Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting
Good points, Saul. If I remember correctly, before the Bohr model, people looking at the hydrogen emission spectrum had already discovered an empirical formula for the frequencies of the emission lines: f = constant*(1/n1^2 - 1/n2^2) Bohr's model yielded the same formula, with Planck's constant times f being the energy of an emitted photon when the atom's quantum number changed from n2 to n1, and the model also provided an evaluation of the constant in terms of known quantities such as the mass of the electron. I should mention that the ten-pin diagram is a graphical representation of a particular structure in group theory. Bruce On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Saul Caganoff scagan...@gmail.com wrote: It seems that many scientific fields go through a phase of observation (derisively called stamp collecting) followed by a phase of classification. If you're lucky then patterns can be picked out of the classification scheme to predict where to look for new entities or new interesting phenomena. The Periodic Table is one of the cited examples. Another example (though perhaps not as good) is the Hertzprung-Russell diagram used in astronomy where stars are plotted onto a graph with luminosity and colour as the two axes. They form a characteristic pattern which had to be explained by any theory of stellar evolution. I also recall many years ago picking up a book on atomic spectra published in 1901 - some 12 years before the Bohr theory of the atom - which illustrated hundreds of different emission spectra and talked about the relationships between spectral line frequencies in terms of waves and resonances. It reflected a very interesting point in the science where patterns were emerging and calling out for an explanation. So it seems that a classification model can be used to make predictions - to see if the pattern extends to unobserved areas - and that this can be independent of an underlying explanatory theory. I think Gell-Mann's QCD models probably fit this idea. The image of the ten-pin owling skittles pattern and the mystery of what lies at the tip is very evocative. Regards, Saul On 11 July 2012 06:56, Bruce Sherwood bruce.sherw...@gmail.com wrote: For Engineers perhaps, predictive models are sufficient, they may not be (very?) interested in explaining *why* a particular material has the properties it does, merely *what* those properties are and how reliable the properties might be under a variety of conditions. I don't think this currently true. A big chunk of what used to be labeled physics is now in academic engineering departments with the name material science. This consists of exploiting models that explain observed properties of materials, with the goal of looking for opportunities to change parameters to get improved behavior. In the early 1990s I heard a talk by an engineering professor at the science museum in Toronto, where he explained how such research had led to concrete many times stronger than it had been, and that the iconic tall tower in Toronto could not have been built not many years before it was built, as it relied on much stronger concrete. In some cases someone sees how, starting from fundamental physics principles, one can predict that such and such should happen or be. In other cases an observed phenomenon gets explained in terms of fundamental physics principles (post-diction), which then suggests how changes in the situation might yield an improved behavior. Pre-diction and post-diction both require a deep understanding of how to go from underlying fundamental principles to the behavior, but pre-diction in addition requires the imagination to run the argument forward, not already knowing the answer. That's why I claim that post-diction (explanation) is more common than pre-diction. There's a fruitful interplay between pre-diction and post-diction. An example I've mentioned some time ago, from our intro physics textbook: When searching for an explanation for spark formation in air (we see the spark and ask how it occurs, which is post-diction or explanation) there are a couple of tentative explanations that one can rule out. Another explanation seems to explain the phenomenon, and the validity of this post-diction is greatly strengthened by noting that it (and not the other explanations) pre-dicts that it takes twice the critical electric field to trigger a spark if the air density is doubled, a pre-diction that is consistent with observations. Bruce 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 -- Saul Caganoff Enterprise IT Architect Mobile: +61 410 430 809 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays
Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting
Eric, I have not read the original article, but still your comments caught my attention. As argued in this article http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html , the disassociation of predictive and explanatory power seems misguided. I suppose a statistical function of many observational variables could have no explanatory power beyond the many variables on which it is based, but then it would only predict what it already knew. It would “just” be an intervening variable, and not a hypothetical construct, at all. As we have agreed, some explanations can have “facetious” content, that is not predictive, but that content is not really explanatory, either. Darwin certainly did not believe that Nature was a breeder who chose the better adapted individuals for breeding. Further, the idea of a distinction between that which can be directly or indirectly measured also seems a bit strange. Every measurement is based on a “measurement theory” that tells you that the reading you make on the dial is a valid measure of the thing you actually care about. Measurement theories fail all the time. So, what then is a “direct” measure? One possible response to this comment might be to just tell me to piss off until I have read the article you are referring to. Nick PS And isn’t “real existence” the ultimate hypothetical construct? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:41 PM To: Steve Smith Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting Steve, Interesting paper, but I'm not sure if I follow. The basic argument seems to be that we often explain things by imagining (with the help of statistics) hypothetical constructs that cannot be directly measured. As those constructs can't be measured directly, they don't help us predict things. Thus, predictive models are limited to using things that actually exist, while explanatory models are not so limited. That seems like a really good argument for coming up with better explanations, not an argument for distinguishing and reifying two distinct modeling tasks. This is a topic I am quite interested in. I would presume that an ideal explanatory model would be identical to an ideal predictive model, though I grant that non-ideal cases might differ. What am I missing? Eric On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 12:37 AM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Bruce - I second the motion (very good post)! Mendeleev's Periodic Chart was *my* first introduction (back when) to the very concept of having a predictive model that was (almost) entirely void of explanatory ability (as it stood when constructed). I found the notion *fascinating* and it drove me into the field of Visual (Perceptual) Analytics many years later... seeking patterns that yield useful prediction without necessarily waiting for an explanatory model. For those vaguely interested in the philosophical underpinnings of science, it's methods and utility, I recommend Galit Schmueli's (George Washington U's) paper on Predictive vs Explanatory Models (as well as *Descriptive* models)... arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891 Thanks! Glad you liked it! I have long been bemused by the strong parallels among the various tales I was able to tell in that post. Bruce On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Pamela McCorduck pam...@well.com wrote: Bruce, that blog post is marvelous in its simplicity and power. Pamela On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote: See my blog: http://matterandinteractions.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/the-higgs-boson-and-prediction-in-science/ Bruce On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: Lets chat about the Higgs discovery, its likely-hood of being correct, and the impact it will have going forward .. at the next Friam @ St Johns. Could someone see if Hywel White is available .. or anyone you know who'd like to hold forth on the topic! -- 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 Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist. In German, if one is polite, one lies. Goethe, Faust 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
Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting
Excellent series of explanations, Bruce. Do you by chance have a specific reference to the ten-pin structure and its relation to group theory? Thanks ... Dean Gerber From: Bruce Sherwood bruce.sherw...@gmail.com To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting Good points, Saul. If I remember correctly, before the Bohr model, people looking at the hydrogen emission spectrum had already discovered an empirical formula for the frequencies of the emission lines: f = constant*(1/n1^2 - 1/n2^2) Bohr's model yielded the same formula, with Planck's constant times f being the energy of an emitted photon when the atom's quantum number changed from n2 to n1, and the model also provided an evaluation of the constant in terms of known quantities such as the mass of the electron. I should mention that the ten-pin diagram is a graphical representation of a particular structure in group theory. Bruce On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Saul Caganoff scagan...@gmail.com wrote: It seems that many scientific fields go through a phase of observation (derisively called stamp collecting) followed by a phase of classification. If you're lucky then patterns can be picked out of the classification scheme to predict where to look for new entities or new interesting phenomena. The Periodic Table is one of the cited examples. Another example (though perhaps not as good) is the Hertzprung-Russell diagram used in astronomy where stars are plotted onto a graph with luminosity and colour as the two axes. They form a characteristic pattern which had to be explained by any theory of stellar evolution. I also recall many years ago picking up a book on atomic spectra published in 1901 - some 12 years before the Bohr theory of the atom - which illustrated hundreds of different emission spectra and talked about the relationships between spectral line frequencies in terms of waves and resonances. It reflected a very interesting point in the science where patterns were emerging and calling out for an explanation. So it seems that a classification model can be used to make predictions - to see if the pattern extends to unobserved areas - and that this can be independent of an underlying explanatory theory. I think Gell-Mann's QCD models probably fit this idea. The image of the ten-pin owling skittles pattern and the mystery of what lies at the tip is very evocative. Regards, Saul On 11 July 2012 06:56, Bruce Sherwood bruce.sherw...@gmail.com wrote: For Engineers perhaps, predictive models are sufficient, they may not be (very?) interested in explaining *why* a particular material has the properties it does, merely *what* those properties are and how reliable the properties might be under a variety of conditions. I don't think this currently true. A big chunk of what used to be labeled physics is now in academic engineering departments with the name material science. This consists of exploiting models that explain observed properties of materials, with the goal of looking for opportunities to change parameters to get improved behavior. In the early 1990s I heard a talk by an engineering professor at the science museum in Toronto, where he explained how such research had led to concrete many times stronger than it had been, and that the iconic tall tower in Toronto could not have been built not many years before it was built, as it relied on much stronger concrete. In some cases someone sees how, starting from fundamental physics principles, one can predict that such and such should happen or be. In other cases an observed phenomenon gets explained in terms of fundamental physics principles (post-diction), which then suggests how changes in the situation might yield an improved behavior. Pre-diction and post-diction both require a deep understanding of how to go from underlying fundamental principles to the behavior, but pre-diction in addition requires the imagination to run the argument forward, not already knowing the answer. That's why I claim that post-diction (explanation) is more common than pre-diction. There's a fruitful interplay between pre-diction and post-diction. An example I've mentioned some time ago, from our intro physics textbook: When searching for an explanation for spark formation in air (we see the spark and ask how it occurs, which is post-diction or explanation) there are a couple of tentative explanations that one can rule out. Another explanation seems to explain the phenomenon, and the validity of this post-diction is greatly strengthened by noting that it (and not the other explanations) pre-dicts that it takes twice the critical electric field to trigger a spark if the air density is doubled, a pre-diction that is consistent with observations. Bruce
Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting
Nick (aka NST) - One possible response to this comment might be to just tell me to piss off until I have read the article you are referring to. I think you caught the implications without having read the specific article that I recommended. We are obviously wandered into territory which you have explored before... I definitely welcome your weighing in here. As argued in this article http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html, Which I just read. I was previously not familiar with JASS. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html the disassociation of predictive and explanatory power seems misguided. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html I suppose a statistical function of many observational variables could have no explanatory power beyond the many variables on which it is based, but then it would only predict what it already knew. It would just be an intervening variable, and not a hypothetical construct, at all. As we have agreed, some explanations can have facetious content, that is not predictive, but that content is not really explanatory, either. Darwin certainly did not believe that Nature was a breeder who chose the better adapted individuals for breeding. Quoting NST (you) from the article: Modeling is the systematic deployment of the human capacity for metaphor and is central to all scientific activity. Models don't stand or fall on their detailed verisimilitude, but on their capacity to capture the essence what is already known about a phenomenon and to generate expectations concerning what more might be discovered if the scientist were to look where the model pointed. This point is a very key one IMO... it is roughly what I base my own work in the development and application of Metaphor (Complex Metaphors and Metaphor Complexes) in Information/Data Visualization and Visual Analytics. I *think* that what we are discussing here is the role of *explanation* in Science? I think what you are referring to as facetious content above (e.g. Darwin's description of Nature as an animal/human husband, selecting individuals for selective breeding...) is merely an extreme end of the use of analogy to explain. I presume that Darwin's choice of analogy was deliberately extreme to make it as familiar as possible to the totally uninitiated. To those already somewhat on board with the general model, I presume they *all* dispensed with the misunderstandings implied. We should perhaps talk more about his offline as I can already hear poor Doug's eyeballs rolling in his sockets, but I would like to elaborate for/with you what I mean by Metaphor Complexes... as they may be directly responsive to this problem of facetious content. In particular, if we admit to a whole series of layers of explanation from the most fanciful but accessible to the most complete and accurate but mundanely obscure. My interest is to build a scaffold from the most fanciful to the most mundane, or the most accessible to the least in the interest of A) Helping an individual build a mental (and possibly mathematical) model of a phenomena for themselves in the pursuit of exploration and discovery in some phenomenological domain; and B) helping said individual blaze a trail that others can follow from an accessible if fanciful explanation to a more complete and accurate if obscure (and presumably useful one).Perhaps what I'm suggesting is to build a stack of models that span the spectrum from explanatory to predictive, fanciful to mundane. For this I need to retain the distinction. I would prefer to think of my Metaphor Layers as various renderings or projections of aspects of a *single* model which has *all three* Explanatory, Descriptive, and Predictive qualities. - SAS Nick PS And isn't real existence the ultimate hypothetical construct? *From:*friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *ERIC P. CHARLES *Sent:* Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:41 PM *To:* Steve Smith *Cc:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting Steve, Interesting paper, but I'm not sure if I follow. The basic argument seems to be that we often explain things by imagining (with the help of statistics) hypothetical constructs that cannot be directly measured. As those constructs can't be measured directly, they don't help us predict things. Thus, predictive models are limited to using things that actually exist, while explanatory models are not so limited. That seems like a really good argument for coming up with better explanations, not an argument for distinguishing and reifying two distinct modeling tasks. This is a topic I am quite interested in. I would presume that an ideal explanatory model would be identical to an ideal predictive model, though I grant that non-ideal cases might differ. What am I missing? Eric On Tue, Jul 10, 2012
Re: [FRIAM] Celebrating the Higgs - explaning and predicting
Thanks, Dean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) gives a brief overview of what Gell-Mann (and Ne'eman) did, and explains that the octet and decuplet are representations of the group SU(3). The article includes some links to additional details. Bruce On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Dean Gerber pd_ger...@yahoo.com wrote: Excellent series of explanations, Bruce. Do you by chance have a specific reference to the ten-pin structure and its relation to group theory? Thanks ... Dean Gerber 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] Cell Service/Tower/Reception/Repeaters/etc.
Gil - Well this was a long delay! I'll use you as an excuse to give an update all around. I have been using my repeater for over 6 months now and can report that *my* results are marginal. I blame my location as well as my provider(s) more than the Cell Phone or Repeater technology. My results are highly variable with a Yagi pointed at what I *believe* is my primary/best tower. I determined this by a combination of physical, electronic and internet sleuthing (finding the location of cell towers in the landscape and comparing the signal strength as reported in field test mode. I bounce between no Service and 2-3 bars on my iPhone 4 with T-mobile. My wife fares better with her 4s and ATT... (I think the tower I'm pointing at has ATT but not T-Mobile on it which might explain a lot). I've not been able to make Google Voice work well for me. The main feature I use is it's voicemail transcription... for those who are willing to *wait* GVs requisite 20 seconds for it to roll over to V-mail, I get a weird-ass transcription of whatever they say. Since I'm often in meetings or work-sessions where I can't (won't?) answer my phone, but sometimes can check my e-mail, I find it very convenient. I also find it very entertaining, some of the mis-transcriptions GV provides are heyelarious! They are pretty poor at the transcription (maybe the quality of the original audio as much as their algorithms... I trust Google to use or develop best of breed in everything they do) but they seem to know (greyed out text) what is sketchy and what is accurate (black text)... the hints are helpful... the entertaining parts are always in the greyed out parts. The fact that they attach a copy of the original audio is good too. 90% of my V-mails I can ingest in 3-30 seconds in text where real-time it could take me a few minutes (including multiple listens, maybe a transcription of a number or date or factoid, etc.) I am tempted to try a vehicle repeater from the same folks (Wilson Electronics) to extend my range and open up some of my dead-zones and handoff failures... (crest of SF hill going north, La Bajada at the cell tower itself, San Felipe dip, Jacona)... I am likely to return to ATT on a family plan with my wife. T-mobile is no better and maybe worse in some situations. I tried a pay-as-you go plan with them (to avoid contracts) and find that a day-by-day unlimited plan costs almost exactly the same as my part of a family plan with my wife or a month-by-month t-mobile plan... so the cost is roughly a wash. If I actually went more than a few days out of the month without *ever* using my phone (including having no txt messages come in), I could save... but in fact I probably don't go more than 2-3 days w/o some use of my phone (as a phone) despite my good intentions of using Skype, etc. I still use Skype but not to replace my normal cell phone usage... primarily I use it for Video, Screen sharing and overseas communications. I'll probably keep GV for the reasons described above. I think for those of you in less marginal zones, this is a good option. I think I was reaching too far by trying to turn an almost never there signal into an always there signal... but I'm also very adaptable... I think most folks would find the variable unreliability *worse* than just no signal. - Steve Adding to this frustration Santa Fe isn't to hot on allowing cell providers to install new towers. (fwack) I'd have to check a reliable source-it might be possible root a iphone to improve it's signal strength- but glad to here the repeater scenario is somewhat of a improvement. I here good things about google voice- haven't used it myself. On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Just to follow up on this thread for those who care: I finally got around to ordering (and then got around to installing) a Wilson Electronics DB Pro with a directional (Yagi) outdoor receiving antenna and an omnidirectional indoor antenna. It is a dual band transciever, essentially taking in whatever signal it finds in those bands from the Yagi and retransmitting them (after amplification) on the omni (to be placed at least 20 feet away and not in front of the Yagi). I'm testing against T-Mobile on an iPhone4 (not 4s). My wife is still on ATT with her iPhone 2g (soon to be replaced with a 4s), I'll do some testing there as well. For those of you who followed the earlier thread, my location near Otowi bridge on NM 502 at the Rio Grande has almost zero effective cell coverage. We are down low and all the known towers (espanola, pojoaque, white rock, pajarito mountain) nearby are either marginally line of site or completely blocked by intermediate topography. My goal is to get good enough coverage to delete my wired landline service (which we hardly use even with cell phones not working)... I expect to use my wireless (900Mhz from Tewacom) with Skype to
[FRIAM] Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray 2012.07.11
Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray 2012.07.11 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-lllarsen-webradio-interview-with-sandy-andrewjuly-11-2012?from=new_upload_email Lively, in-depth audio interview suitable for a general audience; Mr. Sandy Andrew had carefully researched the topics of LENRs and cold fusion prior to the show --- asked a number of probing questions that explored the scientific, economic, geopolitical, and social implications of the W-L theory of LENRs. [one-hour online recording] 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] PRES12_WTA Prospectus - The University of Iowa
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it's Barack Obama vs. Gordon Gekko. Which would you prefer to see as president? Perhaps the country is waking up to that. *-- Russ Abbott* Like many of us, I wanted Obama to be the president for the rest of us. But he's seemed weak in many aspects of his presidency. I realize that many presidential historians believe exogenous events form a president, not their platform or promises. Much of the downturn was inherited. But as bad as the hand he was dealt was, he could at least articulate the positive things he has done. Obama has had several successes, quite important ones. But he never explains them to the electorate. Instead he gets mauled by the opposition. Why is he so poor at explaining his successes? A trivial example is the health care bill. Yes it is a tax, but overall it will vastly reduce taxes due to the relief it brings caused by freeloaders who use the most expensive health care possible: the emergency room! Several pundits have claimed as much as a 10 to one reduction in public costs which will be reflected in lower taxes. But Obama remains mum. I don't get it. It could simply be the media, which loves a good fight. They fan the flames and nurture fear. But it does seem to me that a large amount of the (idiotic) electorate buys the anti-obama rhetoric. I (think) Obama would be the best outcome, at least he's got experience at it and could be better in a second term. And Romney does seem a bit of an ass. I am, however, surprised at the difference between the graph and the punditry. -- 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] PRES12_WTA Prospectus - The University of Iowa
I absolutely agree with you. Drew Weston often has intelligent things to say about Obama's failure to communicate. Here's his most recenthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-tax-cut_b_1660814.html. And while I'm posting links, Robert Reich makes the pointhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-tax-proposal_b_1661908.htmlthat extending the tax cuts for income up to $250,000 applies to everyone, even those making more than $250,000. It's not that the tax cuts apply only to those making less; they apply to *everyone*. This is not class warfare. It treats everyone the same way. Obama should make that point also. *-- Russ * On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.comwrote: Well, it's Barack Obama vs. Gordon Gekko. Which would you prefer to see as president? Perhaps the country is waking up to that. *-- Russ Abbott* Like many of us, I wanted Obama to be the president for the rest of us. But he's seemed weak in many aspects of his presidency. I realize that many presidential historians believe exogenous events form a president, not their platform or promises. Much of the downturn was inherited. But as bad as the hand he was dealt was, he could at least articulate the positive things he has done. Obama has had several successes, quite important ones. But he never explains them to the electorate. Instead he gets mauled by the opposition. Why is he so poor at explaining his successes? A trivial example is the health care bill. Yes it is a tax, but overall it will vastly reduce taxes due to the relief it brings caused by freeloaders who use the most expensive health care possible: the emergency room! Several pundits have claimed as much as a 10 to one reduction in public costs which will be reflected in lower taxes. But Obama remains mum. I don't get it. It could simply be the media, which loves a good fight. They fan the flames and nurture fear. But it does seem to me that a large amount of the (idiotic) electorate buys the anti-obama rhetoric. I (think) Obama would be the best outcome, at least he's got experience at it and could be better in a second term. And Romney does seem a bit of an ass. I am, however, surprised at the difference between the graph and the punditry. -- 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] Something for physicists
What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/? *-- Russ * 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] Something for physicists
This http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/, I'm guessing. On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/? *-- Russ * 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
Re: [FRIAM] PRES12_WTA Prospectus - The University of Iowa
Owen - *I* get it he doesn't have to articulate it.. he merely has to make (a lot) more sense, totally exposed by his behaviour, than the afore mentioned Gordon Gecko that is the other party... I would love it if Obama would follow up his citizen-funded win of 2008 with a total silence in 2012... let the 'publicans bury themselves with their own rhetoric. Yes, if you are the gay couple who didn't get his full endorsement for your wedding or if your child didnt get withdrawn from Afghanistan as quickly as you wanted, or if you wanted (who doesn't?) Gitmo shut down 4 years ago, then OK... vote for the other guy. But really? Obama has us by the short hairs... he (should) know(s) that he beats the (holy) shit out of the alternative... he's not MY answer, but he's a damn good start! I don't need Obama to articulate anything to me... if *I* don't know what the score is, his telling me doesn't change anything. I say his lack of attendance to our BS needs for spoon feeding our needs... is his genius... But I could be wrong... - Steve On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it's Barack Obama vs. Gordon Gekko. Which would you prefer to see as president? Perhaps the country is waking up to that. /-- Russ Abbott/ Like many of us, I wanted Obama to be the president for the rest of us. But he's seemed weak in many aspects of his presidency. I realize that many presidential historians believe exogenous events form a president, not their platform or promises. Much of the downturn was inherited. But as bad as the hand he was dealt was, he could at least articulate the positive things he has done. Obama has had several successes, quite important ones. But he never explains them to the electorate. Instead he gets mauled by the opposition. Why is he so poor at explaining his successes? A trivial example is the health care bill. Yes it is a tax, but overall it will vastly reduce taxes due to the relief it brings caused by freeloaders who use the most expensive health care possible: the emergency room! Several pundits have claimed as much as a 10 to one reduction in public costs which will be reflected in lower taxes. But Obama remains mum. I don't get it. It could simply be the media, which loves a good fight. They fan the flames and nurture fear. But it does seem to me that a large amount of the (idiotic) electorate buys the anti-obama rhetoric. I (think) Obama would be the best outcome, at least he's got experience at it and could be better in a second term. And Romney does seem a bit of an ass. I am, however, surprised at the difference between the graph and the punditry. -- 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
Re: [FRIAM] PRES12_WTA Prospectus - The University of Iowa
Steve,
I would be tempted to agree with you if he (and his party, and his
campaign) didn't keep saying other things instead. He is in the process of
organizing a several hundred million dollar media blitz. Why not say some
simple and straightforward things about what you actually accomplished?
Eric
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 12:07 AM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
Owen -
*I* get it he doesn't have to articulate it.. he merely has to
make (a lot) more sense, totally exposed by his behaviour, than
the afore mentioned Gordon Gecko that is the other party...
I would love it if Obama would follow up his citizen-funded win
of 2008 with a total silence in 2012... let the 'publicans bury
themselves with their own rhetoric.
Yes, if you are the gay couple who didn't get his full endorsement
for your wedding or if your child didnt get withdrawn from
Afghanistan as quickly as you wanted, or if you wanted (who
doesn't?) Gitmo shut down 4 years ago, then OK... vote for the
other guy. But really?
Obama has us by the short hairs... he (should) know(s) that he
beats the (holy) shit out of the alternative... he's not MY
answer, but he's a damn good start!
I don't need Obama to articulate anything to me... if *I* don't
know what the score is, his telling me doesn't change anything. I
say his lack of attendance to our BS needs for spoon feeding our
needs... is his genius...
But I could be wrong...
- Steve
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Russ
Abbott a moz-do-not-send= href=#
target=russ.abb...@gmail.com/a
wrote:
Well, it's Barack Obama
vs. Gordon Gekko. Which would you prefer to see as
president? Perhaps the country is waking up to that.
-- Russ Abbott
Like many of us, I wanted Obama to be the president for
the rest of us. But he's seemed weak in many aspects of his
presidency. I realize that many presidential historians
believe exogenous events form a president, not their
platform or promises. Much of the downturn was inherited. But
as bad as the hand he was dealt was, he could at least
articulate the positive things he has done.
Obama has had several successes, quite important ones. But
he never explains them to the electorate. Instead he gets
mauled by the opposition. Why is he so poor at explaining his
successes?
A trivial example is the health care bill. Yes it is a
tax, but overall it will vastly reduce taxes due to
the relief it brings caused by freeloaders who use the most
expensive health care possible: the emergency room! Several
pundits have claimed as much as a 10 to one reduction in
public costs which will be reflected in lower taxes.
But Obama remains mum. I don't get it.
It could simply be the media, which loves a good fight.
They fan the flames and nurture fear. But it does seem to me
that a large amount of the (idiotic) electorate buys the
anti-obama rhetoric.
I (think) Obama would be the best outcome, at least he's
got experience at it and could be better in a second term.
And Romney does seem a bit of an ass. I am, however,
surprised at the difference between the graph and the
punditry.
-- Owen
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at a class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href=http://www.friam.org; onclick=window.open('http://www.friam.org');return
false;http://www.friam.org/a
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
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
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
