Re: [FRIAM] Stanford Modeling Class

[Owen Densmore]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> HI Owen,
>
> My wife and I (she teaches Renaissance English and is definitely a
> Humanities person) are "taking" the course together.  My Google+ comments are
> here  and 
> here.
>
>

Nice use of G+ .. and I agree that the first module was a bit light.  But
the second and third were fine.  Tomorrow I'll start in on the forth,
Decision Theory.


> I'm not certain what the structure of the course is. The lectures all seem
> to be uploaded, but I haven't seen anything about a timeline, exercises,
> tests, or any other structure for the course. Do you know anything about
> that?
>

I think all the coursera classes are having a slow start compared to last
fall's sessions.  Scott has done a good job of getting the videos
available, and the readings as well.  The quizes are likely a tech problem.
 It is odd there is less structure in terms of what is expected from the
student.

In the ML class, the quizes (called Reviews) were really well done,
randomized so you could take them often as you'd like.  There was a quiz (5
multiple choice questions, often with 4 parts to the question) for each
section, so two a week.

And in terms of structure, you were given time lines and due dates in the
ML class.  I imagine coursera is the culprit there too.

I suspect Scott is trying for that and its running into problems.  I don't
think there will be programming exercises, while the ML class had
extraordinary programming exercises, artfully integrated into a teaching
script.  Each programming exercise had around 6 programs the student wrote,
then submitted for automatic testing and grading.

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?

[Joshua Thorp]

This sounds right to me.  There is a lot of finger wagging at Iran for not 
having domestic capacity for petroleum refinement even though they are a crude 
exporter.  So I guess capacity works both ways.  The other thing I know is 
currently a hot topic is natural gas production.  I believe the US has 
increased its production quite a bit lately and is likely to have a lot more in 
the future.


On Feb 28, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Hugh Trenchard wrote:

> Just as a brief follow up, it seems to me one of the major factors in this is 
> that U.S. refining capacity has increased so that there is less need to 
> import refined petroleum products.  I haven't researched this in any detail 
> and I stand to be corrected on all my assertions, but it seems to me it's not 
> as though there are any new sources of US domestic supply or significant 
> increase in technological ability to extract previously hard to obtain oil, 
> and likely only marginal reduction in demand. There may be some, but my 
> thought is the hype on this is rather misleading.  Again I don't have the 
> figures, but my guess is that the vast majority of US crude imports likely 
> still come from Canada, Mexico, and other western hemisphere nations, which 
> the U.S. refining companies refine and re-sell as petroleum products, both 
> for domestic use and to export abroad.
>  
> The link below shows some of the definitions used in the petroleum/fuels 
> industry. From my skeptical standpoint, the hype could mislead the American 
> public toward a false sense of security.  I suppose if it stimulates the 
> economy, then that's good, but if it gets people guzzling more gas, then it's 
> really just a fool's game.
>  
> http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_move_imp_tbldef2.asp
>  
> From the link: "Petroleum products are obtained from the processing of crude 
> oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon 
> compounds. Petroleum products include unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum 
> gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha-type jet 
> fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel 
> oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum 
> coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products."
> - Original Message -
> From: Russ Abbott
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Cc: Hugh Trenchard
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?
> 
> We exported more petroleum products, not more oil. We are still net oil 
> importers.
>  
> -- Russ Abbott
> _
>   Professor, Computer Science
>   California State University, Los Angeles
> 
>   Google voice: 747-999-5105
>   Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>   vita:  http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> _ 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:
> From 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/us-becomes-net-exporter-o_n_857085.html
> 
> While some Americans cut back on driving as gas prices soar, the U.S. has 
> become a net exporter of fuel for the first time in nearly 20 years.
> 
> According to data from the Energy Department,starting last November -- with 
> the exception of the month of January -- the U.S. began exporting more 
> petroleum products than it imported.
> 
> 
> This is not the source I got the idea from, its been in the news quite a bit 
> lately, this is just the first google hit I tried.
> 
> The theory is that between the recession (thus less use of fuel, both supply 
> side and demand), conservation/efficiency, and more recent hi-tech oil/gas 
> exploitation (horizontal drilling), the US consumption has dropped and the 
> production has increased, causing a net surplus. 
> 
> It certainly is surprising.
> 
>-- Owen
> 
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Hugh Trenchard  wrote:
> Where did you see that the US is now a net oil exporter?  The attachments 
> below are 2008 and 2009, but I suspect the picture hasn't changed much since 
> then (US imports 75% of its oil for consumption). I believe I saw reference 
> to "potential exporter" in the NY Times article. 
>  
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/07/26/GR2008072601599.html
>  
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4056035804/
> - Original Message -
> From: Owen Densmore
> To: Complexity Coffee Group
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:14 AM
> Subject: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?
> 
> Now for something completely different:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-a-good-question.html
> Basically whether or not the US should join OPEC now that it is a net oil 
> exporter.  
> 
> Insane as it sounds, there is some reason in the discussion.
> 
>-- Owen
> 
> 
> ===

Re: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?

[Hugh Trenchard]

Just as a brief follow up, it seems to me one of the major factors in this is 
that U.S. refining capacity has increased so that there is less need to import 
refined petroleum products.  I haven't researched this in any detail and I 
stand to be corrected on all my assertions, but it seems to me it's not as 
though there are any new sources of US domestic supply or significant increase 
in technological ability to extract previously hard to obtain oil, and likely 
only marginal reduction in demand. There may be some, but my thought is the 
hype on this is rather misleading.  Again I don't have the figures, but my 
guess is that the vast majority of US crude imports likely still come from 
Canada, Mexico, and other western hemisphere nations, which the U.S. refining 
companies refine and re-sell as petroleum products, both for domestic use and 
to export abroad.

The link below shows some of the definitions used in the petroleum/fuels 
industry. From my skeptical standpoint, the hype could mislead the American 
public toward a false sense of security.  I suppose if it stimulates the 
economy, then that's good, but if it gets people guzzling more gas, then it's 
really just a fool's game.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_move_imp_tbldef2.asp

>From the link: "Petroleum products are obtained from the processing of crude 
>oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon 
>compounds. Petroleum products include unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum 
>gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha-type jet 
>fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel 
>oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum 
>coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products."
  - Original Message - 
  From: Russ Abbott 
  To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
  Cc: Hugh Trenchard 
  Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?


  We exported more petroleum products, not more oil. We are still net oil 
importers.


  -- Russ Abbott
  _
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
vita:  http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  _ 





  On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

From 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/us-becomes-net-exporter-o_n_857085.html

  While some Americans cut back on driving as gas prices soar, the U.S. has 
become a net exporter of fuel for the first time in nearly 20 years.

  According to data from the Energy Department,starting last November -- 
with the exception of the month of January -- the U.S. began exporting more 
petroleum products than it imported.



This is not the source I got the idea from, its been in the news quite a 
bit lately, this is just the first google hit I tried.


The theory is that between the recession (thus less use of fuel, both 
supply side and demand), conservation/efficiency, and more recent hi-tech 
oil/gas exploitation (horizontal drilling), the US consumption has dropped and 
the production has increased, causing a net surplus. 


It certainly is surprising.



   -- Owen



On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Hugh Trenchard  wrote:

  Where did you see that the US is now a net oil exporter?  The attachments 
below are 2008 and 2009, but I suspect the picture hasn't changed much since 
then (US imports 75% of its oil for consumption). I believe I saw reference to 
"potential exporter" in the NY Times article.  

  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/07/26/GR2008072601599.html

  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4056035804/
- Original Message - 
From: Owen Densmore 
To: Complexity Coffee Group 
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:14 AM
Subject: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?


Now for something completely different:
  
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-a-good-question.html

Basically whether or not the US should join OPEC now that it is a net 
oil exporter.  


Insane as it sounds, there is some reason in the discussion.


   -- Owen






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


  
  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's C

Re: [FRIAM] Stanford Modeling Class

[Russ Abbott]

HI Owen,

My wife and I (she teaches Renaissance English and is definitely a
Humanities person) are "taking" the course together.  My Google+ comments are
here  and
here.
I'm not certain what the structure of the course is. The lectures all seem
to be uploaded, but I haven't seen anything about a timeline, exercises,
tests, or any other structure for the course. Do you know anything about
that?

*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
*_*



On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> The Stanford Modeling Class has started, I thought I'd give a summary of
> what's up so far.  The website is: https://www.coursera.org/modelthinking/
>
> First of all, this is NOT a deep dive into exotic techniques.  Rather it
> is a *very* broad overview of modeling, answering the question "why model".
>  With each discussion point Scott gives concrete examples, but without
> having to write code or "do the math".
>
> The name of the class, Model Thinking, captures this difference: he is
> guiding us through a new way of thinking that is precise and relatively
> well understood by now.
>
> So it is much more a very high level view of modeling (mainly Agent Based
> Modeling but also simple mathematical and graphical models) with the
> emphasis on very clear thinking.
>
> One quick example: Aggregation.  This is the reductionist dilemma.  How do
> you either
>
> 1 - Look at a Macro event and deduce its parts, or
> 2 - Look at simple Micro rules and deduce the results.
>
> Water, a micro molecule and a macro substance.  The molecule cannot be
> "wet".  Or Schelling's segregation model: at the micro level, individuals
> are quite tolerant, wanting only a few like neighbors, yet the result is a
> surprising large value of segregation.  He also introduces a metric for
> segregation, The Dissimilarity Index, so we can be precise.  He also looks
> at the Game of Life and CA's in a similar way.
>
> Unlike the Machine Learning class, there are readings, generally classics
> in the field.  The first session's readings, for example, are Josh
> Epstein's "Why Model" and Scott's introduction to his class.  Both are very
> "humanities" over "computation".
>
> I've uploaded my class notes, 2 2/3 sets thus far: they are screen
> captures with pdf annotations.  You can get a feel for the class quickly by
> thumbing through them.  They are at http://backspaces.net/temp/ and begin
> with ModelThinking.
>
> I do have to confess: there is a method in my madness in writing this
> email.  I find learning in a cave, by myself, less fun than having some
> others along for the ride.  So if anyone does take the bait .. and ends up
> following the class, lets get together and chat about it. And don't feel
> you have to be a Scientist or Mathematician or Hacker .. you don't.
>
>-- Owen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] TODAYonline | Singapore | NTU launches complexity science programme for researchers

[Tom Johnson]

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120228-052/NTU-launches-complexity-science-programme-for-researchers

NTU launches complexity science programme for researchers
by Amir Hussain
04:46 AM Feb 28, 2012
SINGAPORE - Researchers at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will
soon have opportunities to undertake complexity science research, which
may, for instance, help alleviate traffic congestion or create genetically
"tailored" medicine.

The NTU yesterday officially launched a complexity science programme that
was set up in August last
year.[more
]

-tj

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] Stanford Modeling Class

[Owen Densmore]

The Stanford Modeling Class has started, I thought I'd give a summary of
what's up so far.  The website is: https://www.coursera.org/modelthinking/

First of all, this is NOT a deep dive into exotic techniques.  Rather it is
a *very* broad overview of modeling, answering the question "why model".
 With each discussion point Scott gives concrete examples, but without
having to write code or "do the math".

The name of the class, Model Thinking, captures this difference: he is
guiding us through a new way of thinking that is precise and relatively
well understood by now.

So it is much more a very high level view of modeling (mainly Agent Based
Modeling but also simple mathematical and graphical models) with the
emphasis on very clear thinking.

One quick example: Aggregation.  This is the reductionist dilemma.  How do
you either

1 - Look at a Macro event and deduce its parts, or
2 - Look at simple Micro rules and deduce the results.

Water, a micro molecule and a macro substance.  The molecule cannot be
"wet".  Or Schelling's segregation model: at the micro level, individuals
are quite tolerant, wanting only a few like neighbors, yet the result is a
surprising large value of segregation.  He also introduces a metric for
segregation, The Dissimilarity Index, so we can be precise.  He also looks
at the Game of Life and CA's in a similar way.

Unlike the Machine Learning class, there are readings, generally classics
in the field.  The first session's readings, for example, are Josh
Epstein's "Why Model" and Scott's introduction to his class.  Both are very
"humanities" over "computation".

I've uploaded my class notes, 2 2/3 sets thus far: they are screen captures
with pdf annotations.  You can get a feel for the class quickly by thumbing
through them.  They are at http://backspaces.net/temp/ and begin with
ModelThinking.

I do have to confess: there is a method in my madness in writing this
email.  I find learning in a cave, by myself, less fun than having some
others along for the ride.  So if anyone does take the bait .. and ends up
following the class, lets get together and chat about it. And don't feel
you have to be a Scientist or Mathematician or Hacker .. you don't.

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?

[Alfredo Covaleda]

US Companies explore, exploit and export petroleum from almost every
country in the world.


2012/2/27 Russ Abbott 

> We exported more petroleum products, not more oil. We are still net oil
> importers.
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>   Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> *  vita:  *http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> *_*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
>>  From
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/us-becomes-net-exporter-o_n_857085.html
>>
>>  While some Americans cut 
>> back
>>  on
>> driving as gas prices soar, the U.S. has become a net exporter of fuel for
>> the first time in nearly 20 years.
>>
>> According to data from the Energy 
>> Department,starting
>> last November -- with the exception of the month of January -- the U.S.
>> began exporting more petroleum products than it imported.
>>
>>
>> This is not the source I got the idea from, its been in the news quite a
>> bit lately, this is just the first google hit I tried.
>>
>> The theory is that between the recession (thus less use of fuel, both
>> supply side and demand), conservation/efficiency, and more recent hi-tech
>> oil/gas exploitation (horizontal drilling), the US consumption has dropped
>> and the production has increased, causing a net surplus.
>>
>> It certainly is surprising.
>>
>>-- Owen
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Hugh Trenchard wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Where did you see that the US is now a net oil exporter?  The
>>> attachments below are 2008 and 2009, but I suspect the picture hasn't
>>> changed much since then (US imports 75% of its oil for consumption). I
>>> believe I saw reference to "potential exporter" in the NY Times article.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/07/26/GR2008072601599.html
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4056035804/
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Owen Densmore 
>>> *To:* Complexity Coffee Group 
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2012 9:14 AM
>>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] A Good Question - Should the United States join OPEC?
>>>
>>> Now for something completely different:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-a-good-question.html
>>>
>>> Basically whether or not the US should join OPEC now that it is a net
>>> oil exporter.
>>>
>>> Insane as it sounds, there is some reason in the discussion.
>>>
>>>-- Owen
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>



-- 
Alfredo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org