https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mql_sars-cov-2_-_cleare
d_for_public_release_2020_04_14.pdf
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsu
I've shared an item with you:
FRIAM Regular Session 9 a
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cgu8mvXeGOCyVG2fRjwY646nv1D7n4Zl6hFhWkWkXf0/edit?usp=sharing&ts=5e98efbd
It's not an attachment -- it's stored online. To open this item, just click
the link above.
Sorry to be late with this.
No new
Well, I know this happened:
In 1974, when I worked in the Research Center in Child Psychiatry at the
University of Pittsburgh, I was happily smoking a cigar while working on my
computer terminal which gave me access to the DECSystem10. A very senior
woman psychoanalyst looked in my door and said,
I'm not so sure we know what he meant ... or if he even said it!
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/12/just-a-cigar/
On 4/16/20 12:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The queen was wondering too.
>
> https://hvmag.com/life-style/history/franklin-delano-roosevelt-the-picnic-that-won-the-war-the-ro
The queen was wondering too.
https://hvmag.com/life-style/history/franklin-delano-roosevelt-the-picnic-that-won-the-war-the-royal-visit-the-hot-dog-summit-of-1939-and-hyde-park-on-the-hudson-movie/
From: Friam on behalf of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, April 1
He meant that cigars aren't always phalluses. He was probably smoking a
cigar when he said it.
Classically "phallus" means a symbol.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:03 PM uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Yes, but what did he mean by it, I wonder? >8^D
>
> On 4/16/20 12:01 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > Good Freud qu
Yes, but what did he mean by it, I wonder? >8^D
On 4/16/20 12:01 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Good Freud quote, Glen.
--
☣ uǝlƃ
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/
Good Freud quote, Glen.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:57 PM wrote:
> Ok. Well said. I am sending Cranky Nick to the medicine cabinet right
> now. Give a few hours for the medication to take.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thom
Ok. Well said. I am sending Cranky Nick to the medicine cabinet right now.
Give a few hours for the medication to take.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Me
Well, my guess is that Feynman would admit that everything has context,
including both an original utterance and subsequent repetitions of all or part
of that utterance. [†] And it's also important to note that ALL pithy aphorisms
are abominations because they all deny the context. We see this m
Glen,
I think the repetition of the Feynman Quote, which is just misguided, and which
I hear all the time, and which I cannot believe Feynman would not have
repudiated if he were set down with a good philosopher, is Cultish.
But it was Cranky Nick who said that. I disavow him, utterly.
Ni
It's not a matter of the audience misunderstanding you so much as taking
responsibility for our own actions. With the recent discussion with Dave about
his assuming nobody would read his words as authoritative (despite their
wording not having any "in my opinion" caveats) AND the citing of notor
Could anybody have been in any doubt that those weren’t my words?
(};-)]
If there is such a person, I am honored by their confusion.
By the way, what is this “reality” that the author is talking about, speaking
of physics’ s need for philosophy. And while I am in and being grumpy, St
I've quote-included what I think is the most important part of Dave's rant
below your comment on consolidation of local outlets by right-leaning
organizations. Dave's comment about "hard data" showing the model
*extrapolations* being 20-50% higher than the numbers shown in local media.
To my ey
Compared to Sabine Hossenfelder I prefer the approach from Stephen Wolfram. I
must admit I don't like the book from Sabine ("Lost in math") at all. She only
argues we have not made a breakthrough for decades which is rather obvious.
Stephen at least tries to make such a breakthrough. Sabine does
Glen writes:
"I was forced to admit it's true. I don't know her or what the next bit in her
sequence will produce."
Similarly, and without being a spoiler, Marty's adaptation to his visit to
Mexico, in _Ozark_. Whether it is "free" or not is not the distinction I would
make. Is it an interes
Or, your free will is nothing but randomness.
When we took Renee's granddaughter to the UK last year, I made some comment
suggesting I doubted she would ever respond violently to a mugger (all the
girls, being typical Americans who rarely travel to foreign countries and,
hence, suffer an impli
Well, I love the idea that all the QM hocus pocus could just boil down to round
off. Your "free will" is truncation error. Oops. (Funny contrast with the
last episode of Devs.)
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:27 AM
To be clear, the below aren't Nick's words, they're cut-n-paste from the paper.
On 4/16/20 9:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is usual to identify initial conditions of classical dynamical systems
> with mathematical real numbers. However, almost all real numbers contain an
> infinite
Marcus, et. al.,
I love it when you Wizards talk dirty.
It is usual to identify initial conditions of classical dynamical systems with
mathematical real numbers. However, almost all real numbers contain an infinite
amount of information. I argue that a finite volume of space can’t contai
That is a super cool paper, well worth the time it took for my super slow
brain. I'm still struggling with the stance I have to take on non-determined
numbers for it to make sense. But because it simply *smacks* of the same
argument I make to my clients about numerical integration e.g. ODE syste
21 matches
Mail list logo
