Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41154 > unrolled thread

OT: Farewell Windows

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

Contents

  OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 04:28 -0700
    Re: OT: Farewell Windows djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-08-07 08:35 -0700
    Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-07 10:51 -0700
      Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-07 21:35 +0200
        Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-07 23:38 +0200
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-08 00:34 +0200
        Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-07 15:50 -0700
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:09 -0700
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:23 -0700
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-08 01:34 +0200
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-07 22:46 -0700
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-08 01:52 +0200
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-07 22:43 -0700
              Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-08 11:32 +0200
                Re: OT: Farewell Windows anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-08 14:37 +0000
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-08 23:04 +0200
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-08-09 09:52 +0100
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 02:04 -0700
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-09 14:33 -0700
                Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-08 08:32 -0700
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-08 22:28 +0200
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-09 04:09 +0200
                Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 04:52 -0400
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-09 14:53 -0700
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-10 01:15 +0200
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 20:46 -0400
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-09 17:56 -0700
                        Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-11 00:41 +0200
                          Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-10 21:44 -0700
                            Re: OT: Farewell Windows hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-10 21:53 -0700
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-08-09 15:50 -1000
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-09 19:26 -0700
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-10 07:41 +0000
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-10 06:30 -0400
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-10 06:30 -0400
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 05:02 -0700
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-10 21:45 -0700
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-11 02:20 -0400
                        Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-08-11 08:30 +0100
                        Re: OT: Farewell Windows "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-08-16 12:59 +1000
                          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-17 00:01 +0200
                            Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-17 18:45 -0700
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-07 23:23 -0700
              Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-08 08:35 +0200
                Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-08 00:10 -0700
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-08 09:52 +0200
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 01:13 -0700
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 04:45 -0400
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-09 14:26 -0700
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-10 01:12 +0200
              Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 04:41 -0400
                Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-09 14:20 -0700
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-10 00:40 +0200
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 19:49 -0400
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-10 02:09 +0200
                        Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 20:51 -0400
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-08 02:59 -0400
        Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:38 -0700
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-08 01:51 +0200
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:46 +0300
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-08-07 22:49 -0700
      Re: OT: Farewell Windows humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 23:28 -0700
        Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 02:24 -0700
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 03:10 -0700
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-11 13:57 +0200
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 05:12 -0700
            Re: OT: Farewell Windows Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-11 15:17 +0200
              Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:04 -0700
                Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-11 22:04 +0200
                  Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 05:42 -0700
                    Re: OT: Farewell Windows Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-08-12 08:33 -0500
                      Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:21 -0700
                        Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:47 -0700
                          Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:06 -0700
                            Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:07 -0700
              Re: OT: Farewell Windows Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:07 -0700
              Re: OT: Farewell Windows Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-11 21:58 +0200
          Re: OT: Farewell Windows anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-11 13:11 +0000

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

#41214

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> There was a discussion a while ago on LinkedIn about how to teach Forth.
> 
> The Forth professionals did not understand that their teaching did not
> work in maker circles. They claimed to have written the best books about
> Forth ever.
> 
> They really did not recognize that there are different people in this
> world who understand things in a different way. It was not explainable to
> these people.

That's non-conclusive.  It wasn't explainable the way they tried.  Maybe it 
is not explainable at all for these people (quite possible; they think in a 
way which makes them unable to understand Forth at all), maybe you need some 
other method (also possible, they think in a way which makes the teaching 
material useless).

When I learned Forth, Starting Forth worked quite well for me.  I've heard 
it being dismissed for the comics and the "childish" approach, by people who 
learned Forth as professional programmers.  For me, the childish approach 
was good, as I was a teenager.  Reading a book also worked for me, no tutor 
required.

The current books from Elizabeth and Stephen are books for professional 
programmers.  They probably won't work for teenagers, for people who are new 
to all that stuff and who need explaining how computer numbers work and 
such.

> Same thing with saving in Linux.
> It is not explainable.

Is "File -> Save" really unexplainable to you?  How do you save files in 
Windows?

Probably it's unexplainable, because you can't explain what you try to do 
and how it fails to work for you.  I mean, a lot of people use Linux and 
they all can save their files; the GUIs look remarkable similar to Windows, 
so there must be something special to it what you want to do.  That you 
can't install Linux systems which require PAE and you don't have it is not 
about the "save file" porblem.  A PAE image does not boot.  Of course it 
then also can't save your files, but you don't get that far to make that 
question meaningful.  That OpenSuSE sort-of works for you, but is too slow 
is also not related to the "save file" problem, it's related to your old 
computer.

I've seen a lot of bug reports from Windows people claiming "it does not 
work" (for an unknown "it" and an unknown relation between expected output 
and actual output).  I don't know how to reproduce this.  Stephen Pelc gave 
me a lot of good bug reports for MINOS like "when I click on this button and 
then on that button, and then enter a text -> boom".  This sort of stuff is 
reproducible; I'm pretty sure Stephen tried it several times, and when it 
was reproducible, he sent me a mail.  However, he also gave me a "it does 
not work" bug report concerning the terminal windows in MINOS.  The terminal 
window works, i.e. my own try to get a terminal window works.  There must be 
something else which triggers the "it does not work", some combination which 
needs to be described.  Only the easy bugs happen always.

My theory is that Microsoft discourages feedback, and therefore, Windows 
users don't learn how to give feedback.

That's why I suggested the view-over-the-shoulder approach.  This works, 
because it doesn't require the "explain my problem" skill on the user's 
side.

> I won't invest a huge sum to buy a new computer only to find out that this
> problem will be still the same.

If the problem is you, then it will persist.  Given that you don't even know 
the prices of today's computers, you really, really want to keep your old 
computer.

> I prefer to build my own computer system, for people like me.

No, you already have the computer you need.  Every small deviation from the 
computer you have makes it less attractive to you.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#41217

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:28:18 +0200
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> 
> > I won't invest a huge sum to buy a new computer only to find out
> > that this problem will be still the same.
> 
> If the problem is you, then it will persist.  Given that you don't
> even know the prices of today's computers, you really, really want to
> keep your old computer.

Heh, just for fun I have installed Manjaro net 32 bit edition
(500MBCD) in VM without PAE support. In 15 minutes I got it up and
running with XFCE desktop. With X and desktop it takes only 150mb of
RAM ;)
But you have to install from text based installer which lefts you on
command line and from there install desktop and needed software ;)
You also have to install prefered DM or edit .xinitrc and startx ...
All in all it will work hazily on some old junk with 256mb of ram from
15 years ago without any problem ;)

> 
> > I prefer to build my own computer system, for people like me.
> 
> No, you already have the computer you need.  Every small deviation
> from the computer you have makes it less attractive to you.
> 

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

#41222

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
> to work around limitations.

Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

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

#41235

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:52:46 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan.de> wrote:
> 
> > Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
> > to work around limitations.
> 
> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
> and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
> time.

Thanks, Rod!
This is an explanation why I switched from the 6800 family to the 65xx family and stayed with it, despite the rest of the world was using the 80xx family.
I never liked to work for the garbage bin, and I never liked to waste time. 
Time is too precious to me. 

In our engineering education we should offer different solutions for a project in construction class, analyze them, and then select the best solution.
I hated this. My first solution was always the best solution back then.

For the same reason I have chosen Forth, despite having developed my own VM and my own database system running on the 6502 in 1979, because Forth was ready to use, and Forth allows everything I like to program using it. 
I wasted a lot of time on Linux.

> Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
> shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  

I am only wondering if all these people who have chosen the "mainstream" 80xx family have been too dumb to realize that this solution shouldn't work in the first place - or better said: needs much more effort to get it working.

> In many
> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
> 

There is a nice story reported by the German poet Erich Kaestner:
In grade school their Math teacher told them to find out how many squares are on a chess board. Erich tried to multiply, but his neighbor counted each of the squares. His neighbor got the right result, but Erich himself struggled with the math and didn't get the right result.
Later in life his neighbor got rich as a junk dealer, and Erich became a poet.

I prefer to be a poet.

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

#41238

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

>> In many
>> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
>> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
>>
> 
> There is a nice story reported by the German poet Erich Kaestner:
> In grade school their Math teacher told them to find out how many squares
> are on a chess board. Erich tried to multiply, but his neighbor counted
> each of the squares. His neighbor got the right result, but Erich himself
> struggled with the math and didn't get the right result. Later in life his
> neighbor got rich as a junk dealer, and Erich became a poet.
> 
> I prefer to be a poet.

Rod is wrong here; there is a strong, almost linear correlation between 
income and IQ.  Of course, there's a much weaker correlation between 
inherited wealth and IQ, and if you mix people from poor and rich countries, 
the correlation is severely clouded by the much bigger differences between 
countries as between IQs.  But if you give people equal chances, their 
income ends up strongly correlated with IQ, which is understandable, because 
IQ measures how much mental work you can do per hour.

http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#41241

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 19:15:28 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

>>> In many
>>> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
>>> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
>>>
>>
>> There is a nice story reported by the German poet Erich Kaestner:
>> In grade school their Math teacher told them to find out how many squares
>> are on a chess board. Erich tried to multiply, but his neighbor counted
>> each of the squares. His neighbor got the right result, but Erich himself
>> struggled with the math and didn't get the right result. Later in life his
>> neighbor got rich as a junk dealer, and Erich became a poet.
>>
>> I prefer to be a poet.
>
> Rod is wrong here;

Rod is correct.

> there is a strong, almost linear correlation between
> income and IQ.

Please learn to read.  I said "wealth" not "income".
You conflated the two, as you do with most things I say.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

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

#41243

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:15:30 PM UTC-4, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> visualforth.com wrote:
> 
> >> In many
> >> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
> >> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
> >>
> > 
> > There is a nice story reported by the German poet Erich Kaestner:
> > In grade school their Math teacher told them to find out how many squares
> > are on a chess board. Erich tried to multiply, but his neighbor counted
> > each of the squares. His neighbor got the right result, but Erich himself
> > struggled with the math and didn't get the right result. Later in life his
> > neighbor got rich as a junk dealer, and Erich became a poet.
> > 
> > I prefer to be a poet.
> 
> Rod is wrong here; there is a strong, almost linear correlation between 
> income and IQ.  Of course, there's a much weaker correlation between 
> inherited wealth and IQ, and if you mix people from poor and rich countries, 
> the correlation is severely clouded by the much bigger differences between 
> countries as between IQs.  But if you give people equal chances, their 
> income ends up strongly correlated with IQ, which is understandable, because 
> IQ measures how much mental work you can do per hour.
> 
> http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/
> 

Depends on who is doing the research ...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a lot of money, according to new research.

A [USA] nationwide study found that people of below average intelligence were, overall, just about as wealthy as those in similar circumstances but with higher scores on an IQ test.

Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. 

Just because you're smart doesn't mean you don't get into trouble. Among the smartest people, those with IQ scores above 125, even 6 percent of them have maxed out their credit cards and 11 percent occasionally miss payments.

Professors tend to be very smart people... But if you look at university parking lots, you don't see a lot of Rolls Royces, Porsches or other very expensive cars. Instead you see a lot of old, low-value vehicles.

The lesson is simple:

Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth. Those with low intelligence should not believe they are handicapped, and those with high intelligence should not believe they have an advantage.

Source: https://news.osu.edu/news/2007/04/24/intlwlth/

In Germany they say:
"Die duemmsten Bauern haben die dicksten Kartoffeln!"

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

#41265

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> Professors tend to be very smart people... But if you look at university
> parking lots, you don't see a lot of Rolls Royces, Porsches or other very
> expensive cars. Instead you see a lot of old, low-value vehicles.

I consider using an old, low-value vehicle as smart, because it's much more 
cost-efficient.  It also allows to spend the income for other, more 
important things than status symbols.

The correlation between IQ and income is linear, so the income variation is 
not that high - if you are really, really good, your IQ is maybe 60% better 
than average.  The average salary in Germany is at the moment at 35k€.  If I 
take a German C4 professor's salary at rank 7 (the middle rank, you are 
probably mid-50 when you are at rank 7), I get 70k€ per year as base salary 
(assuming 13 months of payment per year), twice as much as average, and a 
professor earns less than a comparable educated person during tenure track.  
My last base salary as employee was somewhat above a professor's base 
salary; a professor usually trades in some liberty for a smaller base 
salary, which is a smart choice.

If you are a salesperson, traveling around a lot, and you require a visible 
status symbol to show that you and the company you are representing are 
doing well, you need a luxury car.  The status of a professor depends on his 
publications.  He can go to university by bike, like Anton.  I suppose that 
going by a cool recumbent bike does raise the status vs. going by a cheap, 
conventional bike, especially amongst students, but not amongst senior 
professors.

BTW: most cars in the university parking lot are from students.

BTW II: Wealth is distracting and a red herring in that discussion.  
Inheritance plays an important role in wealth (between 35% and 45% of the 
total wealth is inherited, not earned), so the correlation is ways weaker.  
The correlation of wealth and wealth of the parents is much stronger, and 
certainly will show up as dominant factor.  The correlation of IQ between 
parents and children exists, but it's not very strong.

If you don't understand what wealth is, and why it is not a direct measure 
of success of an individual (because it's only partly determined by the 
individual itself), you just aren't smart enough for that discussion.  The 
american dream is that you can work hard and become a millionaire.  The 
american reality is that your wealth depends strongly on your parents.  At 
least in the US:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WBmtpv-LsNo/UsSJgVL5viI/AAAAAAAAHSU/zMr6gms7bUQ/s1600/Great+Gatsby+curve.png

It's called "Great Gatsby Curve": 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

This image shows that high inequality in the distribution of wealth also 
correlates with a high parental influence of economic mobility (climbing up 
or down the social ladder).  So countries with a high inequality must have a 
low correlation of IQ and wealth.

People mused about the weak correlation of wealth and IQ, and often the 
thoughts go into the direction of less income, or income for a shorter time, 
and the education costs eat up the higher income (especially in countries 
where education results in a significant debt of the graduates if they don't 
have inherited wealth to pay up front), but that's not true.  The income 
correlates strong enough with IQ, it's the other factors of wealth which 
don't.  And the primary factor here would be the inequality of wealth 
distribution, so it's going to be country-dependent.

The correlation of IQ and income however seems to be not that much dependent 
on country.

BTW III: My original statement, "Of course, intelligence amplifies your 
capabilities, and allows you to work around limitations." I was thinking 
about the topic of the discussion: (age dependent) learning.  Brain 
capabilities.  You could have argued that there's no relation to IQ and 
running speed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838534

So the entire drift of the discussion to IQ and income or wealth is already 
a red herring.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#41269

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 6:42:09 PM UTC-4, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> visualforth.com wrote:
> > Professors tend to be very smart people... But if you look at university
> > parking lots, you don't see a lot of Rolls Royces, Porsches or other very
> > expensive cars. Instead you see a lot of old, low-value vehicles.
> 
> I consider using an old, low-value vehicle as smart, because it's much more 
> cost-efficient.  It also allows to spend the income for other, more 
> important things than status symbols.
> 
> The correlation between IQ and income is linear, so the income variation is 
> not that high - if you are really, really good, your IQ is maybe 60% better 
> than average.  The average salary in Germany is at the moment at 35k EURO.  If I 
> take a German C4 professor's salary at rank 7 (the middle rank, you are 
> probably mid-50 when you are at rank 7), I get 70k EURO per year as base salary 
> (assuming 13 months of payment per year), twice as much as average, and a 
> professor earns less than a comparable educated person during tenure track.  
> My last base salary as employee was somewhat above a professor's base 
> salary; a professor usually trades in some liberty for a smaller base 
> salary, which is a smart choice.
> 
> If you are a salesperson, traveling around a lot, and you require a visible 
> status symbol to show that you and the company you are representing are 
> doing well, you need a luxury car.  The status of a professor depends on his 
> publications.  He can go to university by bike, like Anton.  I suppose that 
> going by a cool recumbent bike does raise the status vs. going by a cheap, 
> conventional bike, especially amongst students, but not amongst senior 
> professors.
> 
> BTW: most cars in the university parking lot are from students.
> 
> BTW II: Wealth is distracting and a red herring in that discussion.  
> Inheritance plays an important role in wealth (between 35% and 45% of the 
> total wealth is inherited, not earned), so the correlation is ways weaker.  
> The correlation of wealth and wealth of the parents is much stronger, and 
> certainly will show up as dominant factor.  The correlation of IQ between 
> parents and children exists, but it's not very strong.
> 
> If you don't understand what wealth is, and why it is not a direct measure 
> of success of an individual (because it's only partly determined by the 
> individual itself), you just aren't smart enough for that discussion.  The 
> american dream is that you can work hard and become a millionaire.  The 
> american reality is that your wealth depends strongly on your parents.  At 
> least in the US:
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WBmtpv-LsNo/UsSJgVL5viI/AAAAAAAAHSU/zMr6gms7bUQ/s1600/Great+Gatsby+curve.png
> 
> It's called "Great Gatsby Curve": 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
> 
> This image shows that high inequality in the distribution of wealth also 
> correlates with a high parental influence of economic mobility (climbing up 
> or down the social ladder).  So countries with a high inequality must have a 
> low correlation of IQ and wealth.
> 
> People mused about the weak correlation of wealth and IQ, and often the 
> thoughts go into the direction of less income, or income for a shorter time, 
> and the education costs eat up the higher income (especially in countries 
> where education results in a significant debt of the graduates if they don't 
> have inherited wealth to pay up front), but that's not true.  The income 
> correlates strong enough with IQ, it's the other factors of wealth which 
> don't.  And the primary factor here would be the inequality of wealth 
> distribution, so it's going to be country-dependent.
> 
> The correlation of IQ and income however seems to be not that much dependent 
> on country.
> 
> BTW III: My original statement, "Of course, intelligence amplifies your 
> capabilities, and allows you to work around limitations." I was thinking 
> about the topic of the discussion: (age dependent) learning.  Brain 
> capabilities.  You could have argued that there's no relation to IQ and 
> running speed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838534
> 
> So the entire drift of the discussion to IQ and income or wealth is already 
> a red herring.
> 
> -- 
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
> net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
> http://bernd-paysan.de/

This all my change very soon, when robots are coming and humans need not apply.

Source: http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300213553

Humans Need Not Apply
A Guide to Wealth and Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
by Jerry Kaplan

Excerpt:
After billions of dollars and fifty years of effort, researchers are finally cracking the code on artificial intelligence. As society stands on the cusp of unprecedented change, Jerry Kaplan unpacks the latest advances in robotics, machine learning, and perception powering systems that rival or exceed human capabilities. Driverless cars, robotic helpers, and intelligent agents that promote our interests have the potential to usher in a new age of affluence and leisure -- but as Kaplan warns, the transition may be protracted and brutal unless we address the two great scourges of the modern developed world: volatile labor markets and income inequality.

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

#41271

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:44:14 PM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> This all my change very soon, when robots are coming and humans need not apply.

How do we know that Elizabeth Rather is not a robot? Every code snippet that she has posted on comp.lang.forth came directly out of the "Starting Forth" book. There are only a dozen or so code snippets in the book though --- how difficult would it be to program a robot to do this? --- it is not like there is any creativity or intelligence required...

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

#41244

On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
>> to work around limitations.
>
> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
> and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
> time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
> shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.

Wow. My experience contradicts virtually everthing in the above 
paragraph. To start at the end, a great many extremely intelligent 
people I've known (a class that includes several Nobel prize winners) do 
not have "wealth" as a primary objective (although they've all lived 
fairly comfortable lives). So, to say that their lack of "wealth" 
(however you may define it) is due to inappropriate "rationalizing" 
because they're too smart to be rich just doesn't make sense. Some 
stupid people inherit wealth; others luck into it. But I see zero 
evidence that "intelligence dulls your ambition and chances at success." 
Intelligence increases your odds of success as *you* define it (which 
may be an interesting career, professional recognition, ability to 
pursue your dreams as you wish, etc.) which may or may not involve 
exceptional wealth.

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]

#41246

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:50:23 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
> >> to work around limitations.
> >
> > Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
> > and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
> > anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
> > time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
> > shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
> > instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
> > there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
> 
> Wow. My experience contradicts virtually everthing in the above 
> paragraph. To start at the end, a great many extremely intelligent 
> people I've known (a class that includes several Nobel prize winners) do 
> not have "wealth" as a primary objective (although they've all lived 
> fairly comfortable lives). So, to say that their lack of "wealth" 
> (however you may define it) is due to inappropriate "rationalizing" 
> because they're too smart to be rich just doesn't make sense. Some 
> stupid people inherit wealth; others luck into it. But I see zero 
> evidence that "intelligence dulls your ambition and chances at success." 
> Intelligence increases your odds of success as *you* define it (which 
> may be an interesting career, professional recognition, ability to 
> pursue your dreams as you wish, etc.) which may or may not involve 
> exceptional wealth.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth

On a related note, tell us about how your big lawsuit against Apple Computer is progressing...

Aloha, 
Hugh

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

#41251

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
>>> to work around limitations.
>>
>> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
>> and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
>> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
>> time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
>> shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
>> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
>> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.

Before more people fall for this red herring, where Rod first makes
some claims that are more likelt to point to income than wealth, and
wants to support them with a statement about wealth (and then protests
when somebody points out that there is a positive correlation between
IQ and income), let's look at what Google finds for "intelligence
wealth":

From: <http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm>
|The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with
|higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each
|point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more
|income per year.
|
|This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ
|score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of
|society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year.
|
|But when it came to total wealth and the likelihood of financial
|difficulties, people of below average and average intelligence did
|just fine when compared with the super-intelligent.
|
|The study could find no strong relationship between total wealth and
|intelligence. How could high-IQ people, on average, earn higher
|incomes but still not have more wealth than others? Zagorsky said this
|data can't provide an answer, but it suggests that high-IQ people are
|not saving as much as others.

Is it intelligent to save money to have a better standing in Rod's
wealth ranking?  Or is it intelligent to spend the money you earn on
things that you want and that make your work more enjoyable?

In any case, it seems to me that the income results contradict Rods
claim that "intelligence dulls your ambition and chances at success",
and that "In many instances, the stupid succeed where smart people
fail", even though income is not a universal goal of ambitions and
metric of success.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm

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

#41256

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:41:59 -0400, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
>>>> to work around limitations.
>>>
>>> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
>>> and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
>>> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
>>> time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
>>> shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
>>> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
>>> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
>
> Before more people fall for this red herring, where Rod first makes
> some claims that are more likelt to point to income than wealth, and
> wants to support them with a statement about wealth (and then protests
> when somebody points out that there is a positive correlation between
> IQ and income), let's look at what Google finds for "intelligence
> wealth":

This isn't a "red herring".  I made a comment on decision making,
mentioning wealth as justification.  I completely fail to understand
why everyone is turning it into a comment about income.  Wealth and
income are not even remotely related.

Wealth has nothing whatsoever to do with income.  Wealth comes from
ownership, i.e., equity, primarily via capital gains, but also some
as profit.  Income comes from working for someone else.  You're not
going to become truly wealthy working for someone else.  You can't
earn enough, save enough, invest enough to do so.  You need large
compounded returns which only come through capital gains or massive
price appreciation, e.g., stock in a company you own which you bought
for nothing and sold for hundreds of dollars a share when the company
succeeds and goes public, deflating currency, most expensive artwork
in the world, appreciating real estate in one of the world's most
overpriced market, etc.  Or, you could have others hand it to you,
if you happen to become a banker to billionaires, a successful hedge
fund manager, or a CEO of a Fortune 100 company.  In mathematical
terms, wealth is a related-rate problem, much like water flow or
population growth.

> From: <http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm>
> |The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with
> |higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each
> |point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more
> |income per year.
> |
> |This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ
> |score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of
> |society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year.
> |
> |But when it came to total wealth and the likelihood of financial
> |difficulties, people of below average and average intelligence did
> |just fine when compared with the super-intelligent.
> |
> |The study could find no strong relationship between total wealth and
> |intelligence. How could high-IQ people, on average, earn higher
> |incomes but still not have more wealth than others? Zagorsky said this
> |data can't provide an answer, but it suggests that high-IQ people are
> |not saving as much as others.

That last sentence the last paragraph supports my position,
stating what I stated.  Was that intentional?  You did the
same thing, support my position, the last time or two you
rebuked my statements ...

As visualforth noted, you can find numerous studies demonstrating
no correlation between wealth and intelligence.

> In any case, it seems to me that the income results contradict Rods
> claim that "intelligence dulls your ambition and chances at success",

As I said to Ms. Rather too, my statements weren't purely in regards
to income.  That was just one instance of proof of the issue, i.e.,
simplified, smart people lose out because they don't try.  You chose
to apply wealth to the entire paragraph.  See my reply to Ms. Rather
for an in-depth description using economic terms.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

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

#41257

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:50:20 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:

> On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
>> wrote:

>>> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
>>> to work around limitations.
>>
>> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
>> and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
>> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
>> time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
>> shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
>> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
>> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
>
> Wow.  My experience contradicts virtually everthing in the above
> paragraph.

...

> To start at the end, a great many extremely intelligent
> people I've known (a class that includes several Nobel
> prize winners) do not have "wealth" as a primary objective
> (although they've all lived fairly comfortable lives).

Maybe, you shouldn't start at the end, because you seemed
to have comprehended what was said in reverse too.

> So, to say that their lack of "wealth" (however you may define
> it) is due to inappropriate "rationalizing" because they're too
> smart to be rich just doesn't make sense.

That isn't what I said.  The paragraph had nothing to do with
wealth per se.  It had to do with choices smart people fail to
make because they're smart.  I.e., formally, this is the lost
opportunity cost of a decision which eliminated the chance to
succeed.  Wealth was just one example were stupid people can
outperform smart people, because stupid people can't eliminate
potentially bad decisions via thought and intellect.  They have
no choice but to test it to determine the truth.

> Some stupid people inherit wealth;

Then, they go broke, or their stupid offspring do,
some of the time.  Of course, they can afford to
hire smart people to prevent them from going broke.

> others luck into it.

How do you explain stupid people who earned it?  Luck?
How do you explain people who are "lucky," repeatedly? ...
Do you just proclaim that they're a statistical aberration?
Do you attribute their luck to divine intervention?
I.e., you're cursed, but they're blessed.  If so, why does
God hate you?

> But I see zero evidence that "intelligence dulls your
> ambition and chances at success."

s/zero/no

I'm not sure you can argue that evidence from personal experience
is quantifiable as a number.  So, "no" is correct here.  I admit
that I, as a programmer too, use "zero" in the same way.

The point was smart people don't try things.  Why?  Because they're
smart.  They eliminate possibilities based on their intellect without
always having proof.  They don't spend time to test situations likely
to be failures.  That's great if you're running through 40 geometry
problems in two minutes, or 60 physics problems in an hour.  However,
it's not good if you dealing with situations where the outcome is
unknown: life, business, relationships, product design, marketing.
Dumb people don't know what's going to succeed or fail.  They have
to attempt everything to find out.  So, dumb people sometimes succeed
where smart people fail simply because they tried.

> Intelligence increases your odds of success as *you* define it
> (which may be an interesting career, professional recognition,
> ability to pursue your dreams as you wish, etc.) which may or
> may not involve exceptional wealth.

My statements weren't purely in regards to income.
That was just one instance of proof of the issue.
You chose to apply that to the entire paragraph.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

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

#41260

On Monday, 10 August 2015 11:30:14 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton  wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:50:20 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
> >> wrote:
> 
> >>> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
> >>> to work around limitations.
> >>
> >> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
> >> and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
> >> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
> >> time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
> >> shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
> >> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
> >> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
> >
> > Wow.  My experience contradicts virtually everthing in the above
> > paragraph.
> 
> ...
> 
> > To start at the end, a great many extremely intelligent
> > people I've known (a class that includes several Nobel
> > prize winners) do not have "wealth" as a primary objective
> > (although they've all lived fairly comfortable lives).
> 
> Maybe, you shouldn't start at the end, because you seemed
> to have comprehended what was said in reverse too.
> 
> > So, to say that their lack of "wealth" (however you may define
> > it) is due to inappropriate "rationalizing" because they're too
> > smart to be rich just doesn't make sense.
> 
> That isn't what I said.  The paragraph had nothing to do with
> wealth per se.  It had to do with choices smart people fail to
> make because they're smart.  I.e., formally, this is the lost
> opportunity cost of a decision which eliminated the chance to
> succeed.  Wealth was just one example were stupid people can
> outperform smart people, because stupid people can't eliminate
> potentially bad decisions via thought and intellect.  They have
> no choice but to test it to determine the truth.
> 
> > Some stupid people inherit wealth;
> 
> Then, they go broke, or their stupid offspring do,
> some of the time.  Of course, they can afford to
> hire smart people to prevent them from going broke.
> 
> > others luck into it.
> 
> How do you explain stupid people who earned it?  Luck?
> How do you explain people who are "lucky," repeatedly? ...
> Do you just proclaim that they're a statistical aberration?
> Do you attribute their luck to divine intervention?
> I.e., you're cursed, but they're blessed.  If so, why does
> God hate you?
> 
> > But I see zero evidence that "intelligence dulls your
> > ambition and chances at success."
> 
> s/zero/no
> 
> I'm not sure you can argue that evidence from personal experience
> is quantifiable as a number.  So, "no" is correct here.  I admit
> that I, as a programmer too, use "zero" in the same way.
> 
> The point was smart people don't try things.  Why?  Because they're
> smart.  They eliminate possibilities based on their intellect without
> always having proof.  They don't spend time to test situations likely
> to be failures.  That's great if you're running through 40 geometry
> problems in two minutes, or 60 physics problems in an hour.  However,
> it's not good if you dealing with situations where the outcome is
> unknown: life, business, relationships, product design, marketing.
> Dumb people don't know what's going to succeed or fail.  They have
> to attempt everything to find out.  So, dumb people sometimes succeed
> where smart people fail simply because they tried.
> 
> > Intelligence increases your odds of success as *you* define it
> > (which may be an interesting career, professional recognition,
> > ability to pursue your dreams as you wish, etc.) which may or
> > may not involve exceptional wealth.
> 
> My statements weren't purely in regards to income.
> That was just one instance of proof of the issue.
> You chose to apply that to the entire paragraph.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton
> 
> -- 
> Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
> So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

Let's look at George Bush Junior:

* Dumber than a box of rocks
* Wealthy

Ergo, yes, there is no correlation!

Interesting background info: He started up an oil investment
company called ArBusto (yes, the word BUST really did appear
in the company name) with his daddies money.

It went bust.

He then went on to become president of the USA. If there's one
thing you need to be when you are president (and you don't want
be offed JFK/Reagan style) it's dumb. The dumber the better, 
since you're not actually in charge anyway.

QED.

:-)

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

#41270

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:50:23 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you
> >> to work around limitations.
> >
> > Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition
> > and chances at success.  This is because smart people can rationalize
> > anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of
> > time.   Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution
> > shouldn't work in the first place.  So, they'll try it.  In many
> > instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail.  This is why
> > there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth.
> 
> Wow. My experience contradicts virtually everthing in the above 
> paragraph. To start at the end, a great many extremely intelligent 
> people I've known (a class that includes several Nobel prize winners) do 
> not have "wealth" as a primary objective (although they've all lived 
> fairly comfortable lives). 

This whole discussion is stupid --- indicating that none of the participants should be expressing opinions on the subject of intelligence --- a discussion about intelligence by ANS-Forth programmers is like one man milking a male goat and another man holding the bucket.

It is true that "stupid people" (Rod's term) try bad ideas because they don't know any better, and they sometimes succeed. This is because there are a lot of them trying. The lottery motto says: "You can't win if you don't play." This doesn't mean that it is a good idea to buy lottery tickets.

Getting back to the subject of Forth, we had this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/yTvD4nqPGA4%5B126-150%5D

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> > > Here's one presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is 
> > > far more useful than the FSL version:
> > > 
> > > : ARRAY ( n -- )   CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT
> > >     DOES> ( n -- a)   SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER
> > >        1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ;

This code is the work of an imbecile. The index starts at 1 rather than 0, which is Elizabeth Rather's COBOL background showing through. Also, the code is grossly inefficient:

> Using SwiftForth Evaluation v-3.5.7, this is Elizabeth Rather's code (name changed to EARRAY):
> 
> see earray
> 48C9AF   40FAFF ( CREATE ) CALL         E84B31F8FF
> 48C9B4   4 # EBP SUB                    83ED04
> 48C9B7   EBX 0 [EBP] MOV                895D00
> 48C9BA   40AA2F ( , ) CALL              E870E0F7FF
> 48C9BF   EBX 2 # SHL                    C1E302
> 48C9C2   40A9AF ( ALLOT ) CALL          E8E8DFF7FF
> 48C9C7   40DA4F ( (;CODE) ) CALL        E88310F8FF
> 48C9CC   4 # EBP SUB                    83ED04
> 48C9CF   0 [EBP] POP                    8F4500
> 48C9D2   4 # EBP SUB                    83ED04
> 48C9D5   EBX 0 [EBP] MOV                895D00
> 48C9D8   4 [EBP] EBX MOV                8B5D04
> 48C9DB   0 [EBX] EBX MOV                8B1B
> 48C9DD   0 [EBP] EBX CMP                3B5D00
> 48C9E0   0 # EBX MOV                    BB00000000
> 48C9E5   48C9E8 JNL                     7D01
> 48C9E7   EBX DEC                        4B
> 48C9E8   4 # EBP SUB                    83ED04
> 48C9EB   EBX 0 [EBP] MOV                895D00
> 48C9EE   4 [EBP] EBX MOV                8B5D04
> 48C9F1   1 # EBX CMP                    83FB01
> 48C9F4   0 # EBX MOV                    BB00000000
> 48C9F9   48C9FC JNL                     7D01
> 48C9FB   EBX DEC                        4B
> 48C9FC   0 [EBP] EBX OR                 0B5D00
> 48C9FF   4 # EBP ADD                    83C504
> 48CA02   4076BF ( (S") ) CALL           E8B8ACF7FF
> 48CA07   "Out of Range"
> 48CA15   407E9F ( ?ABORT ) CALL         E885B4F7FF
> 48CA1A   EBX 2 # SHL                    C1E302
> 48CA1D   0 [EBP] EBX ADD                035D00
> 48CA20   4 # EBP ADD                    83C504
> 48CA23   RET                            C3 ok

By comparison, here is my code from the novice package that does the same thing (except that the index starts at 0 rather than 1):

> 8 w 1array aaa  ok
> see aaa
> 48E68F   4 # EBP SUB                    83ED04
> 48E692   EBX 0 [EBP] MOV                895D00
> 48E695   8 # EBX MOV                    BB08000000
> 48E69A   48B55F ( check1 ) CALL         E8C0CEFFFF
> 48E69F   EBX 2 # SHL                    C1E302
> 48E6A2   48E628 # EBX ADD               81C328E64800
> 48E6A8   RET                            C3 ok
> 
> see check1
> 48B55F   0 [EBP] EBX CMP                3B5D00
> 48B562   0 # EBX MOV                    BB00000000
> 48B567   48B56A JBE                     7601
> 48B569   EBX DEC                        4B
> 48B56A   -1 # EBX XOR                   83F3FF
> 48B56D   4076BF ( (S") ) CALL           E84DC1F7FF
> 48B572   "*** array index 1 out of bounds ***"
> 48B597   407E9F ( ?ABORT ) JMP          E903C9F7FF ok

Nobody wants to talk about this. Instead, everybody wants to pontificate on the subject of intelligence and wealth.

The reason why nobody cares about efficiency, is that nobody is writing commercial programs in ANS-Forth. By "commercial" I mean, wealth-generating.

ANS-Forth is a cult. It is all about name-dropping, pretending to hob-nob with Nobel Peace prize winners, pretending to hob-nob with Barrack Obama in Hawaii (ironically, that bozo is a Nobel Peace prize winner), pretending to work for NASA, pretending to speak for Charles Moore, pretending to be an expert on intelligence, comparing oneself to Kung Fu masters from chop-socky movies, comparing oneself to the U.S. Marine Corp, etc..

If Forth is going to succeed, the Forth community needs to pull their heads out of their asses and start focusing on reality --- this means developing a Forth standard that makes sense and is focused on commercial software --- ANS-Forth has to be flushed, and Forth-200x is just more of the same so it goes down the drain too.

Grow a brain!

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

#41272

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:45:54 -0400, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:

> The lottery motto says: "You can't win if you don't play."
> This doesn't mean that it is a good idea to buy lottery tickets.

What?!?

It's a good idea to buy lottery tickets and I can prove it.

Most people only look at the odds of having the winning numbers.  These
odds are very poor.  They don't see the big picture.  The big picture is
you have only one working career to become wealthy.  The odds of that are
very poor too.  However, you have two lotteries, and two drawings per lottery
per week in the U.S.A.  That's a bit under 12,000 chances over your working
lifetime.  A college degree will cost you at least $120,000 USD today.
Whereas, the cost of all those lottery tickets is less than $24,000 USD.
What's the better buy? a) $120,000 for one chance or b) $24,000 for 12,000.
Clearly, it's a very good idea to buy lottery tickets.  The odds are against
you in both cases, but one situation is much cheaper per chance.  If every
American bought $10 of lottery tickets on the same day for the same lottery,
we could create the world's first lottery billionaire.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

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

#41274

on 11/08/2015 07:20:38, "Rod Pemberton" wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:45:54 -0400, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The lottery motto says: "You can't win if you don't play."
>> This doesn't mean that it is a good idea to buy lottery tickets.
> 
> What?!?
> 
> It's a good idea to buy lottery tickets and I can prove it.

How?

> 
> Most people only look at the odds of having the winning numbers. These
> odds are very poor. They don't see the big picture. The big picture is
> you have only one working career to become wealthy. The odds of that
> are very poor too. However, you have two lotteries, and two drawings
> per lottery per week in the U.S.A. That's a bit under 12,000 chances
> over your working lifetime. A college degree will cost you at least
> $120,000 USD today. Whereas, the cost of all those lottery tickets is
> less than $24,000 USD. What's the better buy? a) $120,000 for one
> chance or b) $24,000 for 12,000. Clearly, it's a very good idea to buy
> lottery tickets. The odds are against you in both cases, but one
> situation is much cheaper per chance. If every American bought $10 of
> lottery tickets on the same day for the same lottery, we could create
> the world's first lottery billionaire.
> 

Oh, I see! Big numbers over the denominator are the same as the big
numbers beneath it.

> 
> Rod Pemberton
> 

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

#41326

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> ...
> The big picture is
> you have only one working career to become wealthy.

The big picture is that you only have one life.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web