[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:MegaHasher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MegaHasher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Fenice 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a boring caption

Notes Example

[edit]
According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.{{ref|miller-23}}
The Moon, however, is not so big.{{ref|moonsize}}

==Notes==

 # {{note|miller-23}} Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005
 # {{note|moonsize}} Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 46(78):46

The {{note}}'s in the Notes section must occur in the same order as the corresponding {{ref}}'s in the main text. This is an important issue to consider when adding more footnotes later.

The {{ref label|<name>|<fixed number>}} template (where the numbers of the text references are fixed and not automatically assigned) can be used instead of the {{ref|<name>}} template, but this should only be used when necessary due to the lack of automatic numbering.

<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.publishing.com/news/1044| title=404| publisher=Institute Ik| accessdate=2007-08-19}}</ref>

It is encouraged that other, non-numbered references use citation templates such as shown in Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations.

Fair use

[edit]

Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Quotes

[edit]

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams

Refs

[edit]
  • Taylor Larimore (2006). The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing. Wiley. pp. page 199-209. ISBN 0-471-73033-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Start of User Talk

[edit]

Completed conversations may be abbreviated or deleted after a period of accumulation.

Asset Allocation

[edit]
Unsolved problems in physics: Why are gravity so much weaker than other fundamental forces?

Thank you for your comments on Asset allocation. I started to work on it, see Asset allocation but some of my methodology & definitions need to be more refined, for example should I subdivide into value and growth, even though it is market timing in essense? Is Beta really a useful tool in regard to market segmentation and risk? So I have started to read some books on the subject Books on Asset allocation. Maybe with your help I can make this into a useful page for investors.Paul.Paquette

My view on asset allocation is rather simple. It is just a ratio of stocks versus bonds in a portfolio. REITs and international stocks could have some small impacts, but that is about as complicated as they go. I know I am a 60/40 guy. Value/growth split does not excite me. Beta? Probably not very important; it is just what ever it is. --MegaHasher 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish I knew more about your background, if it is nonfinancial then I can understand then your views but in case you ever wonder the way you allocate your portfolio has about 90-95% of the impact towards any returns that you will generate based on one's investment. I do thank you for your reply and insight. Paul.Paquette
For example a beta greater than 1.0 may mean a sector is more risky therefore the potential return is higher; doesn't mean that one should load up on that sector. You may want to read about some limitations of portfolio optimization softwares. If you do a frontal assault on the efficient market you are just going to hit a wall head on. --MegaHasher 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not focus on the software, personally if you ever seen it, the most user friendly software is created by big name industry such as Merrill Lynch and J.P. Morgan, ect. and turning over your portfolio and customizing it to the latest trend in the long run probably does not create more value for you, but for them instead. As for beta, it really only work when efficient market hypothesis is at it most efficient, i.e Large-cap growth oriented companies. I am actually debating if I should get rid of beta. Personally I am viewing efficient market theory as varying in its realistic impact on the industry itself. And you are right one should never load up on any sector, you impose more undue risk that you might not need. Paul.Paquette

Rotary International

[edit]

Thank you for reverting the vandal. Anyway, I wonder sometimes if it is not better to leave the insults, this allow people to think more about Rotary :-) May I have your own opinion, pro or con, I do not care, but I need opinions. The purpose for me is to found the service club of this century. For me Rotary show sociological limits (also republican I mean for "The Republic") limits. If you"re interested by the subject, maybe you can use this Google : "Rotary site:ashoka.org" PierreLarcin2 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Holes

[edit]

May I ask why you reverted my edit? The information I posted was perfectly correct. It is a well known fact of General Relativity that geodesics are paths of maximal proper time. --Jpowell 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you said:
"Let's say you and I are on two different rocket ships approaching a galactic black hole. After crossing the event horizon you accelerate away from the black hole, while I accelerate toward the black hole. Obviously my rocket ship is going to disintegrate first.
What you wrote may be correct under certain technical sense, but read contradictory to the general audience. -MegaHasher 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"
That is not what I said. I was saying that once you fall into a black hole it is better to turn your engine off and simply fall into the singularity if you want to survive for longer. Accelerating in any direction will hasten your demise. It is not wise to talk about what is obvious in a region of very highly curved spacetime, a lot of very weird effects come into play.
"General Relativity tells us that once past the event horizon an object will always move closer to the singularity. A consequence of this is that a pilot in a powerful rocket ship that had just crossed the event horizon who tried to accelerate away from the singularity would actually fall in faster. As the ship tried to move faster time dilation would mean the inevitable fall into the singularity would simply occur faster, or as an alternative way of viewing the situation, length contraction would bring the singularity closer to the ship. This is related to the fact that geodesics (or unaccelerated trajectories) are also paths of maximal proper time."
I would like to reinstate this, but don't want to get into an edit war with you, if you could suggest a rewording or a part that needs clarification that would be appreciated.

Black Hole Discussion mk2

[edit]

"IMHO, only the first sentence of the paragraph is true; the last sentence may be true, but since the object is accelerating, may not be applicable. A possible revision may be "General Relativity tells us that once past the event horizon an object will always move closer to the singularity. A consequence of this is that a pilot in a powerful rocket ship that had just crossed the event horizon cannot avoid its eventual destruction by firing its rocket."

I'm currently studying General Relativity at university and am confident that all parts of the statement are true. It is the acceleration that causes the worldline of the pilot to diverge from a geodesic (geodesics are unaccelerated trajectories), hence a deviation from longest possible proper time.
Simply stating the point that you cannot avoid destruction is pointless as this is a very basic consequence of passing the event horizon. It is more physically interesting that acceleration speeds up your doom, think of the analogy of struggling against quicksand, you will simply be pulled in faster.

Anyway, statements like that already appear multiple times in the black hole topic. I have started an effort to trim the article toward 32k in size; if you can help me in that, it would be great. For example, look for similar statements that were raised multiple times, long winded technical mumbo jumbo, or multiple explainations for a single term. -MegaHasher 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure I'll glady help. --Jpowell 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

social anxiety

[edit]

I've posted a reply on the talk page. Basically, since the article discusses mostly the disorder, I've proposed to move it to social phobia (the more common name, I think). Thanks for your comments. Gflores Talk 05:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Underwood

[edit]

Hey, Thanks for your continued help on the Carrie Underwood vandalism by "Chad Eagleton." Hopefully sometime soon this character will realize that he's being annoying and stop posting vandalism. Batman2005 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, I admit I am unused to this format and please forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong place on this talk page. (Wikipedia really needs to become more user friendly.) It said if I wanted to talk to you to go to this page and I am here. Actually I didn't know who to talk to but was pointed here. My question deals with why a link was removed. I don't suppose it's that big of an issue, but as I had even lowered the link into a somewhat questionable area of pseudoscience, that didn't bother me too much, as that seemed to be where other's would go to investigate this new area of Real Science, whch I prefer called alternative instead of pseudo science.At any rate the link's address was http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Antigravity/.

It was under the topic of Anti-gravity. It seems that from what I am told, that it was removed as it was only an advertisement to get results from Google and was not credible as a scientific concept. Also there was a suggestion that perhaps there had been some confusion with a near match to another site that had been removed several times in the past. This is a NEW group associated with multiple groups involved in practical research for working devices. I have had research reviewed by the National Science Foundation in this field of study, quite favorably in fact. Some of my NSF review copies were in Wiki files at one time under public domain as that was a government publication, though I can produce such data again if it was hard to locate. While this is a new group, the association of groups that it is a member of, have been around for a long time, and I have studied the field since 1980.

There have been numerous newpaper and television reports comcerning my work, as well as national periodicals. This group is only in existence for research purposes. We do not offer to sell anything, and only seek to attract new researchers into our fold. We are a free to join group, but new members do need to be reviewed. We do not allow Spam, and we do not accept contributions of cash. We do not hide behind a facade of non-profit or corporation, for the purpose of skimming funds. I have covered all costs, which have been minor. We are merely a loose association of independant researchers, sharing information within the group and independantly through private emails. We don' really need "Google traffic" as that would be mostly off topic matter of no interest to us, although the proper attraction of the right researchers would have a purpose - granted, so Google is a two edged sword. Members are screened before being accepted through a variety of methods, many applicants have been turned down for previous spam activity, in fact, while this new group has only been up for a little over 2 weeks, I believe we have turned away more members than the thirty some we have accepted. Our rate of growth is increasing rapidly, indeed in last 24 hours there were more than 12 new members, and I don't know how many will be there when I review the next batch of applicants. Word is spreading through the grapevine. While we are just starting, perhaps you would like to review the group, before you decide where we are heading. I will not attempt to replace the link without your review. Indeed, you may add it if you wish.

Thankyou, for your time and I do hope this was the correct place for this question and statement. I keep using the 4~ but it doesn't show my name. -24.121.45.195 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Indexing Copyvio

[edit]

Thanks for being able to find that copyvio stuff on Enhanced Indexing; I only wish that I'd been able to find it 6 days ago when the article was created. Nice job. :) Andy Saunders 12:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that you could have know this, but I had permission from the original author to use the text that I did. You can check with that site owner at [www.indexvalue.com] if you want to verify it. His name is Kaushal. Alternatively, you can revert back to the article and you or I can add language that that part of the article was take from the site www.indexvalue.com with permission of the owner. More than half my article was original, but I can go and make some changes. Please take a look at tell me or edit the changes if you find them unacceptable. Thanks Ken Man

As an FYI, I plan on nominating this article for deletion once the copyvio problem is removed. Its main source plainly quotes "Unfortunately, most investors have never heard of enhanced indexing", meaning that the information is inherently non-notable. I have also spoken with a few people around my university with much more investing experience than I, and the general consensus was that enhanced indexing could mean just about anything the company wanted it to mean, as a marketing tool. Andy Saunders 12:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I think I agree with you. 'Quantitative analysis', and 'Tax managed index funds' do hold some promise, but these are best located at their specific locations, rather than at the 'catch-all' Enhanced Indexing topic. -MegaHasher 17:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change of article Edward Seykota

[edit]

Hello

Please review the References and Vote on the name change of article Edward Seykota , please vote here Talk:Edward Seykota wether you Oppose or Approve.

Thank you.

Trade2tradewell 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic array revert and other changes

[edit]

I just noticed that in this diff, you reverted my division of the introduction into two explanatory sections, intended to more gently introduce the concepts of capacity and geometric expansion separately, with no explanation other than that you were "restoring the overview," which I clearly did not remove. You also misunderstood a number of things, like the n2 comment (meant to describe the inefficiency of greedy expansion), the fundamental distinction between fixed-size arrays and dynamic arrays, and modified the article to incorrectly claim that a dynamic array is an array (which depends on what definition of array you use). I'm frustrated about these changes and I would like to discuss them in more detail. Can you please explain your point of view on these changes? Thank you. Dcoetzee 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-gravity

[edit]

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to comment. Tcisco 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hello. I am the writer of the SimpleProgrammingTutorials.com website and I would like to ask you to review some articles from this resource and, if you suppose they are of appropriate quality, add links to corresponding articles of WikiPedia. You can contact me at denis.kulagin@simpleprogrammingtutorials.com. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis.Kulagin (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, MegaHasher. You have new messages at Falconus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Falconusp t c 09:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MegaHasher&oldid=1143162610"