Groups > comp.lang.forth > #13246 > unrolled thread

doing exercises for starting forth, kinda discouraging, some are easy and some seem text not prepare me for....

Started by	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
First post	2012-06-25 14:09 -0700
Last post	2012-06-26 10:57 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 133 — 22 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

#13282

From	"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com>
Date	2012-06-26 14:30 -1000
Message-ID	<QfadnT3REqeKyXfSnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#13277

On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
> I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
> might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
> too.
> Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.

That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your 
computer, so we can't see it from the internet.

If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting 
over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent 
with current technology) than Starting Forth.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13295

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-27 14:09 -0700
Message-ID	<c42d6329-25a7-4e42-b08d-2dddbd70b4e5@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13282

On Jun 26, 5:30 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
>
> > I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
> > might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
> > too.
> > Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.
>
> That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your
> computer, so we can't see it from the internet.
>
> If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting
> over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent
> with current technology) than Starting Forth.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
> --
> ==================================================
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com
>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

IS FAT ok for pfe on openbsd?
and beginner<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13299

From	"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com>
Date	2012-06-27 11:33 -1000
Message-ID	<G5Sdnaq6VJyG4XbSnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#13295

On 6/27/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:30 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
>>
>>> I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
>>> might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
>>> too.
>>> Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.
>>
>> That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your
>> computer, so we can't see it from the internet.
>>
>> If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting
>> over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent
>> with current technology) than Starting Forth.
>
> IS FAT ok for pfe on openbsd?
> and beginner<<
>

Yes, it's completely compatible except for the "Multitasking" chapter, 
which is specific to FORTH, Inc. products. It also includes a few words 
that are marked as "common usage" but are not in ANS Forth, which might 
or might not be in pfe. Otherwise, it's generally compatible with ANS Forth.

Start at the very beginning, with the "Philosophy" discussion.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13315

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-28 01:05 -0700
Message-ID	<302a84f8-f62f-4ffb-bb1b-7b883e6ff45f@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13299

On Jun 27, 2:33 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 5:30 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
>
> >>> I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
> >>> might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
> >>> too.
> >>> Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.
>
> >> That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your
> >> computer, so we can't see it from the internet.
>
> >> If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting
> >> over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent
> >> with current technology) than Starting Forth.
>
> > IS FAT ok for pfe on openbsd?
> > and beginner<<
>
> Yes, it's completely compatible except for the "Multitasking" chapter,
> which is specific to FORTH, Inc. products. It also includes a few words
> that are marked as "common usage" but are not in ANS Forth, which might
> or might not be in pfe. Otherwise, it's generally compatible with ANS Forth.
>
> Start at the very beginning, with the "Philosophy" discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
> --
> ==================================================
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com
>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

ok cool will do
thx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13276

From	Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com>
Date	2012-06-26 22:03 +0000
Message-ID	<4fea31b9$0$10048$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
In reply to	#13267

Mark Wills wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
>>> Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!
>>
>> I kind of doubt it.
>
> Don't be so negative!

Gavino has been posting the same sorts of questions since...hmm, looks
like early 2006, on many different programming-language newsgroups
(python, lisp, scheme, haskell, php, tcl, forth, java, etc.).  AFAICT he
has *never* demonstrated any level of knowledge on any subject beyond
what can be turned up with 30 seconds or so of internet searching.

So...tell me, what more would it take to convince you that calling him a
troll is not negative but simply realistic?

--Josh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13278

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-26 15:25 -0700
Message-ID	<0aeed225-f2a5-4a07-a98d-8a231111eac6@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13276

On Jun 26, 3:03 pm, Josh Grams <j...@qualdan.com> wrote:
> Mark Wills wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
> >>> Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!
>
> >> I kind of doubt it.
>
> > Don't be so negative!
>
> Gavino has been posting the same sorts of questions since...hmm, looks
> like early 2006, on many different programming-language newsgroups
> (python, lisp, scheme, haskell, php, tcl, forth, java, etc.).  AFAICT he
> has *never* demonstrated any level of knowledge on any subject beyond
> what can be turned up with 30 seconds or so of internet searching.
>
> So...tell me, what more would it take to convince you that calling him a
> troll is not negative but simply realistic?
>
> --Josh

Well my bank account and 6 fig net worth says I have some great
skills. Add that to my genius iq 154 and natural curiosity, not to
mention artistic flaire, and you get the idea.  I mean Hek I went to
school ranked ahead of some viy leagues but who cares?  Ben bernanke
is fed chairman from princeton a good school and he is utter moron
doing exact opposite of what need to be done and he is nukking eocnomy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13292

From	John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-27 11:02 -0700
Message-ID	<cef41777-b7db-4b62-826d-ac0fb696fa64@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13278

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:25:21 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> Well my bank account and 6 fig net worth says I have 
> some great skills. 

Maybe, but up until recently, those skills apparently didn't include learning Forth.  And that's just *weird* because while Forth has an unusual syntax compared to other languages, it is a very traditional, very conservative, very procedural imperative language that other programmers can pick up the basics of in less than a day.  When did you first start writing in this newsgroup again?

> Add that to my genius iq 154 and natural curiosity, 
> not to mention artistic flaire, and you get the idea.  

Yeah, I have a pretty good idea.  I guess it's possible to be a genius who take *years* to learn new things.  Maybe your problem is all that curiosity and art that fills your mind has pushed out the part of the brain that is required to understand the cartoons of Starting Forth.

> I mean Hek I went to school ranked ahead of some 
> viy leagues but who cares?  

One observation I've had about people who can legitimately be called geniuses is that you don't need them to tell you they are a genius.  You can tell from their work, their questions, and the quality of the discussions they engage in.  In other words, it's self-evident.  Perhaps if you have to tell people you're a genius and constantly try to prove your worth by citing your IQ and bank account, then maybe you're not as hot as you think you are.  Just sayin'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13294

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-27 14:11 -0700
Message-ID	<b0f4b418-9a98-416d-bd0e-af41acaf50f4@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13292

On Jun 27, 11:02 am, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:25:21 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> > Well my bank account and 6 fig net worth says I have
> > some great skills.
>
> Maybe, but up until recently, those skills apparently didn't include learning Forth.  And that's just *weird* because while Forth has an unusual syntax compared to other languages, it is a very traditional, very conservative, very procedural imperative language that other programmers can pick up the basics of in less than a day.  When did you first start writing in this newsgroup again?
>
> > Add that to my genius iq 154 and natural curiosity,
> > not to mention artistic flaire, and you get the idea.
>
> Yeah, I have a pretty good idea.  I guess it's possible to be a genius who take *years* to learn new things.  Maybe your problem is all that curiosity and art that fills your mind has pushed out the part of the brain that is required to understand the cartoons of Starting Forth.
>
> > I mean Hek I went to school ranked ahead of some
> > viy leagues but who cares?
>
> One observation I've had about people who can legitimately be called geniuses is that you don't need them to tell you they are a genius.  You can tell from their work, their questions, and the quality of the discussions they engage in.  In other words, it's self-evident.  Perhaps if you have to tell people you're a genius and constantly try to prove your worth by citing your IQ and bank account, then maybe you're not as hot as you think you are.  Just sayin'.

Exactly, see the way I get to core problems and not worried about
minutiae shows this exactly.  Spending time arguing about tiny
unimportant things is a sign of low iq.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13297

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-27 14:28 -0700
Message-ID	<642354aa-b1f2-48cc-95d2-3012811f2255@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13292

On Jun 27, 11:02 am, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:25:21 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> > Well my bank account and 6 fig net worth says I have
> > some great skills.
>
> Maybe, but up until recently, those skills apparently didn't include learning Forth.  And that's just *weird* because while Forth has an unusual syntax compared to other languages, it is a very traditional, very conservative, very procedural imperative language that other programmers can pick up the basics of in less than a day.  When did you first start writing in this newsgroup again?
>
> > Add that to my genius iq 154 and natural curiosity,
> > not to mention artistic flaire, and you get the idea.
>
> Yeah, I have a pretty good idea.  I guess it's possible to be a genius who take *years* to learn new things.  Maybe your problem is all that curiosity and art that fills your mind has pushed out the part of the brain that is required to understand the cartoons of Starting Forth.
>
> > I mean Hek I went to school ranked ahead of some
> > viy leagues but who cares?
>
> One observation I've had about people who can legitimately be called geniuses is that you don't need them to tell you they are a genius.  You can tell from their work, their questions, and the quality of the discussions they engage in.  In other words, it's self-evident.  Perhaps if you have to tell people you're a genius and constantly try to prove your worth by citing your IQ and bank account, then maybe you're not as hot as you think you are.  Just sayin'.

What websites do you own John? curious

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13300

From	"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm>
Date	2012-06-27 19:00 -0400
Message-ID	<jsg38f$60v$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#13292

"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cef41777-b7db-4b62-826d-ac0fb696fa64@googlegroups.com...

<OT>

> One observation I've had about people who can legitimately be called
> geniuses is that you don't need them to tell you they are a genius.
> You can tell from their work, their questions, and the quality of the
> discussions they engage in.  In other words, it's self-evident.  Perhaps
> if you have to tell people you're a genius and constantly try to prove
> your worth by citing your IQ and bank account, then maybe you're not
> as hot as you think you are.  Just sayin'.

One observation I've had about people who *aren't* geniuses is that they
constantly question legimate geniuses because they can't comprehend whether
the ideas that geniuses present are brilliant or retarded.  Frequently,
geniuses summarize their idea down to very simple statements or questions
regarding their idea(s), even though their thought process may have consumed
hundreds of pages if written, or may have thoroughly exercised their
prodigious memory, or may have involved higher mathematics.  If they don't
summarize and simplify, no one in a typical group setting can follow their
idea or logic, except a few other geniuses who generally aren't involved in
large group settings, e.g., Usenet.  Without presenting the entirety of the
"background" information developed by the genius, a genius frequently is
perceived as stupid or wierd or confused or lost.  If the "background"
information is presented, it gets "ripped to shreds" by numerous average IQ,
detail oriented, individuals who will never comprehend the the idea.  The
genius, recognizing his audience doesn't comprehend and will never, of
course, responds by limiting such information in the future in an attempt to
focus the conversation.  If ideas are presented in person, people will look
at geniuses as being crazy, have open mouths, will be stumped or confused,
or be whispering swear words implying that they are truly stupid or have
just "stated the obvious" or will question whether the genius has any
"common sense", etc.  So, geniuses must always and constantly try to prove
their worth to non-geniuses by various means, when confronted.  When angry,
citing IQ is frequently a first choice because they already know how smart
they truly are.  They just need you or others to recognize it...  For
geniuses, citing IQ sounds arrogant, gets old after a while, and is
considered rude by certain social mores even if true, especially European
mores which thoroughly embrace the "STFU" philosophy towards geniuses.
So, while it may be self-evident to a bright person or another genius that a
genius truly is a genius, it clearly isn't to the vast majority of people.

Also, IQ is difficult to prove, in any setting.  The best academic and
psychological tests don't fully quantify genius or the various types of
genius.  Savants, including Autistics, frequently demonstrate genius level
IQ and abilities, but only in very limited and specific areas.  Even so,
it's very clear to the rest of humanity that they have mental disabilities,
even without testing.  Many standardized tests are purely language or
mathematics based.  Other times such tests are weighted heavily or biased
towards memory and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not an ability
to think or solve problems.  Commonly, they fail to test musical and visual
forms of intellect.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13303

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date	2012-06-28 01:46 +0200
Message-ID	<jsg615$6cn$1@online.de>
In reply to	#13300

Rod Pemberton wrote:Many standardized tests are purely language or
> mathematics based.  Other times such tests are weighted heavily or
> biased towards memory and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not
> an ability
> to think or solve problems.  Commonly, they fail to test musical and
> visual forms of intellect.

Most IQ tests simply test processing speed.  They present you a number 
of relatively simple problems, and you need to solve them in a limited 
timeframe.  This is a sort of "brain benchmark", none of the problems is 
particularly hard.  Problems are typically pattern matching in language, 
numbers and geometrical problems.  I haven't seen tests that are based 
on memory or recollection, and these things would be highly dependent on 
culture, something IQ tests strive to avoid.

I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric.  But if 
you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing speed 
won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13319

From	"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm>
Date	2012-06-28 04:17 -0400
Message-ID	<jsh3ro$7ja$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#13303

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:jsg615$6cn$1@online.de...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

<OT>

> > [...]
> > Many standardized tests are purely language or mathematics based.
> > Other times such tests are weighted heavily or biased towards memory
> > and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not an ability to think or
> > solve problems.  Commonly, they fail to test musical and visual forms
> > of intellect.
>
> Most IQ tests simply test processing speed.  They present you a number
> of relatively simple problems, and you need to solve them in a limited
> timeframe.  This is a sort of "brain benchmark", none of the problems is
> particularly hard.  Problems are typically pattern matching in language,
> numbers and geometrical problems.  I haven't seen tests that are based
> on memory or recollection, and these things would be highly dependent on
> culture, something IQ tests strive to avoid.
>
> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric.  But if
> you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing speed
> won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
>

I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all.  It seems
completely worthless to me.

Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems be
devalued?  Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly and solve
difficult problems.  There are also plenty of people who can think quickly,
but can't solve difficult problems at all.  So, why should an uncapable
quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable slow thinker?
I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a problem seems to have no
correlation with the _ability_ of one to solve problems.

Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13326

From	Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk>
Date	2012-06-28 02:31 -0700
Message-ID	<4279d657-75a3-4fa2-bcc7-34ff8de83138@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13319

On Jun 28, 9:17 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>
> news:jsg615$6cn$1@online.de...> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> ...
>
> <OT>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > [...]
> > > Many standardized tests are purely language or mathematics based.
> > > Other times such tests are weighted heavily or biased towards memory
> > > and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not an ability to think or
> > > solve problems.  Commonly, they fail to test musical and visual forms
> > > of intellect.
>
> > Most IQ tests simply test processing speed.  They present you a number
> > of relatively simple problems, and you need to solve them in a limited
> > timeframe.  This is a sort of "brain benchmark", none of the problems is
> > particularly hard.  Problems are typically pattern matching in language,
> > numbers and geometrical problems.  I haven't seen tests that are based
> > on memory or recollection, and these things would be highly dependent on
> > culture, something IQ tests strive to avoid.
>
> > I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric.  But if
> > you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing speed
> > won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
>
> I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all.  It seems
> completely worthless to me.
>
> Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems be
> devalued?  Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly and solve
> difficult problems.  There are also plenty of people who can think quickly,
> but can't solve difficult problems at all.  So, why should an uncapable
> quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable slow thinker?
> I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a problem seems to have no
> correlation with the _ability_ of one to solve problems.
>
> Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with your point Rod, however, Mensa doesn't agree. All tests
are timed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13359

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date	2012-06-29 01:23 +0200
Message-ID	<jsip1q$adu$1@online.de>
In reply to	#13319

Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric.  But
>> if you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing
>> speed won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
> 
> I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all.  It
> seems completely worthless to me.

Our brains are much too similar architected that speed wouldn't matter.  
It's like a CPU: If you have two CPUs of the same design, the one with 
the faster processing speed will win in a competition on the same task.  
Whatever that task is.  If you had two CPUs of wildly different design, 
clock speed comparison is much less meaningful (e.g. simple in-order ARM 
vs. complex OoOE x86).

> Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems
> be devalued?  Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly
> and solve difficult problems.  There are also plenty of people who can
> think quickly, but can't solve difficult problems at all.

Actually, I haven't seen these sort of people, they are not plenty.  
There are people who think quickly and can solve complex problems, and 
there are thick and slow thinkers, who can't even solve simple problems, 
but they get angry if you are a lot quicker than them, because it 
reduces their already low self-esteem.

People with attention disorder have many difficulties, while they don't 
have problems with the IQ tests.  These conditions are orthogonal to IQ 
measurements, and in fact, they shouldn't be.  An attention disorder 
impacts your capability of solving hard problems, but it doesn't affect 
your capability for simple problems, because there, their limited 
attention span is sufficient to solve the problem.

> So, why should an
> uncapable quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable
> slow thinker? I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a
> problem seems to have no correlation with the _ability_ of one to
> solve problems.

Average people tend to think that highly intelligent people must have 
other deficits or so, as if the gods spread their gifts equal (they 
don't, the Bible tells you "For unto every one that hath shall be given, 
and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken 
away even that which he hath." Matthew 25:29).  There are people which 
have odd brains (savants), that can do some things extremely good and 
other things very bad, but in general, intelligent people are just 
people with a more efficient brain - faster, less power consumption, and 
they typically are better in every aspect you can test.  It has been 
found out that more stupid people in general face earlier dementia, 
which seems to coincide with Matthew 25:29.  Or maybe it just is 
diagnosed earlier, because intelligent people can hide the symptoms for 
longer.  Who knows.  Highly intelligent people usually have their 
attention disorder diagnosed late, too, because its impact is much less 
than on stupid people - if you are a thick and slow thinker, *and* you 
have a short attention span, you are completely fucked up.

Life is unfair.  And speed does matter.  It's not the only thing that 
matters.  But if you discuss about a metric like IQ, you should stick to 
what is actually measured, and not redefine the way of obtaining the 
value.

IQ is the single number that results of doing a standardized MESA test.  
As all single numbers resulting from some standard tests, they don't 
reflect everything, but they correlate significantly.  And this number 
is only by 50% influenced from your genes, the other 50% are your own 
achievement - you *can* train your brain to become more efficient (it 
will become more efficient on whatever you train it to - if you train IQ 
tests, your IQ will rise without much effect on other problem solving 
skills).  And you also can ruin your brain (called "burn out syndrome").

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13378

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-29 14:08 -0700
Message-ID	<c27e9d80-e253-4be5-934d-bb9770a521f8@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13359

On Jun 28, 4:23 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric.  But
> >> if you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing
> >> speed won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
>
> > I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all.  It
> > seems completely worthless to me.
>
> Our brains are much too similar architected that speed wouldn't matter.
> It's like a CPU: If you have two CPUs of the same design, the one with
> the faster processing speed will win in a competition on the same task.
> Whatever that task is.  If you had two CPUs of wildly different design,
> clock speed comparison is much less meaningful (e.g. simple in-order ARM
> vs. complex OoOE x86).
>
> > Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems
> > be devalued?  Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly
> > and solve difficult problems.  There are also plenty of people who can
> > think quickly, but can't solve difficult problems at all.
>
> Actually, I haven't seen these sort of people, they are not plenty.
> There are people who think quickly and can solve complex problems, and
> there are thick and slow thinkers, who can't even solve simple problems,
> but they get angry if you are a lot quicker than them, because it
> reduces their already low self-esteem.
>
> People with attention disorder have many difficulties, while they don't
> have problems with the IQ tests.  These conditions are orthogonal to IQ
> measurements, and in fact, they shouldn't be.  An attention disorder
> impacts your capability of solving hard problems, but it doesn't affect
> your capability for simple problems, because there, their limited
> attention span is sufficient to solve the problem.
>
> > So, why should an
> > uncapable quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable
> > slow thinker? I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a
> > problem seems to have no correlation with the _ability_ of one to
> > solve problems.
>
> Average people tend to think that highly intelligent people must have
> other deficits or so, as if the gods spread their gifts equal (they
> don't, the Bible tells you "For unto every one that hath shall be given,
> and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken
> away even that which he hath." Matthew 25:29).  There are people which
> have odd brains (savants), that can do some things extremely good and
> other things very bad, but in general, intelligent people are just
> people with a more efficient brain - faster, less power consumption, and
> they typically are better in every aspect you can test.  It has been
> found out that more stupid people in general face earlier dementia,
> which seems to coincide with Matthew 25:29.  Or maybe it just is
> diagnosed earlier, because intelligent people can hide the symptoms for
> longer.  Who knows.  Highly intelligent people usually have their
> attention disorder diagnosed late, too, because its impact is much less
> than on stupid people - if you are a thick and slow thinker, *and* you
> have a short attention span, you are completely fucked up.
>
> Life is unfair.  And speed does matter.  It's not the only thing that
> matters.  But if you discuss about a metric like IQ, you should stick to
> what is actually measured, and not redefine the way of obtaining the
> value.
>
> IQ is the single number that results of doing a standardized MESA test.
> As all single numbers resulting from some standard tests, they don't
> reflect everything, but they correlate significantly.  And this number
> is only by 50% influenced from your genes, the other 50% are your own
> achievement - you *can* train your brain to become more efficient (it
> will become more efficient on whatever you train it to - if you train IQ
> tests, your IQ will rise without much effect on other problem solving
> skills).  And you also can ruin your brain (called "burn out syndrome").
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/

I am impressed that you learned forth on your own in another country
from where it was invented and made your own chip, even if they chip
doesn't provide a ncie web browsing experience in 1% the resources of
a pentium.
or does it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13392

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date	2012-06-30 01:00 +0200
Message-ID	<jslc2q$1ge$1@online.de>
In reply to	#13378

quiet_lad wrote:
> I am impressed that you learned forth on your own in another country
> from where it was invented

I actually did read Starting Forth, and there was even a German 
translation.  Back then, Starting Forth was not even outdated.

> and made your own chip, even if they chip
> doesn't provide a ncie web browsing experience in 1% the resources of
> a pentium.
> or does it?

There are other things you can do with a chip than web browsing.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13309

From	John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-27 18:15 -0700
Message-ID	<95d8b294-b341-4ff5-aaa5-a6f872ee0170@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13300

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:00:54 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> One observation I've had about people who *aren't* geniuses 
> is that they constantly question legimate geniuses because 
> they can't comprehend whether the ideas that geniuses 
> present are brilliant or retarded.  [...]

While I enjoy your latest demonstration of typing practice, the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.  Feel free to provide an example of an "idea" from gavino that the newsgroup collectively has deemed "retarded" which hints at some hidden stunning brilliance.

> Also, IQ is difficult to prove, in any setting.  The best 
> academic and psychological tests don't fully quantify 
> genius or the various types of genius.  [...]

True, but irrelevant.  There are indeed various kinds of intelligence and so it follows there are various kinds of genius.  But gavino doesn't claim to be a specific kind of genius.  His claim is more generic and is in response to a familiar refrain about the quality of his messages.  And that's not just here, but in other newsgroups as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13310

From	BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net>
Date	2012-06-27 18:54 -0700
Message-ID	<5032fe80-4097-4c0a-bca3-9783430b464e@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13309

On Jun 27, 9:15 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Feel free to provide an example of an "idea" from gavino that the newsgroup
> collectively has deemed "retarded" which hints at some hidden stunning
> brilliance.

The only idea I've seen from gavino is, "I'm bored and I'd like to
read an article on topic X, let me ask a newsgroup whether they are
willing to write it for me on demand."

Whether that is genius or not, I wouldn't venture to guess.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13314

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-28 00:59 -0700
Message-ID	<15759237-ab9e-404b-a996-2424d790e659@qz1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13310

On Jun 27, 6:54 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 9:15 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Feel free to provide an example of an "idea" from gavino that the newsgroup
> > collectively has deemed "retarded" which hints at some hidden stunning
> > brilliance.
>
> The only idea I've seen from gavino is, "I'm bored and I'd like to
> read an article on topic X, let me ask a newsgroup whether they are
> willing to write it for me on demand."
>
> Whether that is genius or not, I wouldn't venture to guess.

Hey Bruce what money making websites do you own?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13364

From	BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net>
Date	2012-06-28 20:57 -0700
Message-ID	<e2432215-5df9-4068-870b-732b04bb3f29@d24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13314

On Jun 28, 3:59 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:54 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:

> > Whether that is genius or not, I wouldn't venture to guess.

> Hey Bruce what money making websites do you own?

Your measure of whether someone is a genius is whether they own any
money making websites?

Clearly if you are a genius, its not in the field of business, since a
genius in the field of business would be aware that owning a money
making website is not a mark of business genius.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

csiph-web

doing exercises for starting forth, kinda discouraging, some are easy and some seem text not prepare me for....

Contents

#13282

#13295

#13299

#13315

#13276

#13278

#13292

#13294

#13297

#13300

#13303

#13319

#13326

#13359

#13378

#13392

#13309

#13310

#13314

#13364