Re: subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
Ha! How would any of us mere mortals know, since some of the very most arcane, sophisticated and advanced work done in simulation today is 100% classified DARPA research. And by the way, if you assume they have bottom-quartile donutchompers doing that sort of work at Sandia and elsewhere, you've got Rumour has it that They can now with p=0.9 simulate USA in 60-ties due to abundance of data. Kennedy always gets killed, as often in that car as in the plane crash. Simulation accuracy for the present is 0.62 because real-time data aquisition sets the limit, and expected to rise to 0.95 when feeds from MAE nodes are completed. Think Department of Peventive Justice. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Re: subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Faustine wrote: ...by the people you know about. No, by understanding the scale of the problem we're talking about. There simply isn't the data or the people to collect it. If we took the entire GDP of the US for 10 years it wouldn't pay for it. We also don't know what data to collect to verify the models either. You could certainly make some dinky problem and claim to extend it, but it would be like extending 2-body solutions to n-body - don't work. These problems don't scale exponentialy, they scale factoraly (much faster). Hell, we can't even manage a few dozen wolves in Yellowstone and you want to seriously postulate some black lab has solved the problem...extraordinary claims... -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Faustine wrote: ...by the people you know about. No, by understanding the scale of the problem we're talking about. There simply isn't the data or the people to collect it. If we took the entire GDP of the US for 10 years it wouldn't pay for it. We also don't know what data to collect to verify the models either. You could certainly make some dinky problem and claim to extend it, but it would be like extending 2-body solutions to n-body - don't work. These problems don't scale exponentially, they scale factorally (much faster). All I'm saying is that assuming analysts will somehow decide to give up on trying to solve similarly complex problems via simulation because they're too hard isn't exactly what I'd call a safe bet. More like a sucker's bet. Hell, we can't even manage a few dozen wolves in Yellowstone and you want to seriously postulate some black lab has solved the problem...extraordinary claims... Bah, what claims? Not that anyone has, or ever would--but that if certain people put their minds to it, perhaps--just maybe--they COULD. No need to get your bloomers in a bunch over a rare speck of Kierkegaardian willed-optimism. If I were really out to assert something worth proving, I don't think I would have been quoting Willy Wonka, now would I! Oh well, stay grumpy if you want to. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPFNtWfg5Tuca7bfvEQLCeQCfSH+T4LjfWs3xc6sKJmg7/Z6XpU0AnjzP 4X280MFp01m1vn6eXvltHxgF =+Gim -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Faustine wrote: All I'm saying is that assuming analysts will somehow decide to give up on trying to solve similarly complex problems via simulation because they're too hard isn't exactly what I'd call a safe bet. More like a sucker's bet. Man, decrease the dossage. You're hallucinating like hell. I NEVER(!) EVER(!) said a damn thing about giving up... See, http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18 http://einstein.ssz.com/openforge http://einstein.ssz.com/level4.html What I DID() say was, in different words, was: That the suggestion that running a simple numerical ecology experiment on a home computer and then trying to extrapolate that to a real world application is a complete and utter waste of time. There is no model, there is no data. This was within the context of (H)ADD (that's me in spades) being an (mal)adaptive character. Of course it is. If you have to think more than a few seconds about basic biology to understand that then go immediately to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Every characteristic of the environment as well as the organism is a responce to evolutionary forces (re Gaia Theory). Even in the case of 'neutral genetic trait' approaches (which I happen to agree with as well) it is clear that while a particular character may not be relevant today, that does not include the past or the future. The fact that (H)ADD are the thrill seekers means they were probably the ones leading the expansions of mankind in our pre-history. It also probably included those 'psychotics' who don't have 'feelings for society'. I bet they are one mother of a Mastadon killer. Probably don't live long but what the hey. As evidence from not only Homo Sapien but back to Neandertal there is evidence of helping the injured [1]. I've postulated (half seriously) that this explains the bloody Aztec and Mayan approaches to civil service. Makes a lot of sense if you think of them coming from a group of psychopaths in their distant past :) Such an extrapolation is also akin to taking the approaches that work with a 2-body problem in mechanics and then trying to extend them to 3-body or greater problems (they're insoluble in principle not just fact). It also has some similarities with graph theory (graphs are a great tool for demonstrating the connections in an ecological model). There are aspects of any cliological model that can be considered workable which would have tremendous impact on other areas (eg cryptography). These signatures simply aren't there. Signature analysis is your friend. (H)ADD is an alternate wiring schema for the human brain. It is genetic in basis. (H)ADD is strongly connected with above average performance, increased thrill seeking, and unconventional modes of thinking (eg images dyslexia). If left to itself one would expect this character to increase (which it apparently is). The political, educational, and social views of the status quo find this unsettling. I suggest they change the way they do school and stop drugging perfectly normal human beings. (H)ADD is a perfectly normal evolutionary experiment. The 'old' model is being found wanting by the environment. The current attitudes about (H)ADD are nothing more than open, socialy supported, bigotry. With kudos to Rudy Rucker: There is a better way. You can do it! Seek the Gnarl! -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- [1] I find it interesting that the Neandertals seem to have attacked their prey directly. Jump on it and beat and stab till it, or you, stop. As contrasted with Homo Sapiens which seem to been a distance hunter. One of the primary evidences in this is the build of the various throwing devices. The Neandertal seem to have used short and heavy spears while Homo Sapien used a longer and lighter model.
subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Not having read the article, but speculating anyway on the general point, it may be more than just cheating. It may be the form of thinking that encourages probing weaknesses, finding flaws and loopholes (which is often what cheating is), and generally behaving as a tiger team member looking to break in or demolish something. ... I think there's a connection to this kind of problem-solving and cheating, and to getting the juices flowing and 'thinking outside the box. Cheating is a kind of devious thinking, which is essentially what thinking outside the box is. I agree; fascinating stuff. Here's a paragraph on deviousness and psychopathy as an adaptive trait you might find interesting: ...we speculate that evolution designed a subspecies of humans who use deception and cheating to get resources from others but do not reciprocate. The key characteristics of such a subspecies ought to be: skill at deception, lack of concern for the suffering of others, ease and flexibility in the exploitation of others, extreme reluctance to be responsible for others (including, in the case of males, their own offspring), and total lack of real concern for the opinion of others. These are psychopathic traits. The point here is that psychopathy is not a disorder because psychopaths (and their mental characteristics) are performing exactly as they were designed by natural selection. According to this view, psychopathy is an adaptation. ... Our theory is that, although nonpsychopaths are capable of some criminal behaviour under the right (wrong) circumstances, psychopaths form a distinct subgroup of humans who use distinct life-long deception reproductive strategies under all circumstances. *** Looks like some people around here are ahead of the curve. subspecimens of humanity, now theres a thought... My most productive years of crypto thinking were from 1988 to 1992, when I figured out a lot of the undermining things clued-in readers know about. And my best work at Intel was when I was, without any false modesty, Intel's top smoke jumper, parachuting in to crisis situations and bulling my way around looking for weaknesses and points of attack. I solved a lot of problems by being very sneaky. ... Must be why some people here are so impressed by my charm. Oh yeah? Did it ever occur to you that they might just have been sneaky and devious enough themselves to figure out what a wily old puff adder like yourself would want to hear? LOL Interesting puzzle--though your handling of the drill-size issue reminds me of a cautionary tale from my modeling and simulation class: Beaming Engineer 1: You know, I've been working on this all month--I think Ive just invented the worlds most perfect chichen plucking machine! Doubtful Engineer 2: Really? Engineer One: Surewell, under the assumption that the chickens are perfectly spherical. Though you're right that it's vitally important to find an elegant solution to your problem, gotta watch out for those spherical chickens. I would have thought the thing to do next is choose a range of actual drill bits capable of drilling plutonium, note their properties and create a table of values by working through the equation that way. Oh well. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPFIQbPg5Tuca7bfvEQLlBwCffg0cenvw+JQipA4OjJ8Oi7rE62oAn285 6dXPvwcsdHxZgls3/j328DKe =vP/Z -END PGP SIGNATURE-
