competence of its government. While this is a scary fact, it is the truth.
I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.
You realize that this is a non-paid advertisement for Netflix and 'Arrested Development', right? This is in no way news. It is in no way for nerds. The nominal tie-in to "cloud computing" doesn't change that.
I don't see where the articles address the "reversing of losses" that the GGP cited. HFT may be flawed, but I don't see the items I questioned being addressed.
Here's the rub. For someone like me, I couldn't care less about HFT. I am in it for the long haul. I've invested for almost all of my adult life. I don't invest on hunches, instead I buy broadly and then hold for a long time. My investments do about as well as the broad market and I have almost no trading costs. Even if some doofus thinks he can beat the market (no, they can't), he'll eat up 1-2% of his money on fees.
So let folks be stupid and market time and talk about dead cat bounces and triple witching hours and other mumbo jumbo. In the long-run I will beat the vast majority and I will do so with very little effort on my part.
The reality is the only investors who can beat my strategy are active investors who are involved in the management of the assets they own (like Buffett) and those with insider information (real insidr info, not what your brother in law told you at the cocktail party). So, let the market tank for a couple hours, a couple days or even a couple years. I couldn't care less.
Hawking honed-in on the question “why something rather than nothing?” reasserting his point of view that a supernatural “god” is not needed to create the universe — quantum fluctuations helped shape our evolving universe at the Big Bang, adding the conditions were “just right” for life (and therefore us) to be asking these profound questions.
This is what I don't understand about these intelligent people. They answer why there is something rather than nothing by talking about how quantum fluctuations work. The existence of quantum fluctuations results from energy existing in the first place. So we have a rather circular argument being made. Essentially it boils down to "there is something because there was something".
There are only two possibilities: 1) there has always been something 2) there wasn't always something. Neither can be true, ergo we don't exist.
Oh, and in case you still think your article proves you right, you might want to read ALL of the article. The last paragraph states
"As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them."
So. while you may thing we are all "stupid" "ignorant" and "idiots", you cannot be arsed to read the entire article before forming an opinion based on nothing.
Actually, your link just shows you still don't understand what quantum entanglement is. In another post, you indicated that it was manipulating one entity in a pair and measuring it on the other pair. This is blatantly false.
Again, your article does nothing to indicate that data is transmitted. If it were, it would be an absolute stunner for the physics community, and you would see thousands of stories about science scrapping the theories that underlay everything we know about relativity.
No, I am not a physicist, but there was another physicist who called you out, and apparently you have at least one other person who thinks you are pretty offensive.
Thanks for providing the link. It proved that you are insulting without having a clue about what you are talking about.
Okay, I am self-taught in this area, so wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. I think the crux of the matter is so many people WANT this FTL communication to be possible (like me) that they refuse to accept the underlying principle.
I think the two terms are being confused, and we are actually agreeing on our positions.
I agree there is a legal expectation of privacy. I know that there is not practical expectation of privacy. That is why you should encrypt email if you care about privacy.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is zero corresponding change not "a small change in probability"? As long as it is non-zero there is some information transmitted and this clearly isn't the case.
I agree. The difference is in the meaning of "expect". The IRS is using it in a legal sense, and they are wrong here. From a practical sense, one should not expect email to be confidential. From a legal aspect we should have that expectation.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't memories great? My guess is you had the CoCo (TRS Color Computer). Released in 1980. The original models had cassette (if my memory is correct) and a couple years later were offered with disk drive.
Floppies were a great step forward then... now I'm glad we don't have to deal with them. That is the cure of technology... nothing ever remains great.
I am almost positive that the hard card I got was for the Model IV. It is possible that I am confusing it with the Tandy 1000, but I don't think so. I remember getting the "card" which was almost the full length of the case and was heavy enough to kill a water buffalo. Now that i am typing this, I am trying to visualize puting it in the case... maybe it was the 1000 after all.
I'll have to ask my dad if he remembers.... this is really bugging me now :)
TRS-80 Model I with 4K of RAM. I was 6 and the thing came with a wonderfully put together BASIC programming manual. The beauty of the system is that you didn't need a lot of theory (any really) to get started.
10 CLS
20 PRINT "JOE WAS HERE"
30 GOTO 10
This was amazing to me. I ended up writing a few games, some math function and anything else I could do in 4K. Later on I went into programming as a career before turning to the dark side of management.
How does joining one group preclude you from associating with others outside of that group? I serve on the board of a technology group and a chess group.
Second question: If you think joining a high IQ group precludes you from interacting with folks with other skills not measured on an IQ test, then doesn't joining a special interest group also exclude you from really cool people that might excel in areas other than that special group?
Third question: Where did I say IQ isn't a measure of something valuable? I do think it isn't everything.
most of them would end their lives are food or slaves.
Heh.
Congratulations, you caught me on an obvious typo.
Initially curiosity. Over the past couple of years I have found the social interaction to be beneficial.Higher signal to noise ratio in the conversation department. I woldn't want to hand around with smart folk all the time, hence my travels to Slashdot :)
I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.
What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.
At some point, science just got too weird. We had this nice model of the universe with atoms, some laws of motion and thermodynamics. The universe was basically a giant billiards match. It made sense. It was easy to explain. Then we get into quantum mechanics and everything is crap shoot. Multiple universes. Particles that behave differently when being observed. Spooky action at a distance.
Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?
You can listen to an NPR piece where the dolphin are interviewed.
Gotta love how libertarians keep blabbing about "fiat currencies" and how the currencies can collapse "at any time". While technically true, currencies collapsed under gold standards, and probably at a rate faster than what you see in today's economy. What folks don't seem to understand is that money has no value in and of itself, but is based on a population's ability to produce goods and services. Whether you use bitcoins, greenbacks, electrons on a hard drive or gold doesn't change this truth.
By definition, money is simply a means of exchange... tying it to an arbitrary material is silly. In the old days, countries manipulated currencies through artificial means and like today when those means run their course, bad things happen.
So, gold, paper or electrons, a country's prosperity is tied to the competence of its government. While this is a scary fact, it is the truth.
I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.
Same reason you did. No life and nothing better to do. Thanks for asking.
You realize that this is a non-paid advertisement for Netflix and 'Arrested Development', right? This is in no way news. It is in no way for nerds. The nominal tie-in to "cloud computing" doesn't change that.
I don't see where the articles address the "reversing of losses" that the GGP cited. HFT may be flawed, but I don't see the items I questioned being addressed.
Can you please cite a source?
Here's the rub. For someone like me, I couldn't care less about HFT. I am in it for the long haul. I've invested for almost all of my adult life. I don't invest on hunches, instead I buy broadly and then hold for a long time. My investments do about as well as the broad market and I have almost no trading costs. Even if some doofus thinks he can beat the market (no, they can't), he'll eat up 1-2% of his money on fees.
So let folks be stupid and market time and talk about dead cat bounces and triple witching hours and other mumbo jumbo. In the long-run I will beat the vast majority and I will do so with very little effort on my part.
The reality is the only investors who can beat my strategy are active investors who are involved in the management of the assets they own (like Buffett) and those with insider information (real insidr info, not what your brother in law told you at the cocktail party). So, let the market tank for a couple hours, a couple days or even a couple years. I couldn't care less.
Are you really the person behind the "host file" spam?
Spam Example
This is what I don't understand about these intelligent people. They answer why there is something rather than nothing by talking about how quantum fluctuations work. The existence of quantum fluctuations results from energy existing in the first place. So we have a rather circular argument being made. Essentially it boils down to "there is something because there was something".
There are only two possibilities: 1) there has always been something 2) there wasn't always something. Neither can be true, ergo we don't exist.
Oh, and in case you still think your article proves you right, you might want to read ALL of the article. The last paragraph states
"As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them."
So. while you may thing we are all "stupid" "ignorant" and "idiots", you cannot be arsed to read the entire article before forming an opinion based on nothing.
Actually, your link just shows you still don't understand what quantum entanglement is. In another post, you indicated that it was manipulating one entity in a pair and measuring it on the other pair. This is blatantly false.
Again, your article does nothing to indicate that data is transmitted. If it were, it would be an absolute stunner for the physics community, and you would see thousands of stories about science scrapping the theories that underlay everything we know about relativity.
No, I am not a physicist, but there was another physicist who called you out, and apparently you have at least one other person who thinks you are pretty offensive.
Thanks for providing the link. It proved that you are insulting without having a clue about what you are talking about.
Okay, I am self-taught in this area, so wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. I think the crux of the matter is so many people WANT this FTL communication to be possible (like me) that they refuse to accept the underlying principle.
I think the two terms are being confused, and we are actually agreeing on our positions.
I agree there is a legal expectation of privacy.
I know that there is not practical expectation of privacy. That is why you should encrypt email if you care about privacy.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is zero corresponding change not "a small change in probability"? As long as it is non-zero there is some information transmitted and this clearly isn't the case.
I agree. The difference is in the meaning of "expect". The IRS is using it in a legal sense, and they are wrong here. From a practical sense, one should not expect email to be confidential. From a legal aspect we should have that expectation.