Search results

And you don't seem to be very bright. The documentary can still be pointless even if there are no "LIES" in it at all. There are numerous ways to deceive without lying. For example, there might be 5 studies about a drug, 4 of which found no difference to placebo. I can show to you only the...

Never believe anything originating from BILD. That "newspaper" is a well known scam. Exceptionally dumb entertainment for morons. They have zero credibility in Germany.

Let's say you test a large number of different signals, whatever they look like. Now, if there is a way to meet your fitness criteria. Some signals may meet your criteria just by chance. The more you test, the more likely you'll find what you want. Like testing random combinations to guess an...

WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris and fire. That "perfect free fall" myth is plain wrong. Proof for the above two FACTS is presented in this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5313004818217244745

No plane hit WTC5, just debris and it did catch fire. Almost collapsed. Go look at some pictures of WTC5. Learn from WTC5 what debris and fire can do. http://www.designaids.com/wtc/chapter4.html

Analyzing your emails (for advertising purposes only, of course) is no longer good enough for Google. Google wants your DNS lookups http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/ Google plans to operate own fiber network to get your full IP traffic...

Just a few comments. @ flipflopper It's not the same. I suggested to use dollar ATR to calculate number of shares without making it dependent on SL. That's different from all your examples 1, 2, 3. @ Mike805 You can do that but you will double position size after a stock lost 50 % of...

My suggestion was to NOT make it dependent on SL but only on dollar ATR. SL is only your maximum risk. You can exit positions before. Typical risk is your average loss. You should be able to change SL without changing position size or anything else. That's the only way to properly test what SL...

Use dollar ATR to calculate how many shares you trade based on the same amount of capital. Amount of capital is fixed $ when optimizing inputs. You can make it a function of buying power later. That way, you use volatility to account for the risk. Making position size dependent on stop loss...

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Attackers-able-to-read-out-list-of-visited-web-pages-732405.html http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/EFF-demonstrates-a-browser-s-finger-print-918786.html

If you use TrueCrypt, the biggest risk is still you screwing things up, not the strength of AES-256. So make sure to follow best practices. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/security-requirements-and-precautions While AES-256 itself is good, a specific implementation can have blatant flaws...

Keep in mind that TrueCrypt only protects your data as long as you don't use it. Mounted volumes are as easily accessible as if they were unencrypted.

How can you compare that with your monkey? What overall % winners can you conclude based on 8 losers in a row? Too bad you don't trade anymore.

We routinely make intuitive decisions all the time without thinking about them consciously, for example when driving a car. We often have to because our higher brain functions like conscious thinking are much slower and also very costly. We work very efficiently so we don't use our most...

The subconscious mind is very powerful. We can also think consciously but that's probably the same thing, just more intense. What becomes conscious often can't be chosen deliberately. We can try to remember the name of a person but sometimes fail even though we know it. The subconscious mind...

And you cannot even read.

1. Your selection of trades was not random but fully deterministic. 2. Your 50 % result of one single deterministic trade selection is completely irrelevant here. 3. What matters is the average result of a large number of random trade selections. In this case, the winning percentage averages...

So you chickened out. You cannot put up because you are a liar. No disclosure of how you "calculated" your slightly better than 50 %. No explanation of the alleged error in my analysis. Simply because you made it all up.

Looks like you decided to not put up and fully disclose how you Probably because you are a liar. You also gave not a single valid reason why my winning percentage of 60.5 +- 0.5 points was allegedly not accurate. Just some more useless drivel without any substance or content.

No, it doesn't make sense. QQQQ went up from 29.27 to 47.49 in the testing period. Please provide full disclosure of your analysis and please be very specific. Put up or shut up. I'll go first. I used daily QQQQ data from TradeStation and this code for my test. Inputs: Num(1); Vars...