If true then wouldn't you expect minimum wage to correlate with any metric for violent crime and thievery?

NGC 4833

...and if you want your investments run by someone unproven *AND* infantile then you can call JokerDragon.

Only if you're very very stupid.

I've already given some guidance as to how the algorithm can be evaluated that still stands...unmet of course.  Because evaluating things sanely and objectively is a bad thing to do...or something.

Except you counted it as a win...and you probably would have at larger values until you get to say "no algorithm is perfect" - which means, in your mind anyway there's no such thing as disconfirming evidence.

Like I said...anything to you would be a success.  Did you not understand that?

I doesn't know how English as well as you.

Seriously, if you have to run away from the conversation under the mildest of criticism...why bother opening your mouth?

Yawn.  At what depth?  Having one BTC available at $50 isn't exactly useful.  This is one of the problems with talking about predicting pricing.  People who are speculating want to invest $X and get a return of $Y over some period.  However when I make trades I notice that there often simply aren't enough coins selling at a particular price to get the entire sell/buy in at that price.

So "we" meaning Mt. Gox is going to hit $50 by Friday.  Chances are JokerDragon will claim he was right even if it doesn't or make the "the algorithm isn't perfect" excuse.

But we have the assurance of your algorithm that it will hit $200 "very soon".  So why worry?
I hope you are joking about that.

Agreed that future predictions means he can't simply lie.  That wasn't my presumption.   It seems plausible he has something he calls an algorithm.  I suspect, like some technical analysis people I've met.  He's just fooling himself.  However the problem with future predictions is that they themselves are information and could affect the outcome (e.g. knowing that $200 is going to be hit tomorrow could change what a large group of people do today)

You could mitigate this buy using "sealed envelop" predictions.

Then your algorithm doesn't predict out very far.  Your post was April 11th which doesn't show a $80 price and the post about $80 was on the 12th.
Again, not enough information to validate it.  Not to mention that a "buy point" (at some arbitrary point in the future) isn't the same as predicting the price of BTC.
I see more you trying to weasel out of your implied claim than anything else.  Provide the past predictions over a series of times at fixed intervals.  Provide an objective standard for saying that your algorithm works.  Otherwise what I said pretty much stands.  You've provided nothing that is useful for validating your claim.
Spider Jerusalem is a symbol of people who don't put up with bullshit.  If what you say is true...then it says a lot more about your words than mine.

What you should show is at what point each prediction was made and how far it extended forward then we would have something to compare to.  If your algorithm is continuously integrating new information then of course it can look good.  If you had taken math above the high school level you would know that post-hoc you can create an algorithm which PERFECTLY matches any series at discrete points.
Not necessarily.  You haven't set out anything resembling a criteria for success or failure.  For example when your algorithm DIDN'T predict $80 you just cherry picked a price above $80 to imply the price is going up.  So from what I see you're probably not going to be convinced.
Spoken like every know-nothing in the financial sector.

Must be a pretty forced laugh but I suppose that happens when you're eating crow. So far, as I've stated you really haven't shown anything resembling a useful argument that your algorithm is predictive of anything.

Person with zero content posts === YOU

Please just go away and come back when you know something about something.

It's not a question of "perfection" (Someone should name an informal logical flaw for people who defend "It isn't working" with "Nothing's perfect")
So if we assume your algorithm is the purple line.  Then at what point in the timeline was it generated?  On Feb 13th with no additional input?  Is it continuously integrating data?  At what point was the down turn predicted.

Like so many things, there is nothing about the graph which says that the algorithm is of any use.
  
(not even touching on that the data has been picked not randomly selected...all the things that tell me that the world needs remedial math)

Selling BTC at progressively higher rates doesn't change the value of BTC.  If you have 1000 BTC which you bought at $10 and you sell them at progressively higher rates (say one at a time).   You can only sell at a higher rate if there's someone who is willing to buy at a higher rate.  If nobody is willing to buy your order just sits there until someone does.

I'll assume "math" is in Science.

Occasionally Computers and Graphic Novels.

Just putting a vote in for Hong Kong.  香港!

Kind of sugar coating the truth.  The set of rules which force the conclusion that "taxation is wrong" includes the rule "taxation is wrong".  The problem,  isn't finding a set of premises which force some conclusion.  It's getting a set of premises which are mutually agreed on which force a conclusion.

Let's see if I can tell you bitcoin2cash's argument.   Well obviously it's going to head toward taxation === stealing.

Which will of course require the definition of "stealing".   Let's take a stab at that - maybe something like. Stealing is taking something which doesn't belong to you?   Which of course brings us to the definition of the term "belong".  Which is, as others have mentioned outside of crazy religious ideas is purely a social construct.  Ok now we have a problem.  Since it's a social construct it's the result of what people agree to however clearly not everyone can have a completely different idea as to what ownership is.  Clearly everyone's ideas of this are not the same.  bitcoin2cash has to believe that 'belong' means any and all rights are his/hers.  Except the right to harm (in various ways) other people or their property and he has to believe that every other persons beliefs are incorrect.  Now again this belief probably can't be proved.  I'm sure s/he will call it "axiomatic".  So this belief has to be irrational.  

What did I used to say about bitcoin2cash - that all s/hes doing is wrapping is presuppositions in his definitions?  Also known as begging the question.


I think this clarifies our points.   Despite much fanfare how the ignore-athon is about curbing insults.   That is the use of invective.    It's actually about wanting to shut out ideas you don't like.   Let me be clear that bitcoin2cash has every right, in my book to avoid talking about things he is uncomfortable talking about - however he has no right to lie about why he's doing it.

...and some people born into this society will be under some contracts that they never agreed to.   The simple and obvious paradox that separates the sane Libertarians (utilitarians) from the insane (bitcoin2cash, et. al.)

It's easy to see:

Wealthy person becomes landowner of your property.   They are perfectly in their rights to take away privileges you have on your property.  Like the ability to leave (as I can own roads now) or get a home elsewhere.  You have children,  your children have signed no contract with wealthy person.  Ergo they are trespassing.  Oh, hey there are some pretty strict clauses of about trespassing in those contracts.  Now landowner owns your children as well*.

The typical brain-dead response is:  "Nobody would agree to a contract where this was possible." - Which is completely incorrect.  Probably everyone on this board agrees to contracts that limit liability for the use of a product, which restrict your usage of land, and that are subject to change without notice.   People in different social settings have signed contracts to work at a place for the rest of their lives.  People even appear to capable of signing contracts for lives beyond their current one...and pay for the privileged to be released.

So even assuming they ignore all that evidence.  They fail to see the other side of the coin.  If granting privileges to someone and all their kids and their kids kids, ad infinitum is by their own definition valuable.    How would they prevent a tiered system (rights 'haves' and 'have nots') when there is scarcity on the resource? (i.e. land).

*Now certainly someone could argue that:  Trespassers haven't agreed to your contracts so they don't need to obey.  Which I assume everyone can figure out why that's silly.  They could also argue that trespassing is something where punishments can't be determined by the landowner (i.e. the government can say that this constitutes a penalty no more than $50 which would be an  unwaiveable right).  However there are two responses to this:  i) The land owner *can* hold the parent partially responsible and essentially either put them under so much duress - all spelled out in the contract - that they are coerced into giving the landowner whatever rights they have over their child.  ii) The child can not move from that spot without constantly trespassing - for which the landowner will eventually own them. (Government would have to grant another unwaiveable right)   iii) Any of these interventions by government are really telling me what I can do with my land.  Which I thought I had complete rights over.

See I would have assumed "passed though BCEmporium's ass".  I can't comment on the difficulty.

You sure mentioned them.  The point though, if you read what I posted.  Is that these values rarely have anything to do with "high-end hardware" or OS's.   For lots and lots of benchmarks FPS is just going to test the video hardware.   Didn't you notice my example had nothing to do with high-end hardware?  Apparently not.