Sorry for the OT but I think most of us here would agree the world lost a brilliant mind yesterday.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

I have long admired Professor Hawking, not only for his brilliance, but for his remarkable resiliency. That he lived as long as he had and was as productive as he was, was not only a testament to modern medical science, but proof that attitude and spirit can keep one going despite serious illness. His death is indeed a real loss to science and humanity.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

I agree 100%.

It's funny that only a few days ago (earlier this week) I was reading online that Hawking refused to "upgrade" his speech synthesis system. Now, I admit that could just be a rumor but from what I read, he wanted to keep his 80's voice chip sounds as most people who knew him, identified him with that voice.

I don't imagine he was financially strapped so he could more than likely afford an upgrade. So part of me wants to believe that story. And that's not a bad thing....think about it...you have a certain pattern to your voice. If it were to drastically change, people would notice and it could become an uncomfortable topic.

Also from what I've read/seen, he had a great sense of humor. Including being poked fun of on The Big Bang Theory. Apparently, he was a huge fan of the show.

I think the first time I ever saw him (or even heard about him) was an episode of Star Trek:TNG. I remember being confused because Albert Einstein was on there (an actor, of course). And Einstein looked so fake. But here was this real man in a wheelchair that could barely move and talked funny. It was then that I started learning about him (and buying his books).

Anyway...I'm just rambling. I only wished I could have met him in real life.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

I read the same on the BBC a few years ago, and I think it was mentioned in the foreward to one of his books which I have read. So I'm pretty sure its true.

_________________
Want to design a PCB for your project? I strongly recommend KiCad. Its free, its multiplatform, and its easy to learn!
Also, I maintain KiCad libraries of Retro Computing and Arduino components you might find useful.

I have read interviews where he mentioned this, in detail, so it's definitely true.

To get an idea of his voice and his sense of humor, check out his rendition of the Galaxy song.

Stephen Hawking Sings Monty Python
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcC6FYyL4U

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html

I think it is safe to assume that if you get a type of radiation named after you, then you were a big deal in physics.

The average IQ level of all humans on the planet lost a few points when he died. RIP.

===Jac

I was hoping to meet him last year when he was going to be at the Starmus festival. Unfortunately his doctor advised him not to go, so he never got there in person.

I guess he was the last of the famous physicists, ending an era of enlightenment. He was a bright light in an otherwise bleak world of "truths" and "alternative facts".

No, we have at least one more physicist to look forward to, one who can reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. Who knows whether this will happen in our lifetimes.

As for the end of reason and the new dark age, I'm rather hoping that's both temporary and local. Most things are, if you can get perspective.

I agree that Stephen Hawking's death was a great loss.
I don't know enough about physics to appreciate his work. I think some of it was controversial, such as regarding black holes, and many physicists disagreed with him. Still though, I think everybody agreed that he was extremely intelligent and overall made a big positive contribution to physics.

People of high intelligence don't come around very often --- only a handful each generation, which is not very many for a big planet.


You've got it backwards --- people below his IQ (most everybody) had their IQ go up when he died, and people above his IQ (not many) had their IQ go down when he died --- his high IQ was pulling up the average.

Quite a lot of people get median and average confused! My personal way to judge a person's intelligence is to ask:
"Do you agree that most people on Earth have a below average IQ?"
Almost everybody scoffs at this and says: "By definition half are below average and half are above average!" Everybody who answers like this is below average. I have only met one person in my life who answered the question correctly.

IQ is not a normal distribution. The curve has a steep left side and a gently sloping right side.
There is actually a book called: "The Bell Curve" (Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray). How stupid is that??? Very stupid!

The average IQ is defined as being 100. The majority of people on Earth have a below average IQ. The median IQ is (my guess) about 90.
This is because there is no limit on how smart a person can be. Although the average IQ is 100 (by definition), you can have people at 160 or even 200, and there is no theoretical limit on this. One smart guy at 120 balances out two ordinary guys at 90:
(90+90+120)/3 = 100.
By comparison, there is a limit to how dumb a person can be. Most people are about 90. People who are at 80 are functional, but would be considered to be dummies. People at 70 are semi-functional; they need supervision, such as in a group home. People at 60 are drooling idiots who can't be toilet trained. I don't think there are any people at 50 or below.
There is actually a distinction between an idiot, an imbecile, and a moron, but I don't remember the definitions --- I'm pretty sure people can't be below 50 though.

I have never taken an IQ test, and I never will. I am opposed to IQ testing!
IQ tests were popularized in the 1920s and early 1930s in America for the purpose of providing pseudo-scientific justification for euthanasia. Then, during the late 1930s and early 1940s the Nazis implemented euthanasia of undesirables on a massive scale (the Holocaust) and this was pretty ugly, so the idea lost popularity in America.

It is commonly believed that the IQ of the parents will determine the IQ of the child. Specifically, if the parents are morons, the child will be a moron too. Because of this belief, it is assumed that morons should be sterilized so they can't have children, or they should be killed.
It is actually not true that the IQ of the parents will determine the IQ of the child. There is no evidence to indicate that intelligence is an inherited trait. Obviously, super-intelligent people (such as Stephen Hawking) were born to parents with significantly lower intelligence. Similarly, parents who are morons may have a child who is average intelligence or even high intelligence. It also happens that parents of high intelligence have a child who is dumb. There really is no correlation between the intelligence of the parents and the intelligence of the child. This is more a matter of environment --- dumb parents are unlikely to support their child in school, such as by helping with homework, and are unlikely to encourage the child to strive for success, so the child typically ends up flunking out of school even if he or she is intelligent and has the potential to succeed in school.

Anyway --- I boycott IQ tests because I don't want to give tacit support to euthanasia --- it is immoral to murder people, even if they are dumb.
Also, I think the IQ tests are only designed to measure accurately in the range of about 60 to 140. They aren't going to give an accurate measurement of people above 140 because intelligence and creativity are too intertwined at that level, and there is no way to measure creativity. The IQ tests assume a normal distribution between about 60 and 140 --- the IQ test is based on a false premise --- as I said earlier, intelligence is not a normal distribution.

Sometimes you have a person who appears to be dumb, but this is due to a bad environment, and this person can turn his or her life around to succeed.
Ben Carson is an example of this. When he was a teenager, everybody called him a dummy, and he himself believed that he was a dummy. One time another boy was taunting him, and calling him a dummy, and he stabbed that boy. Luckily, the knife hit the other boy's belt buckle and so the other boy was not injured. This incident made Ben Carson realize that he had to turn his life around, or he would fall into in a life of crime, which would end with him in prison or dead. He began striving in school to make good grades, and to stop acting like a dummy. This worked out well --- he was actually quite intelligent --- he ended up becoming a surgeon.
I was a big supporter of Ben Carson in the Presidential election. I was disappointed that he dropped out. The choice ended up between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton --- both dumb and mean! --- what a disappointment!

Well, "alternative fact" is just another term for "theory" --- I wouldn't strive to prevent people from theorizing --- I do have an issue with people who declare some idea to be the final word, and who insult anybody who theorizes contradictory ideas as being "kooks."
We don't really know everything there is to know --- we never will --- for example, Newtonian Physics worked pretty well and was considered to be the final word on the subject of physics, but then Quantum Mechanics came along and overturned the apple-cart.

IIRC, it was Mark Twain who said: "It is not what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it is what we do know that ain't so!"

I think that honesty is more important than intelligence.
What is holding most people back, is not a lack of intelligence --- it is a lack of honesty --- they are unwilling to let go of bad ideas when evidence arises to indicate that these are bad ideas, so they continue supporting the bad ideas with dishonest arguments.
For example, when the idea of the planets orbiting the sun was introduced, a lot of people were married to the idea of the sun and other planets orbiting Earth, so they came out with very contorted and over-complicated arguments to support this bad idea, although they actually knew that this idea was incorrect.

Also, people refuse to accept evidence that contradicts the status quo because they are afraid of change, so they continue supporting the status quo with dishonest arguments.
For example, I remember covering the obvious evidence to indicate that the official story of what happened on 9/11/2001 is total bullshit.
Much more realistic is that this mass-murder was committed by people within our own government, and at very high levels of government (Dick Cheney is the primary suspect).
The person I was talking to replied: "I can't believe that! If that was true, there would be rioting in the streets."
At first I thought she meant that there is no rioting in the streets, and this proves that what I said was untrue. This, of course, is nonsense --- you can't disprove a theory by saying that not many people believe in the theory and/or not many people are responding emotionally!
After some thought, I realized that what she meant was that she didn't want there to be rioting in the streets, so she decided to believe in the official story because this would presumably not result in rioting in the streets (go kill people in Afghanistan, which is okay because that is on the other side of the planet, but don't kill anybody here in America even if they are guilty).
This is not my kind of thinking!

• There is no way to predict what the results will be. Either belief-system could conceivably result in rioting in the streets, or various other unpleasant results. For example, believing in the official story has resulted in America going to war in Afghanistan, which primarily resulted in an increase in heroin coming into America The Taliban had been burning the opium fields due to their religious convictions, but after the Northern Alliance regained control they went into heroin dealing again. Do you remember how there was a big rush to defeat the Taliban before spring-time? That was because this would allow for a full growing season of opium in 2002. Also, believing in the official story has resulted in America going to war in Iraq, which makes no sense at all because the official story doesn't implicate Iraq, and our war in Iraq has been an incredible failure in every possible way that a war can be a failure.
• I want to know what the truth is, without regard to what the consequences will be (even if the consequences include rioting in the streets) --- I don't purposely believe in something that I know is untrue, just to make peace, as that would be dishonest and cowardly.

It is a mistake to become tied to any belief-system (B.S.) and be unwilling to let go of it --- people do this all the time though --- B.S. makes us human!

"Alternative facts" is not another name for "theory". Quite the opposite.
Anyway, I don't believe this thread was meant to stray into political conspiracy territory, so it's best to stop here.

Indeed, I have asked for this thread to be locked. Off-topic is one thing, but an obituary thread is another.

Hugh, it would be great if you'd edit down your messages to reflect the thread topic, respecting the nature of an obituary.

Please, everyone, do not take this meandering any further.