The Gulf's Other Product
5 months ago
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wouldn't you just love one for your backyard?
PS- I don't think they could do this without fractals ;-)
Saying "thanks" to the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Sometimes we must stop and truly say "thanks".
Trying to be a good dad, a few years ago I went in with a couple of buddies and purchased Washington Wizards season tickets. The Wizards are no LA Lakers but the games are fun and the team was improving (a few years ago). Then this past season, Gilbert Arenas decides to go all postal on his fans: talk about your Black Swans!!!.
All I can say is "it was a very long season" this past winter. Arenas literally destroyed the team.
PS- a buddy of mine is their chief legal council (he negotiates all the trades) and the stories I could share but won't...
Let's just say the Wizards were in rebuilding mode this year. Watching JP's Miami Heat spank us was simply beyond truly painful.
Last night everything changed as the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided to touch us with his appendage and bestow THE NUMBER ONE DRAFT PICK!
Now I'm not saying I know they will pick John Wall as I really don't know and my friend won't say.
But if they don't, I'm not sure that I'm renewing my season tickets this year as they are no longer worthy of my attentions being such FU(#@!!NG MORONS!!!!!
Here is hoping they don't do something stupid; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
And crazies say immigrants are the problem?????
Clearly someone we all wanted on our team.
On this issue Krugman can go FU(&$!! himself as he worries about who is entitled to what benefit which he and his buddies get to control delivery of.
This is really sad...
On this issue Krugman can go FU(&$!! himself as he worries about who is entitled to what benefit which he and his buddies get to control delivery of.
This is really sad...
Bummer, Kramer's on board. It looks like gold has peaked.
I hope you all have really secure mattresses.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
How many times do we have to go throught this!!!!!
Sorry if you read this post John as I know this is day 1 medical school. Please feel free to skip this post. It's just that this issue drives me nuts as I continue to read these misleading media reports and am dumbfounded that readers still haven't woken up to basic issues concerning statistics. I already discussed the issue of study power here when I spoke about tPA in stroke- nuff said. Yet here we go again.
OK, with that in mind, I'm sure you have all read about the latest on cell phones and brain cancer. All I can ask is "was it P.T. Barnum that said 'there's a sucker born every minute and none of them ever die?'"
Just read the very first sentence of the entire article:
"A long-awaited study of cellphone use and brain health has finally been released, but the data are raising more questions than answers."
Long awaited??????
While it is possible that the people running the study were a bunch of bumbling idiots and simply could not execute on the data they had, "long awaited" is medical speak for "It took the researcher a long time to enroll enough patients to be able to even say that they had something to say".
Now this can only mean one of two things:
1. It was hard to find patients to enroll in the study because they are very rare, etc... and therefore hard to find.
2. They enrolled lots of patients in the study but whatever effect they noticed was so small and insignificant that they needed to enroll a very large number of patients before they could even say that they had something to say.
I'll let you decide whether cell phones are rather common and therefore whether it would likely be hard to find people who use them and enroll them in a study.
Let me just share my own personal bias: THERE ARE A TON OF PEOPLE USING CELL PHONES SO ENROLLMENT IS NOT A PROBLEM!!!!!
This leaves only scenario B. Whatever effect they found was small
Now is the effect real? That is another issue entirely. But whether it is real or not, it is not likely very meaningful.
So I'll let you decide for yourself whether it is real and/or whether meaningless to all might still be still meaningful to others, but in the mean time I will personally worry more about bigger problems like whether I'm going to get killed by a drive who is texting while driving, etc...
What do we need to do to get people to understand this relatively simple issue?
Sometimes...
PS- lest you think this issue "unimportant", think again.
OK, with that in mind, I'm sure you have all read about the latest on cell phones and brain cancer. All I can ask is "was it P.T. Barnum that said 'there's a sucker born every minute and none of them ever die?'"
Just read the very first sentence of the entire article:
"A long-awaited study of cellphone use and brain health has finally been released, but the data are raising more questions than answers."
Long awaited??????
While it is possible that the people running the study were a bunch of bumbling idiots and simply could not execute on the data they had, "long awaited" is medical speak for "It took the researcher a long time to enroll enough patients to be able to even say that they had something to say".
Now this can only mean one of two things:
1. It was hard to find patients to enroll in the study because they are very rare, etc... and therefore hard to find.
2. They enrolled lots of patients in the study but whatever effect they noticed was so small and insignificant that they needed to enroll a very large number of patients before they could even say that they had something to say.
I'll let you decide whether cell phones are rather common and therefore whether it would likely be hard to find people who use them and enroll them in a study.
Let me just share my own personal bias: THERE ARE A TON OF PEOPLE USING CELL PHONES SO ENROLLMENT IS NOT A PROBLEM!!!!!
This leaves only scenario B. Whatever effect they found was small
Now is the effect real? That is another issue entirely. But whether it is real or not, it is not likely very meaningful.
So I'll let you decide for yourself whether it is real and/or whether meaningless to all might still be still meaningful to others, but in the mean time I will personally worry more about bigger problems like whether I'm going to get killed by a drive who is texting while driving, etc...
What do we need to do to get people to understand this relatively simple issue?
Sometimes...
PS- lest you think this issue "unimportant", think again.
Touche!
I'm not sure you saw this post by David Andolfatto reacting to Ron Paul's comments that the Fed can create money "out of thin air"?
-H/T Economist's view.
Just in case you missed it, it is worth a "touche" chuckle.
If you just want the Cliff Notes money shot:
"But I am missing the point: The Fed has the ability to create money "out of thin air!" Whenever I hear this expression, I chuckle. We all have the power to create debt out of "thin air." When Microsoft creates shares to finance an acquisition, it creates the shares "out of thin air." If you bum a beer from a friend and promise to repay him next week, you create a debt obligation "out of thin air." Ooooo..."out of thin air!"
PS- Do you think Ron Paul has a response? I don't follow Paul closely though I do find he has certain endearing qualities. How can you not admire someone who votes "no" 95% of the time? Predictability can be good.
-H/T Economist's view.
Just in case you missed it, it is worth a "touche" chuckle.
If you just want the Cliff Notes money shot:
"But I am missing the point: The Fed has the ability to create money "out of thin air!" Whenever I hear this expression, I chuckle. We all have the power to create debt out of "thin air." When Microsoft creates shares to finance an acquisition, it creates the shares "out of thin air." If you bum a beer from a friend and promise to repay him next week, you create a debt obligation "out of thin air." Ooooo..."out of thin air!"
PS- Do you think Ron Paul has a response? I don't follow Paul closely though I do find he has certain endearing qualities. How can you not admire someone who votes "no" 95% of the time? Predictability can be good.
The dangers of retrospective modeling...
As an owner of index funds (really ETFs), I am as guilty of drinking the Kool-Aid as everyone else. Alas we all know that reductionist models using inductive reasoning can have their own risk, especially when everyone else seems to be using the same model.
With this thought in mind, Felix Salmon has an interesting piece in Reuters today that is well worth reading (H/T Megan McArdle)
PS- All medicine is retrospective modeling hence the old adage: "Half of what is taught in medical school is wrong, but no one knows which half."
PPS- Any of you see areas where you think inefficiency exists. JP has spoken about "personalized" medicine based on better information and this is a very interesting topic
With this thought in mind, Felix Salmon has an interesting piece in Reuters today that is well worth reading (H/T Megan McArdle)
PS- All medicine is retrospective modeling hence the old adage: "Half of what is taught in medical school is wrong, but no one knows which half."
PPS- Any of you see areas where you think inefficiency exists. JP has spoken about "personalized" medicine based on better information and this is a very interesting topic
Monday, May 17, 2010
Glen Beck is an Idiot!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's | ||||
| ||||
Sunday, May 16, 2010
She Won't Float But She'll Feed the Hungry
Ok. Thai got his boat post. This is mine.Just finished the stone work although I have been honing my skills with the oven since last fall. Pizza wood fired with cherry and hickory. My dough proofs all day. The best San Marzano Tomatoes charred topped with fresh basil and mozzarella. The crust is crisp and light as air with a perfect chewy texture. The wood gives it all a hint of smokiness. If you were all close I would make you some pies.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Thought for the weekend
So all this chat on non-zero sum/zero sum has me thinking about a phenomena I'm sure you have noticed as well...
Is there a relationship between zero-sum and the particular attraction people have towards the idea that Jesus Christ died for your sins?
How often do you hear "he died for you"?
I can't be alone in this experience.
All thoughts appreciated
Is there a relationship between zero-sum and the particular attraction people have towards the idea that Jesus Christ died for your sins?
How often do you hear "he died for you"?
I can't be alone in this experience.
All thoughts appreciated
So now I'm not such a fool after all?
It may not be a full on "pop", but it sounds at least like a little hiss to me.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
-- T.S. Elliot
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
-- T.S. Elliot
Friday, May 14, 2010
My question for ANY of you (as I don't know the answer)...
Are there any other scenarios where you can see non-zero sum cooperative economics without:
A. Creating an externality that exactly equals the non-zero sum gain?
i.e. (non-zero sum gain) + (externality created) = 0
B. Increasing the risk of an individual who cooperates with another person(s) to benefit from non-zero sum economics such that the increased risk of no gain + loss of energy put into the cooperative failure exactly offsets the non-zero-sum gain?
i.e (non-zero sum gain)(probability of cooperation succeeding) + (loss from non-zero sum failing)*(probability of cooperation succeeding) = 0
Both of these examples should probably be thought of as non-linear integrals but the single instances I have highlighted have exemplified the problem well enough
Is this a kind of universal law for all economics? The equivalent of saying "there is no free lunch" for all of cooperation? Or am I missing something?
I don't really know what it is as I can't think of an example so any comments/thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
PS- It is kind of depressing if true
A. Creating an externality that exactly equals the non-zero sum gain?
i.e. (non-zero sum gain) + (externality created) = 0
B. Increasing the risk of an individual who cooperates with another person(s) to benefit from non-zero sum economics such that the increased risk of no gain + loss of energy put into the cooperative failure exactly offsets the non-zero-sum gain?
i.e (non-zero sum gain)(probability of cooperation succeeding) + (loss from non-zero sum failing)*(probability of cooperation succeeding) = 0
Both of these examples should probably be thought of as non-linear integrals but the single instances I have highlighted have exemplified the problem well enough
Is this a kind of universal law for all economics? The equivalent of saying "there is no free lunch" for all of cooperation? Or am I missing something?
I don't really know what it is as I can't think of an example so any comments/thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
PS- It is kind of depressing if true
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)