Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican
Hi Tom, Seeing your name I thought the following: Massachusetts has recently become aware that it has the least transparent government of any state in the union with agencies charging hundreds of dollars to fulfill FOIA requests for the basic knowledge about policies and practices. Shall I nominate you as the guy to write our Sunshine Rules? Do you have any proposed sunshine rules I could send in? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Tom Johnson Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:57 PM To: Friam@redfish. com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican Thanks, Marcus. I wanted to include that link, but for various good reasons, it didn't get in. Tom === Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com505-473-9646 === On Jun 13, 2015 8:42 AM, Marcus Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/what-silicon-valley-can-learn-from-seoul.html “Much of this was made possible by two decades of enormous public investment. “ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com ] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:12 AM To: friam@redfish.com mailto:friam@redfish.com ; Wedtech@Redfish. Com Subject: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html Are politicians foreclosing on high-tech future Tom Johnson | http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html#user-comment-area 0 comments It is sad, frustrating and discouraging to read something written by politicians that demonstrates they apparently have not done appropriate research before making public declarations. This is especially so when such an elected official is in a position of specific legislative influence. That happened last week when Rep. James Smith of District 22, chairman of the interim Science, Technology and Telecom Committee in the New Mexico House, wrote about telecommunications policy (“Could the FCC foreclose on high-tech future,” My View, June 6). Addressing the Federal Communications Commission’s regulation of the Internet, Smith wrote, “light regulation … gave Internet providers freedom to innovate with new services and new infrastructure … .” Further, “this move … has fueled the dramatic expansion of Internet technology in America. “This symbiotic relationship between minimal regulation and maximum investment and innovation continues,” he said. First, remember that the initial Internet concepts and technologies were developed with taxpayer research dollars, not private enterprise investment. Second, the “new services” are coming not from the digital providers, but from clever individuals and talented startup teams that could possibly do even more if they had access to true broadband at affordable prices. Third, research year after year indicates that U.S. citizens are paying higher prices for slower connectivity. As the Open Technology Institute reports: “Data that we have collected in the past three years demonstrates that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed lag behind their international peers, paying more money for slower Internet access.” (See http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB and http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa) Companies providing Internet connectivity — and we really only have three in Santa Fe, and none providing true high-speed, fiber-optic connections — all seek to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue. That’s inherent in capitalism. For customers, that means minimal connectivity, slow speeds and high monthly bills. Appropriate “regulation” of the Internet would seek collaborative government/private enterprise endeavors with the goal of maximizing customer benefits (i.e. fiber to the home with maximum digital up and down speeds) at minimal cost. Such would be the feedstock for economic, social, educational, health and governmental progress in the digital era. The high-speed, digital train is rapidly leaving stations around the world. New Mexico needs political conductors and engineers capable of running that train with informed knowledge, insight and vision. Tom Johnson is co-founder of the Institute for Analytic Journalism in Santa Fe. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican
Nick -- There is a ton of stuff. Just do a search with the term open data and also visit sunlightfoundation.com I can send more links if you wish. Tom === Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com 505-473-9646 === On Jun 13, 2015 10:22 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Hi Tom, Seeing your name I thought the following: Massachusetts has recently become aware that it has the least transparent government of any state in the union with agencies charging hundreds of dollars to fulfill FOIA requests for the basic knowledge about policies and practices. Shall I nominate you as the guy to write our Sunshine Rules? Do you have any proposed sunshine rules I could send in? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Tom Johnson *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:57 PM *To:* Friam@redfish. com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican Thanks, Marcus. I wanted to include that link, but for various good reasons, it didn't get in. Tom === Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com 505-473-9646 === On Jun 13, 2015 8:42 AM, Marcus Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/what-silicon-valley-can-learn-from-seoul.html “Much of this was made possible by two decades of enormous public investment. “ *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:12 AM *To:* friam@redfish.com; Wedtech@Redfish. Com *Subject:* [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html *Are politicians foreclosing on high-tech future* *Tom Johnson | 0 comments http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html#user-comment-area* It is sad, frustrating and discouraging to read something written by politicians that demonstrates they apparently have not done appropriate research before making public declarations. This is especially so when such an elected official is in a position of specific legislative influence. That happened last week when Rep. James Smith of District 22, chairman of the interim Science, Technology and Telecom Committee in the New Mexico House, wrote about telecommunications policy (“Could the FCC foreclose on high-tech future,” My View, June 6). Addressing the Federal Communications Commission’s regulation of the Internet, Smith wrote, “light regulation … gave Internet providers freedom to innovate with new services and new infrastructure … .” Further, “this move … has fueled the dramatic expansion of Internet technology in America. “This symbiotic relationship between minimal regulation and maximum investment and innovation continues,” he said. First, remember that the initial Internet concepts and technologies were developed with taxpayer research dollars, not private enterprise investment. Second, the “new services” are coming not from the digital providers, but from clever individuals and talented startup teams that could possibly do even more if they had access to true broadband at affordable prices. Third, research year after year indicates that U.S. citizens are paying higher prices for slower connectivity. As the Open Technology Institute reports: “Data that we have collected in the past three years demonstrates that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed lag behind their international peers, paying more money for slower Internet access.” (See http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB and http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa) Companies providing Internet connectivity — and we really only have three in Santa Fe, and none providing true high-speed, fiber-optic connections — all seek to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue. That’s inherent in capitalism. For customers, that means minimal connectivity, slow speeds and high monthly bills. Appropriate “regulation” of the Internet would seek collaborative government/private enterprise endeavors with the goal of maximizing customer benefits (i.e. fiber to the home with maximum digital up and down speeds) at minimal cost. Such would be the feedstock for economic, social, educational, health and governmental progress in the digital era. The high-speed, digital train is rapidly leaving stations around the world. New Mexico needs political conductors and engineers
Re: [FRIAM] Complexity Explorer
Although I haven't gone through the MaxEnt tutorial I have a question if anyone would be willing to think about it. As I understand it, one aspect of MaxEnt says that nature chooses that path that maximizes entropy production -- and that satisfies whatever constraints exist. (Or something like that. I don't claim to know enough about it to say anything definitive.) Yet when I think about the earth and the way it deals with the energy it gets from the sun, it seems to me that the biosphere does its best to minimize the rate of entropy production. If there were no life on earth, all the sun's energy would be quickly radiated back into space, mostly as heat and some as reflected light. That seems like the fastest way to dissipate the sun's energy and produce entropy. With life on earth the sun's energy is absorbed and exploited to the maximum extent possible. That's what life does; it looks for and fills unexploited energy niches. Eventually the remaining energy is radiated back as heat. So that would seem to slow entropy production. Even more telling, much of the sun's energy is stored on earth as energy-rich organic material left over biological organisms die. So some of the sun's energy is never sent back to space -- until that stuff is burned. So that would reduce the rate of entropy production even further. Is this a reasonable way of looking at what happens? Is this inconsistent with the notion of MaxEnt? Or am I misunderstanding something? -- Russ On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: SFI's Complexity Explorer project surprised me recently when I discovered how far they had gotten: http://www.complexityexplorer.org/ (I discovered this following Melanie Mitchell on twitter) I get periodic posts from them that may be of interest: http://www.complexityexplorer.org/news/21-simon-dedeo-talks-about-his-maxent-tutorial Simon DeDeo talks about his MaxEnt tutorial[image: Simondedeo3] In this post we interview Simon DeDeo, the instructor for our new Mathematics tutorial on “Maximum Entropy Methods”. Simon is an Assistant Professor in Indiana University’s School of Informatics and Computing and External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute. He is affiliated with the Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research and also with Indiana University’s Cognitive Science Program. We asked Simon to tell us a little bit more about what Maximum Entropy Methods are good for. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Complexity Explorer
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 06:12:16AM +, Russ Abbott wrote: Although I haven't gone through the MaxEnt tutorial I have a question if anyone would be willing to think about it. As I understand it, one aspect of MaxEnt says that nature chooses that path that maximizes entropy production -- and that satisfies whatever constraints exist. (Or something like that. I don't claim to know enough about it to say anything definitive.) Yet when I think about the earth and the way it deals with the energy it gets from the sun, it seems to me that the biosphere does its best to minimize the rate of entropy production. If there were no life on earth, all the sun's energy would be quickly radiated back into space, mostly as heat and some as reflected light. That seems like the fastest way to dissipate the sun's energy and produce entropy. With life on earth the sun's energy is absorbed and exploited to the maximum extent possible. That's what life does; it looks for and fills unexploited energy niches. Eventually the remaining energy is radiated back as heat. So that would seem to slow entropy production. Even more telling, much of the sun's energy is stored on earth as energy-rich organic material left over biological organisms die. So some of the sun's energy is never sent back to space -- until that stuff is burned. So that would reduce the rate of entropy production even further. Is this a reasonable way of looking at what happens? Is this inconsistent with the notion of MaxEnt? Or am I misunderstanding something? -- Russ It's been a decade or so since I read the MaxEnt literature, but from what I recall it is largely a physical principle, eg it describes things like the formation of Hadley cells to assist in the transport of energy between the equator and the poles. But it does seem plausible it ought to describe living systems too. In the fossil fuel example you allude to earlier, life is currently doing its darnedest to maximise the entropy after unlocking the excess negentropy locked up by geophysical processes. (ie burn, baby burn!). But I don't know of anyone who has succeeded in applying MaxEnt to information systems (such as biology) - I thought I'd try myself, but like with so many good intentions, life has intervened :). Cheers The other Rus. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/what-silicon-valley-can-learn-from-seoul.html “Much of this was made possible by two decades of enormous public investment. “ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:12 AM To: friam@redfish.com; Wedtech@Redfish. Com Subject: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html Are politicians foreclosing on high-tech future Tom Johnson | 0 commentshttp://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html#user-comment-area It is sad, frustrating and discouraging to read something written by politicians that demonstrates they apparently have not done appropriate research before making public declarations. This is especially so when such an elected official is in a position of specific legislative influence. That happened last week when Rep. James Smith of District 22, chairman of the interim Science, Technology and Telecom Committee in the New Mexico House, wrote about telecommunications policy (“Could the FCC foreclose on high-tech future,” My View, June 6). Addressing the Federal Communications Commission’s regulation of the Internet, Smith wrote, “light regulation … gave Internet providers freedom to innovate with new services and new infrastructure … .” Further, “this move … has fueled the dramatic expansion of Internet technology in America. “This symbiotic relationship between minimal regulation and maximum investment and innovation continues,” he said. First, remember that the initial Internet concepts and technologies were developed with taxpayer research dollars, not private enterprise investment. Second, the “new services” are coming not from the digital providers, but from clever individuals and talented startup teams that could possibly do even more if they had access to true broadband at affordable prices. Third, research year after year indicates that U.S. citizens are paying higher prices for slower connectivity. As the Open Technology Institute reports: “Data that we have collected in the past three years demonstrates that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed lag behind their international peers, paying more money for slower Internet access.” (See http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB and http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa) Companies providing Internet connectivity — and we really only have three in Santa Fe, and none providing true high-speed, fiber-optic connections — all seek to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue. That’s inherent in capitalism. For customers, that means minimal connectivity, slow speeds and high monthly bills. Appropriate “regulation” of the Internet would seek collaborative government/private enterprise endeavors with the goal of maximizing customer benefits (i.e. fiber to the home with maximum digital up and down speeds) at minimal cost. Such would be the feedstock for economic, social, educational, health and governmental progress in the digital era. The high-speed, digital train is rapidly leaving stations around the world. New Mexico needs political conductors and engineers capable of running that train with informed knowledge, insight and vision. Tom Johnson is co-founder of the Institute for Analytic Journalism in Santa Fe. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican
Really good, Tom. I heard Susan Crawford give a talk at Harvard last year where she talked about what people in Copenhagen get for some very low sum per month--$25? It made me squirm with embarrassment, envy, and rage. The City owns the network there. P. On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Tom Johnson wrote: Thanks, Marcus. I wanted to include that link, but for various good reasons, it didn't get in. Tom === Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com 505-473-9646 === On Jun 13, 2015 8:42 AM, Marcus Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/what-silicon-valley-can-learn-from-seoul.html “Much of this was made possible by two decades of enormous public investment. “ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:12 AM To: friam@redfish.com; Wedtech@Redfish. Com Subject: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html Are politicians foreclosing on high-tech future Tom Johnson | 0 comments It is sad, frustrating and discouraging to read something written by politicians that demonstrates they apparently have not done appropriate research before making public declarations. This is especially so when such an elected official is in a position of specific legislative influence. That happened last week when Rep. James Smith of District 22, chairman of the interim Science, Technology and Telecom Committee in the New Mexico House, wrote about telecommunications policy (“Could the FCC foreclose on high-tech future,” My View, June 6). Addressing the Federal Communications Commission’s regulation of the Internet, Smith wrote, “light regulation … gave Internet providers freedom to innovate with new services and new infrastructure … .” Further, “this move … has fueled the dramatic expansion of Internet technology in America. “This symbiotic relationship between minimal regulation and maximum investment and innovation continues,” he said. First, remember that the initial Internet concepts and technologies were developed with taxpayer research dollars, not private enterprise investment. Second, the “new services” are coming not from the digital providers, but from clever individuals and talented startup teams that could possibly do even more if they had access to true broadband at affordable prices. Third, research year after year indicates that U.S. citizens are paying higher prices for slower connectivity. As the Open Technology Institute reports: “Data that we have collected in the past three years demonstrates that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed lag behind their international peers, paying more money for slower Internet access.” (See http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB and http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa) Companies providing Internet connectivity — and we really only have three in Santa Fe, and none providing true high-speed, fiber-optic connections — all seek to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue. That’s inherent in capitalism. For customers, that means minimal connectivity, slow speeds and high monthly bills. Appropriate “regulation” of the Internet would seek collaborative government/private enterprise endeavors with the goal of maximizing customer benefits (i.e. fiber to the home with maximum digital up and down speeds) at minimal cost. Such would be the feedstock for economic, social, educational, health and governmental progress in the digital era. The high-speed, digital train is rapidly leaving stations around the world. New Mexico needs political conductors and engineers capable of running that train with informed knowledge, insight and vision. Tom Johnson is co-founder of the Institute for Analytic Journalism in Santa Fe. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com As imperceptibly as Grief The summer lapsed away-- Emily Dickinson FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Is the failure to perform and encourage independent reasoning the same thing as stifling it? Are not those that presume that role also imposing a potentially stifling control system just like religious codes of conduct? From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:51 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education It has been suggestedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age that stifling of independent reasoning (aka willful ignorance) contributed to the end of the Islamic Golden Age. I've seen other references calling it a rise in anti-rationalism. Western civilization may be heading the same way. Robert C PS sorry to enter the thread a little late. R On 6/10/15 7:05 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME -- rec -- On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.commailto:sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of willful ignorance. -- rec -- Roger (et alii) - And what of shocked but not surprised? The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the factoid in question. I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand we get desensitized (thus losing shock value) and on the other hand we are given much more context in which to help us properly understand whatever shocked but not surprised factoid just got bounced off our apprehension. Every time I feel shocked (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of security, cynicism, etc.). - Steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.netmailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.commailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.commailto:geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by
[FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html Are politicians foreclosing on high-tech future Tom Johnson | 0 comments http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html#user-comment-area It is sad, frustrating and discouraging to read something written by politicians that demonstrates they apparently have not done appropriate research before making public declarations. This is especially so when such an elected official is in a position of specific legislative influence. That happened last week when Rep. James Smith of District 22, chairman of the interim Science, Technology and Telecom Committee in the New Mexico House, wrote about telecommunications policy (“Could the FCC foreclose on high-tech future,” My View, June 6). Addressing the Federal Communications Commission’s regulation of the Internet, Smith wrote, “light regulation … gave Internet providers freedom to innovate with new services and new infrastructure … .” Further, “this move … has fueled the dramatic expansion of Internet technology in America. “This symbiotic relationship between minimal regulation and maximum investment and innovation continues,” he said. First, remember that the initial Internet concepts and technologies were developed with taxpayer research dollars, not private enterprise investment. Second, the “new services” are coming not from the digital providers, but from clever individuals and talented startup teams that could possibly do even more if they had access to true broadband at affordable prices. Third, research year after year indicates that U.S. citizens are paying higher prices for slower connectivity. As the Open Technology Institute reports: “Data that we have collected in the past three years demonstrates that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed lag behind their international peers, paying more money for slower Internet access.” (See http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB and http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa) Companies providing Internet connectivity — and we really only have three in Santa Fe, and none providing true high-speed, fiber-optic connections — all seek to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue. That’s inherent in capitalism. For customers, that means minimal connectivity, slow speeds and high monthly bills. Appropriate “regulation” of the Internet would seek collaborative government/private enterprise endeavors with the goal of maximizing customer benefits (i.e. fiber to the home with maximum digital up and down speeds) at minimal cost. Such would be the feedstock for economic, social, educational, health and governmental progress in the digital era. The high-speed, digital train is rapidly leaving stations around the world. New Mexico needs political conductors and engineers capable of running that train with *informed* knowledge, insight and vision. *Tom Johnson is co-founder of the Institute for Analytic Journalism in Santa Fe.* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican
Thanks, Marcus. I wanted to include that link, but for various good reasons, it didn't get in. Tom === Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com 505-473-9646 === On Jun 13, 2015 8:42 AM, Marcus Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/what-silicon-valley-can-learn-from-seoul.html “Much of this was made possible by two decades of enormous public investment. “ *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:12 AM *To:* friam@redfish.com; Wedtech@Redfish. Com *Subject:* [FRIAM] Tom Johnson's opinion piece in Santa Fe NewMexican http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html *Are politicians foreclosing on high-tech future* *Tom Johnson | 0 comments http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/are-politicians-foreclosing-on-high-tech-future/article_6813cb82-5952-5926-82c9-725ef0a0aecc.html#user-comment-area* It is sad, frustrating and discouraging to read something written by politicians that demonstrates they apparently have not done appropriate research before making public declarations. This is especially so when such an elected official is in a position of specific legislative influence. That happened last week when Rep. James Smith of District 22, chairman of the interim Science, Technology and Telecom Committee in the New Mexico House, wrote about telecommunications policy (“Could the FCC foreclose on high-tech future,” My View, June 6). Addressing the Federal Communications Commission’s regulation of the Internet, Smith wrote, “light regulation … gave Internet providers freedom to innovate with new services and new infrastructure … .” Further, “this move … has fueled the dramatic expansion of Internet technology in America. “This symbiotic relationship between minimal regulation and maximum investment and innovation continues,” he said. First, remember that the initial Internet concepts and technologies were developed with taxpayer research dollars, not private enterprise investment. Second, the “new services” are coming not from the digital providers, but from clever individuals and talented startup teams that could possibly do even more if they had access to true broadband at affordable prices. Third, research year after year indicates that U.S. citizens are paying higher prices for slower connectivity. As the Open Technology Institute reports: “Data that we have collected in the past three years demonstrates that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed lag behind their international peers, paying more money for slower Internet access.” (See http://bit.ly/1FJL1vB and http://bit.ly/1MAlYRa) Companies providing Internet connectivity — and we really only have three in Santa Fe, and none providing true high-speed, fiber-optic connections — all seek to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue. That’s inherent in capitalism. For customers, that means minimal connectivity, slow speeds and high monthly bills. Appropriate “regulation” of the Internet would seek collaborative government/private enterprise endeavors with the goal of maximizing customer benefits (i.e. fiber to the home with maximum digital up and down speeds) at minimal cost. Such would be the feedstock for economic, social, educational, health and governmental progress in the digital era. The high-speed, digital train is rapidly leaving stations around the world. New Mexico needs political conductors and engineers capable of running that train with *informed* knowledge, insight and vision. *Tom Johnson is co-founder of the Institute for Analytic Journalism in Santa Fe.* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
It has been suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age that stifling of independent reasoning (aka willful ignorance) contributed to the end of the Islamic Golden Age. I've seen other references calling it a rise in anti-rationalism. Western civilization may be heading the same way. Robert C PS sorry to enter the thread a little late. R On 6/10/15 7:05 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME -- rec -- On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com mailto:sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of willful ignorance. -- rec -- Roger (et alii) - And what of shocked but not surprised? The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the factoid in question. I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand we get desensitized (thus losing shock value) and on the other hand we are given much more context in which to help us properly understand whatever shocked but not surprised factoid just got bounced off our apprehension. Every time I feel shocked (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of security, cynicism, etc.). - Steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.com mailto:geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ...
Re: [FRIAM] Complexity Explorer
We have had discussions on this many times, and the usual result is that everyone gets fed up with all the technical details that need to be kept sorted out. There are equilibrium vs non-equilibrium systems, classical vs statistical thermodynamics, closed vs open systems, statistical mechanics vs information theory, and so on The MaxEnt that Simon is teaching is the only one usually abbreviated as MaxEnt by its practitioners in an attempt to keep it from getting confused with the other discussions. It's the practical procedure that grew out of E T Jaynes observations about probability theory and physics. It essentially says that if you repeatedly make observations of a system and you correctly model the constraints on the system, then your observations should follow a distribution with maximum entropy of the statistical/information theory variety. The usual example is observing dice throws which should equipartition themselves over the six possible outcomes. If your observations converge to something other than this MaxEnt equipartition, then you should conclude that the dice are loaded and strive to improve your model. That non-equilibrium systems maximize entropy production is a conjecture which can be defined and actually works for a very small proportion of non-equilibrium systems. Basically, take the non-equilibrium systems that are so close to equilibrium that they barely do anything at all, and you can see this principle in action. Push the system a little further from equilibrium and all hell breaks loose. What that means for everything else in the world awaits an expansion of the theory which has been pending for almost a century now. -- rec -- On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 06:12:16AM +, Russ Abbott wrote: Although I haven't gone through the MaxEnt tutorial I have a question if anyone would be willing to think about it. As I understand it, one aspect of MaxEnt says that nature chooses that path that maximizes entropy production -- and that satisfies whatever constraints exist. (Or something like that. I don't claim to know enough about it to say anything definitive.) Yet when I think about the earth and the way it deals with the energy it gets from the sun, it seems to me that the biosphere does its best to minimize the rate of entropy production. If there were no life on earth, all the sun's energy would be quickly radiated back into space, mostly as heat and some as reflected light. That seems like the fastest way to dissipate the sun's energy and produce entropy. With life on earth the sun's energy is absorbed and exploited to the maximum extent possible. That's what life does; it looks for and fills unexploited energy niches. Eventually the remaining energy is radiated back as heat. So that would seem to slow entropy production. Even more telling, much of the sun's energy is stored on earth as energy-rich organic material left over biological organisms die. So some of the sun's energy is never sent back to space -- until that stuff is burned. So that would reduce the rate of entropy production even further. Is this a reasonable way of looking at what happens? Is this inconsistent with the notion of MaxEnt? Or am I misunderstanding something? -- Russ It's been a decade or so since I read the MaxEnt literature, but from what I recall it is largely a physical principle, eg it describes things like the formation of Hadley cells to assist in the transport of energy between the equator and the poles. But it does seem plausible it ought to describe living systems too. In the fossil fuel example you allude to earlier, life is currently doing its darnedest to maximise the entropy after unlocking the excess negentropy locked up by geophysical processes. (ie burn, baby burn!). But I don't know of anyone who has succeeded in applying MaxEnt to information systems (such as biology) - I thought I'd try myself, but like with so many good intentions, life has intervened :). Cheers The other Rus. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Complexity Explorer
Thanks, Roger. On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote: We have had discussions on this many times, and the usual result is that everyone gets fed up with all the technical details that need to be kept sorted out. There are equilibrium vs non-equilibrium systems, classical vs statistical thermodynamics, closed vs open systems, statistical mechanics vs information theory, and so on The MaxEnt that Simon is teaching is the only one usually abbreviated as MaxEnt by its practitioners in an attempt to keep it from getting confused with the other discussions. It's the practical procedure that grew out of E T Jaynes observations about probability theory and physics. It essentially says that if you repeatedly make observations of a system and you correctly model the constraints on the system, then your observations should follow a distribution with maximum entropy of the statistical/information theory variety. The usual example is observing dice throws which should equipartition themselves over the six possible outcomes. If your observations converge to something other than this MaxEnt equipartition, then you should conclude that the dice are loaded and strive to improve your model. That non-equilibrium systems maximize entropy production is a conjecture which can be defined and actually works for a very small proportion of non-equilibrium systems. Basically, take the non-equilibrium systems that are so close to equilibrium that they barely do anything at all, and you can see this principle in action. Push the system a little further from equilibrium and all hell breaks loose. What that means for everything else in the world awaits an expansion of the theory which has been pending for almost a century now. -- rec -- On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 06:12:16AM +, Russ Abbott wrote: Although I haven't gone through the MaxEnt tutorial I have a question if anyone would be willing to think about it. As I understand it, one aspect of MaxEnt says that nature chooses that path that maximizes entropy production -- and that satisfies whatever constraints exist. (Or something like that. I don't claim to know enough about it to say anything definitive.) Yet when I think about the earth and the way it deals with the energy it gets from the sun, it seems to me that the biosphere does its best to minimize the rate of entropy production. If there were no life on earth, all the sun's energy would be quickly radiated back into space, mostly as heat and some as reflected light. That seems like the fastest way to dissipate the sun's energy and produce entropy. With life on earth the sun's energy is absorbed and exploited to the maximum extent possible. That's what life does; it looks for and fills unexploited energy niches. Eventually the remaining energy is radiated back as heat. So that would seem to slow entropy production. Even more telling, much of the sun's energy is stored on earth as energy-rich organic material left over biological organisms die. So some of the sun's energy is never sent back to space -- until that stuff is burned. So that would reduce the rate of entropy production even further. Is this a reasonable way of looking at what happens? Is this inconsistent with the notion of MaxEnt? Or am I misunderstanding something? -- Russ It's been a decade or so since I read the MaxEnt literature, but from what I recall it is largely a physical principle, eg it describes things like the formation of Hadley cells to assist in the transport of energy between the equator and the poles. But it does seem plausible it ought to describe living systems too. In the fossil fuel example you allude to earlier, life is currently doing its darnedest to maximise the entropy after unlocking the excess negentropy locked up by geophysical processes. (ie burn, baby burn!). But I don't know of anyone who has succeeded in applying MaxEnt to information systems (such as biology) - I thought I'd try myself, but like with so many good intentions, life has intervened :). Cheers The other Rus. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Well, if we are using physiological shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory) as an analogy for the life of the mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sound_of_the_Life_of_the_Mind, then avoiding it would be imperative since it would cause a stiffening, ceasing effect on activity (and hence, activism). -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
