When I was younger, I spent some time looking for alternative expletives which could show emotion without sounding like a faux-swear. E.g. "smeg" shares no phonemes in common with any vulgarism in the English language, and I used it for a while, until one day I caught myself about to use it unconsciously instead of on purpose. And I decided I wanted to be the master of my own words, and dropped it in favor us simply using English. "Smeg!" becomes, "What a mess" or "How vexing."
I still say "Argh!" sometimes though, and "Wow."
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Science! 1940s to now
Lindzen asserts that scientific productivity has fallen dramatically since Vannevar's Bush day, starting in the 1960's, and asserts that this is due to a shift in the way scientists perceive their relationship with the public: from eliciting gratitude then to fear-mongering now. I am still digesting his argument, but it's an interesting paper littered with anecdotes and footnotes like this one:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/lindzen-on-climate-science-2010.pdf
-Max
--
The response of the IPCC officials makes it eminently clear that the IPCC is fundamentally a political body. If further evidence were needed, one simply has to observe the fact that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers will selectively cite results to emphasize negative consequences. Thus the summary for Working Group II observes that global warming will result in Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress. This, however, is based on work (Arnell, 2004) which actually shows that by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)! The IPCC further ignores the capacity to use build reservoirs to alleviate those areas they project as subject to drought (I am indebted to Indur Goklany for noting this example.)
-Max
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Natural selection (link)
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/ has an interesting story. I won't spoil the punch lines, but here's the intro:
Daniel Freedman was a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago. For his doctoral thesis, he did adoption studies with dogs. He had noticed that different dog breeds had different personalities, and thought it would be interesting to see if personality was inborn, or if it was somehow caused by the way in which the mother raised her puppies. Totally inborn. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly. Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive that Dan had to wear gloves when playing with puppies that were only three weeks old. Basenjis were aloof and independent.
He decided to try the same thing with human infants of different breeds. Excuse me, different races. [snip the rest]
I love reading about interesting experiments.
-Max
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Daniel Freedman was a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago. For his doctoral thesis, he did adoption studies with dogs. He had noticed that different dog breeds had different personalities, and thought it would be interesting to see if personality was inborn, or if it was somehow caused by the way in which the mother raised her puppies. Totally inborn. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly. Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive that Dan had to wear gloves when playing with puppies that were only three weeks old. Basenjis were aloof and independent.
He decided to try the same thing with human infants of different breeds. Excuse me, different races. [snip the rest]
I love reading about interesting experiments.
-Max
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Climatology: the key question
From http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/15/why-do-people-believe-scientifically-unt
Climate change: The majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is causing the earth's temperatures to increase. A recent Pew Research poll found that two-thirds of Americans also believe that the earth is warming. But a deep partisan divide yawns between conservatives and liberals on the cause of the warming: Only 16 percent of conservative Republicans believe that human activity is responsible, whereas 77 percent of liberal Democrats do. Moderate Republicans and Democrats accept human responsibility by 38 and 51 percent, respectively. Advantage: Democrats.
This is a strange way of framing the debate. The question of interest is not whether human activity is "responsible" for the temperature rise between the 18th and 21st centuries. The key question is whether claims of impending calamity due to CO2-induced positive feedback temperature loops are well-founded.
To illustrate the difference, consider a case where the warming that predates the Industrial Revolution was solar-driven, but which moved the temperature equilibrium into a delicate position where increases in CO2 would raise the photosphere and trigger a phase change into a new, drier and warmer, equilibrium. In this hypothetical scenario, humans are not responsible for most past warming but will be responsible for large amounts of future warming.
The scientific debate is over whether claims that we are on that cusp are justified given the available evidence. I acknowledge that the political debate is a lot more simplistic, to the extent that there probably are people who believe that the United States ISN'T warmer than it was in 1776, which is empirically false.
--
Climate change: The majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is causing the earth's temperatures to increase. A recent Pew Research poll found that two-thirds of Americans also believe that the earth is warming. But a deep partisan divide yawns between conservatives and liberals on the cause of the warming: Only 16 percent of conservative Republicans believe that human activity is responsible, whereas 77 percent of liberal Democrats do. Moderate Republicans and Democrats accept human responsibility by 38 and 51 percent, respectively. Advantage: Democrats.
This is a strange way of framing the debate. The question of interest is not whether human activity is "responsible" for the temperature rise between the 18th and 21st centuries. The key question is whether claims of impending calamity due to CO2-induced positive feedback temperature loops are well-founded.
To illustrate the difference, consider a case where the warming that predates the Industrial Revolution was solar-driven, but which moved the temperature equilibrium into a delicate position where increases in CO2 would raise the photosphere and trigger a phase change into a new, drier and warmer, equilibrium. In this hypothetical scenario, humans are not responsible for most past warming but will be responsible for large amounts of future warming.
The scientific debate is over whether claims that we are on that cusp are justified given the available evidence. I acknowledge that the political debate is a lot more simplistic, to the extent that there probably are people who believe that the United States ISN'T warmer than it was in 1776, which is empirically false.
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Grad school
The following comment from http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/17/obesity-of-the-u-s-scientific-research-enterprise/ reminds me why I dropped out of grad school. I don't feel like I'm one of the first-rate inteligences who truly belongs in academia.
[by miker613 | March 17, 2013 at 11:20 am]
"Just speaking from my own experience: Thirty years ago, I got a PhD in Math from one of the best programs in the country. I had a top GPA as an undergraduate from another of the best schools. And by the time I got my PhD, I knew I didn't want to do math any more. I wasn't needed. I did a pretty good piece of work for my doctorate, other people liked it and quoted it – but I knew I wasn't _needed_. Most people I knew weren't needed. We were filling in gaps, looking for things to work on that no one else had done yet, but I knew that if someone really good would take notice of my problem, he could solve it better in a short time. There were lots of mediocre people like me in my program, and one or two really really good ones, and we all knew the difference. David Hilbert said it once: There are two kinds of mathematicians – those who tackle and solve hard problems, and those who don't.
"I guess I don't have the right to speak to any field but math, but I wonder if it's the same: The really important work gets done by a few really good people, and everyone else makes a living."
--
[by miker613 | March 17, 2013 at 11:20 am]
"Just speaking from my own experience: Thirty years ago, I got a PhD in Math from one of the best programs in the country. I had a top GPA as an undergraduate from another of the best schools. And by the time I got my PhD, I knew I didn't want to do math any more. I wasn't needed. I did a pretty good piece of work for my doctorate, other people liked it and quoted it – but I knew I wasn't _needed_. Most people I knew weren't needed. We were filling in gaps, looking for things to work on that no one else had done yet, but I knew that if someone really good would take notice of my problem, he could solve it better in a short time. There were lots of mediocre people like me in my program, and one or two really really good ones, and we all knew the difference. David Hilbert said it once: There are two kinds of mathematicians – those who tackle and solve hard problems, and those who don't.
"I guess I don't have the right to speak to any field but math, but I wonder if it's the same: The really important work gets done by a few really good people, and everyone else makes a living."
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Desalination follow-up WAS RE: Graphene water filters
Desalination can also strain out minerals which are important for some crops. Interesting.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/desalinated-water-can-harm-crops-researchers-warn-1.232848
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/desalinated-water-can-harm-crops-researchers-warn-1.232848
-Max
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Graphene water filters
This seems like it may be important. A graphene-based water filter that's two orders of magnitude more efficient than existing filters, good enough to replace desalination plants. And it looks like graphene is going to become relatively cheap in the near future. I wonder what kind of impact this will have on agriculture? IIRC Israeli agriculture relies on desalination plants to irrigate their crops; what happens desalination gets cheap enough for Arab and African nations to afford it too? Seems like it could change some lives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-desalination-idUSBRE92C05720130313
The development could spare underdeveloped countries from having to build exotic, expensive pumping stations needed in plants that use a desalination process called reverse osmosis. "It's 500 times thinner than the best filter on the market today and a thousand times stronger," said John Stetson, the engineer who has been working on the idea. "The energy that's required and the pressure that's required to filter salt is approximately 100 times less."
-Max
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-desalination-idUSBRE92C05720130313
The development could spare underdeveloped countries from having to build exotic, expensive pumping stations needed in plants that use a desalination process called reverse osmosis. "It's 500 times thinner than the best filter on the market today and a thousand times stronger," said John Stetson, the engineer who has been working on the idea. "The energy that's required and the pressure that's required to filter salt is approximately 100 times less."
-Max
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Monday, March 11, 2013
History
I'm not much into hate, but I hate the old Confederacy with a cold passion. If I had a time machine, I would love to go back and fetch a few old "slave power" die-hards like Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis just so I could show them a colorblind society and watch their heads explode.
Note: I'm not someone who necessarily thinks slavery per se is always evil--it's sometimes superior to killing your enemies out of hand. I just hate the Confederacy and all its triumphalist, bigoted rhetoric, and that they dared to call themselves American while perverting everything America ever stood for.
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Note: I'm not someone who necessarily thinks slavery per se is always evil--it's sometimes superior to killing your enemies out of hand. I just hate the Confederacy and all its triumphalist, bigoted rhetoric, and that they dared to call themselves American while perverting everything America ever stood for.
--
Hahahahaaaa!!! That is ME laughing at YOU, cruel world.
-Jordan Rixon
I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honour more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)