Re: Federal Reserve Risks Collapse Re: Risk of Internetcollapse grows
The validity of the data and assumptions made in the Grubesic paper is not the topic I intended to discuss, I did not write the paper and I am not the person that can answer questions or criticisms. I can sympathize with the difficulties of getting good data for the analysis that was endevoured, and the problems of publishing timely results. We found similar problems with the Boardwatch data (well noted in several posts) when doing related analysis, but I do believe that the paper does make an interesting contribution with the techniques it used - different from the assumptions and data. This is probably the biggest disconnect between the academic and operations community, in academia a greater value is placed on the analytice techniques created, and the data is a means to test those techniques or tools. What happens outside the ivory tower is often an after thought. This is a very general statement and varies considerably by discipline. Regardless it becomes a problem when real world data is being used to inform the policy creation process. This is the unusual situation we find ourselves in, and any and all feedback, commentary, and discussion is very valuable even flames. Hopefully we have a chance to get some in person come the February meeting. This thread has pointed out the pitfalls of research, but it would be interesting to discuss ways that cooperative efforts could be built to avoid these pitfalls. - Original Message - From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, November 30, 2002 6:04 am Subject: Re: Federal Reserve Risks Collapse Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you decided to attack on the post was the defense of another researchers options of data and how current that data was. He used what was available to him at the time, end of statement. As long-time readers (or anyone with access to Google) know, Boardwatch'sISP Directory as a data source has a long history of problems going back to the mid 1990's. It has been extensively discussed on this and many,many other ISP mailing lists in the past. When you have limited or poor quality data, you need to be even more careful about what conclusions you make. If you could you use your expertise and creativity to help the research community produce better research instead of shooting everything down after the fact, something postitive might actually come from the effort. I have. If researchers are going to use Boardwatch's ISP Directory as a data source, treat it like any other advertising directory (e.g. the Yellow Pages). It is a poor source for engineering technical data. Its a great source for comparing advertising budgets, marketing campaigns, finding sales departments.
Re: Federal Reserve Risks Collapse Re: Risk of Internetcollapse grows
Is this selective argumentation? I agree that the proper assumptions need to be made for research. This is the whole reason I started posting here in the first place, and the request I made at the end of the post - help making sure assumptions are correct. What you decided to attack on the post was the defense of another researchers options of data and how current that data was. He used what was available to him at the time, end of statement. If you could you use your expertise and creativity to help the research community produce better research instead of shooting everything down after the fact, something postitive might actually come from the effort. But misunderstanding the risks and vulnerabilities is worse because it diverts resources away from the real ones. Perhaps giving contructive advice would be away to avoid such a pitfall. Nah - it is much more fun to flame. - Original Message - From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 28, 2002 6:10 pm Subject: Federal Reserve Risks Collapse Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said a few things should be kept in mind with academic work. The time from when work is done until it appears in publication is quite legthy, especially when peer reviewed (the Grubesic et al article was peer reviewed). I saw his paper presented in the Fall of 2001, which means he probably did the research in the spring of 2001, and the latest data available was Boardwatch 2000. so, you end with a lag in Internet time that seems horrendous. One of the problems with The paper would have the same problems in 2000. It starts with bad assumptions. Age doesn't improve bad assumptions. Suppose I wrote an academic paper about the design of the Federal Reserve Banking System. After carefull analysis of the map at http://www.federalreserve.gov/otherfrb.htm (street addresses available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/fraddress.htm) I write a fully footnotedpaper that the Federal Reserve system is vulnerable to the destruction of the board in Washington DC and twelve banks in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas and San Francisco. The US banking system would collapse, ATMs would stop, paychecks wouldn't get cashed, checks couldn't be cleared, etc. I would miss Alan Greenspan, but that'snot how the US banking system works. The Federal Reserve system does have vulnerabilities. So does the Internet (and the post office, and the telephone network, and ...) But misunderstanding the risks and vulnerabilities is worse because it diverts resources away from the real ones.
