Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Japan will have a space elevator by 2050?????
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Howard Brazee
Feb 22, 2012, 1:51:19 PM2/22/12
to
art...@yahoo.com
Feb 22, 2012, 2:00:28 PM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
Lynn McGuire
Feb 22, 2012, 2:47:31 PM2/22/12
to
On 2/22/2012 12:51 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
Wanna buy a ticket for the first ride ?
Lynn
> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
Wanna buy a ticket for the first ride ?
Lynn
David Johnston
Feb 22, 2012, 2:51:49 PM2/22/12
to
When someone says "We can't even guess at how much it will cost", about
a corporate project...you can be sure it ain't gonna happen.
a corporate project...you can be sure it ain't gonna happen.
Howard Brazee
Feb 22, 2012, 3:17:39 PM2/22/12
to
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-without-animated.html#more
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
Feb 22, 2012, 3:18:19 PM2/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:51:49 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
At least if the corporation is expecting to pay for it.
wrote:
Suzanne Blom
Feb 22, 2012, 5:49:05 PM2/22/12
to
On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>>
>> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> Have you read this?
>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-without-animated.html#more
>
Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>>
>> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> Have you read this?
>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-without-animated.html#more
>
JRStern
Feb 22, 2012, 6:06:48 PM2/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:51:19 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
Japan has also made some optimistic noises about developing
space-based solar energy, which is probably the best loooooooong-term
solution - as in Ringworlds and Dyson spheres.
Tie that in with the space elevator and there y'go.
J.
wrote:
>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
Japan has also made some optimistic noises about developing
space-based solar energy, which is probably the best loooooooong-term
solution - as in Ringworlds and Dyson spheres.
Tie that in with the space elevator and there y'go.
J.
Bill Snyder
Feb 22, 2012, 7:15:33 PM2/22/12
to
author seems utterly unaware of. There are things that are quite
easy to make a computer do -- e.g., displaying a cute animated
duck on a screen; and then again there are things that are very
hard to make a computer do -- e.g., clearing the table and putting
the dishes in the dishwasher. (Well, to make a computer do
reasonably well; if breaking an item or two on each run is
acceptable, and leaving the door of the dishwasher just slightly
ajar when starting the cycle once a month or so is likewise ok,
and utter inability to tell dishwasher-safe stuff from stuff
that's not, and . . .)
Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Feb 22, 2012, 7:20:50 PM2/22/12
to
In article <s4tak7l4o8upu6kom...@4ax.com>,
I'm sure it's techinically possible, but isn't Japan in a prolonged
economic slump and headed into demographic crisis? I can't see a lot
of investment in something like this domestically, and I don't see a
lot of visionary investors internationally..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
economic slump and headed into demographic crisis? I can't see a lot
of investment in something like this domestically, and I don't see a
lot of visionary investors internationally..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Juho Julkunen
Feb 23, 2012, 12:39:42 AM2/23/12
to
In article <6f0bk71s23nqgmjao...@4ax.com>,
bsn...@airmail.net says...
> >> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-without-animated.html#more
> Having checked it out, I'd say there's something important the
> author seems utterly unaware of.
things.
--
Juho Julkunen
bsn...@airmail.net says...
> >> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-without-animated.html#more
> Having checked it out, I'd say there's something important the
> author seems utterly unaware of.
> Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
> onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
> housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
A washing machine, howerver, seems to be within the realm of doable
> onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
> housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
things.
--
Juho Julkunen
Helmut_Meukel
Feb 23, 2012, 5:47:47 AM2/23/12
to
only those which can be washed together, then it's difficult.
Even many humans are unable to do this properly. :-)
Helmut.
tphile2
Feb 23, 2012, 7:19:44 AM2/23/12
to
Just one more thing for Godzilla to stomp on
Thomas Womack
Feb 23, 2012, 8:19:23 AM2/23/12
to
In article <6f0bk71s23nqgmjao...@4ax.com>,
significant project at Berkeley, and was considered a big advance, to
program a robot that cost as much as a house ($400,000) to fold
towels. It takes fifteen minutes to fold a towel, limited by the
video-analysis performance of the fastest graphics card available at
the time (cards are now two to three times faster).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo
is the robot;
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Epabbeel/papers/Maitin-ShepardCusumano-TownerLeiAbbeel_ICRA2010.pdf
is the paper.
This year's work (http://rll.eecs.berkeley.edu/ICRA_2011/index.html)
is on clothing with more complicated underlying shapes; paper at
http://www.stanford.edu/~marcoct/papers/Cusumano-TownerSinghMillerOBrienAbbeel_ICRA2011.pdf
Tom
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
>onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
>housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
Yes; I pointed out in the comments to that article that it had been a
>Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
>onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
>housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
significant project at Berkeley, and was considered a big advance, to
program a robot that cost as much as a house ($400,000) to fold
towels. It takes fifteen minutes to fold a towel, limited by the
video-analysis performance of the fastest graphics card available at
the time (cards are now two to three times faster).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo
is the robot;
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Epabbeel/papers/Maitin-ShepardCusumano-TownerLeiAbbeel_ICRA2010.pdf
is the paper.
This year's work (http://rll.eecs.berkeley.edu/ICRA_2011/index.html)
is on clothing with more complicated underlying shapes; paper at
http://www.stanford.edu/~marcoct/papers/Cusumano-TownerSinghMillerOBrienAbbeel_ICRA2011.pdf
Tom
Bill Snyder
Feb 23, 2012, 10:26:32 AM2/23/12
to
On 23 Feb 2012 13:19:23 +0000 (GMT), Thomas Womack
refrigerators and stoves and water heaters and toasters; washers
and driers; dishwashers and garbage disposals and the rest -- I
guess the people who invented and developed and marketed those
gadgets 'way back when were much more enlightened than the male
chauvinists who are stifling innovation in the home today? It
would seem that the history books need a bit of re-writing in that
area, then.
The trouble is that the low-hanging fruit is long gone; what's
left at this point is quite a way up the tree, and will take a lot
of climbing to reach.
<two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <6f0bk71s23nqgmjao...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
>>onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
>>housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
>
>Yes; I pointed out in the comments to that article that it had been a
>significant project at Berkeley, and was considered a big advance, to
>program a robot that cost as much as a house ($400,000) to fold
>towels. It takes fifteen minutes to fold a towel, limited by the
>video-analysis performance of the fastest graphics card available at
>the time (cards are now two to three times faster).
And of course, all the home appliances we do have: vacuums and
>In article <6f0bk71s23nqgmjao...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
>>onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
>>housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
>
>Yes; I pointed out in the comments to that article that it had been a
>significant project at Berkeley, and was considered a big advance, to
>program a robot that cost as much as a house ($400,000) to fold
>towels. It takes fifteen minutes to fold a towel, limited by the
>video-analysis performance of the fastest graphics card available at
>the time (cards are now two to three times faster).
refrigerators and stoves and water heaters and toasters; washers
and driers; dishwashers and garbage disposals and the rest -- I
guess the people who invented and developed and marketed those
gadgets 'way back when were much more enlightened than the male
chauvinists who are stifling innovation in the home today? It
would seem that the history books need a bit of re-writing in that
area, then.
The trouble is that the low-hanging fruit is long gone; what's
left at this point is quite a way up the tree, and will take a lot
of climbing to reach.
Helmut_Meukel
Feb 23, 2012, 10:37:18 AM2/23/12
to
Bill Snyder schrieb:
Helmut.
>
> The trouble is that the low-hanging fruit is long gone; what's
> left at this point is quite a way up the tree, and will take a lot
> of climbing to reach.
And often when you look on it you decide it's not worth the efford.
> The trouble is that the low-hanging fruit is long gone; what's
> left at this point is quite a way up the tree, and will take a lot
> of climbing to reach.
Helmut.
Thomas Womack
Feb 23, 2012, 10:44:55 AM2/23/12
to
In article <ji5mfc$d4e$1...@dont-email.me>,
That's where the sociology starts to get interesting; it's not
worthwhile even for Hilton to fund an effort to improve hotel-cleaning
robots because Mexican hotel-cleaners with more degrees of freedom
than the wildest roboticist can imagine can be hired for twelve
dollars an hour.
I was contemplating hiring someone for thirty dollars twice a month to
come and hoover my house, instead of spending three hundred dollars
for a new hoover, until the service told me that the hired cleaner
would not bring her own hoover. I've refrained from buying a Roomba
because it wouldn't hoover the stairs.
The point Cat Valente is making is the very good social point that
there are not incentives for landlords to provide even adequate
appliances *to their tenants*; I strongly dislike doing the washing
up, but was willing to rent a house with no space for a dishwasher
three minutes' walk from work rather than one with a dishwasher twenty
minutes' cycle away.
Tom
worthwhile even for Hilton to fund an effort to improve hotel-cleaning
robots because Mexican hotel-cleaners with more degrees of freedom
than the wildest roboticist can imagine can be hired for twelve
dollars an hour.
I was contemplating hiring someone for thirty dollars twice a month to
come and hoover my house, instead of spending three hundred dollars
for a new hoover, until the service told me that the hired cleaner
would not bring her own hoover. I've refrained from buying a Roomba
because it wouldn't hoover the stairs.
The point Cat Valente is making is the very good social point that
there are not incentives for landlords to provide even adequate
appliances *to their tenants*; I strongly dislike doing the washing
up, but was willing to rent a house with no space for a dishwasher
three minutes' walk from work rather than one with a dishwasher twenty
minutes' cycle away.
Tom
Cryptoengineer
Feb 23, 2012, 11:05:03 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 10:44 am, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <ji5mfc$d4...@dont-email.me>,
Others have observed that the advent of household 'labor saving
devices' tracks quite well with the 'Servant Problem' in the early
20th Century in Europe and the US. Brazil is undergoing a similar
transition right now; it would be interesting to look for negative
correlations between, say, dishwasher sales and domestic employment
there.
pt
wrote:
> In article <ji5mfc$d4...@dont-email.me>,
devices' tracks quite well with the 'Servant Problem' in the early
20th Century in Europe and the US. Brazil is undergoing a similar
transition right now; it would be interesting to look for negative
correlations between, say, dishwasher sales and domestic employment
there.
pt
Thomas Womack
Feb 23, 2012, 11:22:59 AM2/23/12
to
In article <7d699038-af61-4a4c...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
I got the impression from the TED talk about the awesomeness of
washing machines that there were two steps; the servant problem was
basically at the start of the 20th century, and the universal
introduction of the electric washing machine in Europe was
substantially later ... I have the feeling that the standard-plan
houses built just after the Second World War in England were designed
with large laundry sinks, and that Grandma was in her forties (that
is, it was the late fifties) before she got a washing machine.
Tom
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Others have observed that the advent of household 'labor saving
>devices' tracks quite well with the 'Servant Problem' in the early
>20th Century in Europe and the US. Brazil is undergoing a similar
>transition right now; it would be interesting to look for negative
>correlations between, say, dishwasher sales and domestic employment
>there.
Ah yes, http://www.economist.com/node/21541717
>Others have observed that the advent of household 'labor saving
>devices' tracks quite well with the 'Servant Problem' in the early
>20th Century in Europe and the US. Brazil is undergoing a similar
>transition right now; it would be interesting to look for negative
>correlations between, say, dishwasher sales and domestic employment
>there.
I got the impression from the TED talk about the awesomeness of
washing machines that there were two steps; the servant problem was
basically at the start of the 20th century, and the universal
introduction of the electric washing machine in Europe was
substantially later ... I have the feeling that the standard-plan
houses built just after the Second World War in England were designed
with large laundry sinks, and that Grandma was in her forties (that
is, it was the late fifties) before she got a washing machine.
Tom
Helmut_Meukel
Feb 23, 2012, 11:56:56 AM2/23/12
to
Thomas Womack machte diesen Vorschlag:
My mother got her first washing machine in the sixties. We then inherited
2 more washing machines from both grandparents about 1979/1981.
That turned out convenient: set one to 30°C, the next to 60°C, and the
last to 95°C, fill all machines appropriate and within a few hours you
are done.
Over the years all of the original machines broke down, but we always
replaced the broken-down washing machine so wie still have three. :-)
Helmut.
2 more washing machines from both grandparents about 1979/1981.
That turned out convenient: set one to 30°C, the next to 60°C, and the
last to 95°C, fill all machines appropriate and within a few hours you
are done.
Over the years all of the original machines broke down, but we always
replaced the broken-down washing machine so wie still have three. :-)
Helmut.
Helmut_Meukel
Feb 23, 2012, 11:58:41 AM2/23/12
to
(Ersetze <ji5r4m$bv5$1...@dont-email.me>)
Thomas Womack machte diesen Vorschlag:
Helmut.
Thomas Womack machte diesen Vorschlag:
My mother got her first washing machine in the sixties. We then
inherited
2 more washing machines from both grandparents about 1979/1981.
That turned out convenient: set one to 30°C, the next to 60°C, and the
last to 95°C, fill all machines appropriate and within a few hours you
are done.
Over the years all of the original machines broke down, but we always
replaced the broken-down washing machine so we still have three. :-)
inherited
2 more washing machines from both grandparents about 1979/1981.
That turned out convenient: set one to 30°C, the next to 60°C, and the
last to 95°C, fill all machines appropriate and within a few hours you
are done.
Over the years all of the original machines broke down, but we always
Helmut.
Wayne Throop
Feb 23, 2012, 1:58:41 PM2/23/12
to
::: Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
: And of course, all the home appliances we do have: vacuums and
::: onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
::: housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
::: housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
: And of course, all the home appliances we do have: vacuums and
: refrigerators and stoves and water heaters and toasters; washers and
: driers; dishwashers and garbage disposals and the rest -- I guess the
: people who invented and developed and marketed those gadgets 'way back
: when were much more enlightened than the male chauvinists who are
: stifling innovation in the home today? It would seem that the history
: books need a bit of re-writing in that area, then.
:
: The trouble is that the low-hanging fruit is long gone; what's left at
: this point is quite a way up the tree, and will take a lot of climbing
: to reach.
Hence the need for a space elevator.
: driers; dishwashers and garbage disposals and the rest -- I guess the
: people who invented and developed and marketed those gadgets 'way back
: when were much more enlightened than the male chauvinists who are
: stifling innovation in the home today? It would seem that the history
: books need a bit of re-writing in that area, then.
:
: The trouble is that the low-hanging fruit is long gone; what's left at
: this point is quite a way up the tree, and will take a lot of climbing
: to reach.
Scott Lurndal
Feb 23, 2012, 4:21:25 PM2/23/12
to
I think the apparatus would need to be fairly roomy to not go
stir crazy during the voyage.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 23, 2012, 3:43:43 PM2/23/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:t7eak7ths66smd4h4...@4ax.com:
> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
I'll fly down to in my fusion powered flying car, while playing the
latest video game on my Linux desktop, and it'll be the first leg on
my routine vacation on the moon base resort.
Sure.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:t7eak7ths66smd4h4...@4ax.com:
> http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
I'll fly down to in my fusion powered flying car, while playing the
latest video game on my Linux desktop, and it'll be the first leg on
my routine vacation on the moon base resort.
Sure.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Moriarty
Feb 23, 2012, 4:47:09 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 11:15 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:49:05 -0600, Suzanne Blom
>
> <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
> >On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> >> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >>> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> >> Have you read this?
>
> >>http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-wit...
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:49:05 -0600, Suzanne Blom
>
> <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
> >On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> >> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >>> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> >> Have you read this?
>
>
> >Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
>
> Having checked it out, I'd say there's something important the
> author seems utterly unaware of. There are things that are quite
> easy to make a computer do -- e.g., displaying a cute animated
> duck on a screen; and then again there are things that are very
> hard to make a computer do -- e.g., clearing the table and putting
> the dishes in the dishwasher. (Well, to make a computer do
> reasonably well; if breaking an item or two on each run is
> acceptable, and leaving the door of the dishwasher just slightly
> ajar when starting the cycle once a month or so is likewise ok,
> and utter inability to tell dishwasher-safe stuff from stuff
> that's not, and . . .)
I found this quote interesting, where she's lamenting the lack of mod-
> >Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
>
> Having checked it out, I'd say there's something important the
> author seems utterly unaware of. There are things that are quite
> easy to make a computer do -- e.g., displaying a cute animated
> duck on a screen; and then again there are things that are very
> hard to make a computer do -- e.g., clearing the table and putting
> the dishes in the dishwasher. (Well, to make a computer do
> reasonably well; if breaking an item or two on each run is
> acceptable, and leaving the door of the dishwasher just slightly
> ajar when starting the cycle once a month or so is likewise ok,
> and utter inability to tell dishwasher-safe stuff from stuff
> that's not, and . . .)
cons in the houses:
"there were no garbage disposals (instead you use a fine mesh bag
inserted into a small bucket-sieve in the sink)"
I've travelled many places in the world and I don't think I've ever
even SEEN a garbage disposal. I'd guess they're purely a North
American phenomenom and everyone else simply scrapes leftovers into
the bin.
-Moriarty
Lynn McGuire
Feb 23, 2012, 4:47:50 PM2/23/12
to
http://www.amazon.com/Marsbound-Joe-Haldeman/dp/0441017398/
Also _Jumping_Off_The_Planet_ by David Gerrold
http://www.amazon.com/Jumping-Off-Planet-David-Gerrold/dp/0312890699/
Lynn
Moriarty
Feb 23, 2012, 4:52:34 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 9:49 am, Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
> On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> > <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> > Have you read this?
>
> >http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-wit...
> On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> > <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> > Have you read this?
>
>
> Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
Hey, I just noticed the author of the blog is Cat Valente. I'm
> Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
guessing that's Catherynne M Valente, hugo award winning author of
"The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of her Own Making".
So that brings it back on topic.
-Moriarty
Robert Carnegie
Feb 23, 2012, 6:14:37 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 12:15 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:49:05 -0600, Suzanne Blom
>
> <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
> >On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> >> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >>> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> >> Have you read this?
>
> >>http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/02/life-with-and-wit...
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:49:05 -0600, Suzanne Blom
>
> <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
> >On 2/22/2012 2:17 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:00:28 -0800 (PST), "art...@yahoo.com"
> >> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 22, 1:51 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >>> It'll take them another 10 years to get the Muzak right.
>
> >> Have you read this?
>
>
> >Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
>
> Having checked it out, I'd say there's something important the
> author seems utterly unaware of. There are things that are quite
> easy to make a computer do -- e.g., displaying a cute animated
> duck on a screen; and then again there are things that are very
> hard to make a computer do -- e.g., clearing the table and putting
> the dishes in the dishwasher. (Well, to make a computer do
> reasonably well; if breaking an item or two on each run is
> acceptable, and leaving the door of the dishwasher just slightly
> ajar when starting the cycle once a month or so is likewise ok,
> and utter inability to tell dishwasher-safe stuff from stuff
> that's not, and . . .)
>
> Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
> onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
> housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
Housework can be made easier by redesigning the work. Furnish your
> >Way cool. I'm all set to go marching, er, rolling in the streets.
>
> Having checked it out, I'd say there's something important the
> author seems utterly unaware of. There are things that are quite
> easy to make a computer do -- e.g., displaying a cute animated
> duck on a screen; and then again there are things that are very
> hard to make a computer do -- e.g., clearing the table and putting
> the dishes in the dishwasher. (Well, to make a computer do
> reasonably well; if breaking an item or two on each run is
> acceptable, and leaving the door of the dishwasher just slightly
> ajar when starting the cycle once a month or so is likewise ok,
> and utter inability to tell dishwasher-safe stuff from stuff
> that's not, and . . .)
>
> Building a vending machine, or tacking a heater and an mp3 player
> onto a toilet -- easy engineering. Building a robot that does the
> housework -- very, very difficult engineering indeed.
home with robot-friendly accessories. Clothes that can walk /
themselves/ to the washing machine, if you have one of those noisy and
occasionally seriously leaky appliances in your living space. It's a
non-compulsory status symbol.
Lynn McGuire
Feb 23, 2012, 6:39:47 PM2/23/12
to
your clothing with a stick in the water ?
Lynn
JRStern
Feb 23, 2012, 6:50:38 PM2/23/12
to
On 23 Feb 2012 00:20:50 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
I suppose, but an advanced and industrious nation of 126,000,000 can
decline a long way and still have significant power needs, and might
want to develop technology (and energy) they can even export.
J.
decline a long way and still have significant power needs, and might
want to develop technology (and energy) they can even export.
J.
Bill Snyder
Feb 23, 2012, 6:56:27 PM2/23/12
to
easy one.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 23, 2012, 6:57:28 PM2/23/12
to
someone turns it on.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Wayne Throop
Feb 23, 2012, 7:21:17 PM2/23/12
to
:: Housework can be made easier by redesigning the work. Furnish your
which doesn't have to recognize any large scale goal.
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: Oh, of course, walking clothes.
wrt to self-mobile clothing. If you make the pants smart enough to
put themselves away, they'll be smart enough to start a slave
rebellion. If you engineer them to love you so they won't want to
rebel, they'll become jealous and try to control your life.
( Though granted, Johnny Test's "Smarty Pants(tm)" weren't smart
merely to put themselves away; they were to make the *wearer* smart,
but they were also self-propelled... at least in version 2 )
:: home with robot-friendly accessories. Clothes that can walk /
:: themselves/ to the washing machine,
Which is itself an AI-hard problem, of course. It's not like a roomba,
:: themselves/ to the washing machine,
which doesn't have to recognize any large scale goal.
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: Oh, of course, walking clothes.
: *That* certainly sounds like an easy one.
Both Jimmy Neutron and Johnny Test have presented cautionary tales
wrt to self-mobile clothing. If you make the pants smart enough to
put themselves away, they'll be smart enough to start a slave
rebellion. If you engineer them to love you so they won't want to
rebel, they'll become jealous and try to control your life.
( Though granted, Johnny Test's "Smarty Pants(tm)" weren't smart
merely to put themselves away; they were to make the *wearer* smart,
but they were also self-propelled... at least in version 2 )
Wayne Throop
Feb 23, 2012, 7:39:28 PM2/23/12
to
:: I've travelled many places in the world and I don't think I've ever
: Not much to see. Looks just like a regular sink. You won't notice
which supports the drain plug and/or debris screen, there's a bunch
of rubber flaps, and the center of the drain is unobstructed, so that
the debris screen and/or plug is supported at the rim only. And
probably has a brand name logo inscribed on the drain hole rim,
like "in-sink-erator". (Heinz Doofenshmirtz would be so proud,
except he'd call it an in-sink-inator, but I digress.)
Or, of course, you could stick your hand down into the drain to tell...
presumably when it's not making a buzzing/whirring noise.
It went "zzzip" when it moved,
"Bopp" when it stopped,
"Brrr" when it stood still.
I never knew just what it was
And I guess I never will.
--- Marvelous Toy
:: even SEEN a garbage disposal.
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: Not much to see. Looks just like a regular sink. You won't notice
: until someone turns it on.
IME the major clue is that instead of a metal structure in the drain,
which supports the drain plug and/or debris screen, there's a bunch
of rubber flaps, and the center of the drain is unobstructed, so that
the debris screen and/or plug is supported at the rim only. And
probably has a brand name logo inscribed on the drain hole rim,
like "in-sink-erator". (Heinz Doofenshmirtz would be so proud,
except he'd call it an in-sink-inator, but I digress.)
Or, of course, you could stick your hand down into the drain to tell...
presumably when it's not making a buzzing/whirring noise.
It went "zzzip" when it moved,
"Bopp" when it stopped,
"Brrr" when it stood still.
I never knew just what it was
And I guess I never will.
--- Marvelous Toy
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 23, 2012, 7:48:41 PM2/23/12
to
On 2/23/12 7:21 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> :: Housework can be made easier by redesigning the work. Furnish your
> :: home with robot-friendly accessories. Clothes that can walk /
> :: themselves/ to the washing machine,
>
> Which is itself an AI-hard problem, of course. It's not like a roomba,
> which doesn't have to recognize any large scale goal.
>
> : Bill Snyder<bsn...@airmail.net>
> : Oh, of course, walking clothes.
> : *That* certainly sounds like an easy one.
>
> Both Jimmy Neutron and Johnny Test have presented cautionary tales
> wrt to self-mobile clothing. If you make the pants smart enough to
> put themselves away, they'll be smart enough to start a slave
> rebellion. If you engineer them to love you so they won't want to
> rebel, they'll become jealous and try to control your life.
A more ... mature treatment of this subject area is seen in "Sentenced
> :: Housework can be made easier by redesigning the work. Furnish your
> :: home with robot-friendly accessories. Clothes that can walk /
> :: themselves/ to the washing machine,
>
> Which is itself an AI-hard problem, of course. It's not like a roomba,
> which doesn't have to recognize any large scale goal.
>
> : Bill Snyder<bsn...@airmail.net>
> : Oh, of course, walking clothes.
> : *That* certainly sounds like an easy one.
>
> Both Jimmy Neutron and Johnny Test have presented cautionary tales
> wrt to self-mobile clothing. If you make the pants smart enough to
> put themselves away, they'll be smart enough to start a slave
> rebellion. If you engineer them to love you so they won't want to
> rebel, they'll become jealous and try to control your life.
to Prism" where the people of the protagonist's native planet wear
"suits" which are almost all-in-one devices for EVERYTHING -- shelter,
communication, entertainment, etc. -- and the protagonist ends up in an
ultimate suit which should be able to protect him under all
circumstances against virtually anything. Turns out the planet Prism's
lifeforms have figured out that "virtually" loophole, and then the
protagonist has to suddenly figure out how to survive without ANY suit
at all. As in, walking in the natural world! On an alien planet...
>
> ( Though granted, Johnny Test's "Smarty Pants(tm)" weren't smart
> merely to put themselves away; they were to make the *wearer* smart,
> but they were also self-propelled... at least in version 2 )
Greg Goss
Feb 23, 2012, 9:39:52 PM2/23/12
to
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
Greg Goss
Feb 23, 2012, 9:41:35 PM2/23/12
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>:: Housework can be made easier by redesigning the work. Furnish your
>:: home with robot-friendly accessories. Clothes that can walk /
>:: themselves/ to the washing machine,
>:: Housework can be made easier by redesigning the work. Furnish your
>:: home with robot-friendly accessories. Clothes that can walk /
>:: themselves/ to the washing machine,
>Both Jimmy Neutron and Johnny Test have presented cautionary tales
>wrt to self-mobile clothing. If you make the pants smart enough to
>put themselves away, they'll be smart enough to start a slave
>rebellion. If you engineer them to love you so they won't want to
>rebel, they'll become jealous and try to control your life.
Wallace got there first, didn't he?
>wrt to self-mobile clothing. If you make the pants smart enough to
>put themselves away, they'll be smart enough to start a slave
>rebellion. If you engineer them to love you so they won't want to
>rebel, they'll become jealous and try to control your life.
Shawn Wilson
Feb 23, 2012, 10:14:52 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 22, 1:18 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >When someone says "We can't even guess at how much it will cost", about
> >>http://gizmodo.com/space-elevators/
>
> >a corporate project...you can be sure it ain't gonna happen.
>
> At least if the corporation is expecting to pay for it.
Warren Buffet solution- campaign against a 'social ill' government
needs to solve whose solution JUST HAPPENS to be a product produced by
your company.
Alternatively, provide funds to 'grass roots' campaigning against a
social ill (like say coal) that just happens to compete against your
natural gas plants...
Or, hell, pick an industry with competing technologies, invest in one
side and petition government to act against the other, increasing the
stock price...
And, the old favorite- give a candidate (or both) $50,000 campaign
donation and have him turn around and give you a no strings $500
MILLION government 'loan' to your business... (ahem, Solyndra, et
al...)
Or, here, promote a space elevator (funded by government of course)
that would demand the services of your company to create.
I am a Libertarian and a highly trained economist. I would gladly
hang every single government official and bureaucrat from a tree.
This is for good reasons...
Joy Beeson
Feb 23, 2012, 10:21:02 PM2/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:39:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
wrote:
> So do you just go down to the nearest stream and beat
> your clothing with a stick in the water ?
I used to stuff mine into a bag that was custom-made for my bicycle,
ride to the laundromat, fill up half a dozen machines, and get two
weeks of laundry done in an hour or two.
I washed the bag too, so that I could use it to bring the folded
laundry back.
Now it seems as though I'm doing laundry all the time, and I don't get
anything else done on laundry day.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
wrote:
> So do you just go down to the nearest stream and beat
> your clothing with a stick in the water ?
ride to the laundromat, fill up half a dozen machines, and get two
weeks of laundry done in an hour or two.
I washed the bag too, so that I could use it to bring the folded
laundry back.
Now it seems as though I'm doing laundry all the time, and I don't get
anything else done on laundry day.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Howard Brazee
Feb 23, 2012, 10:57:54 PM2/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:21:02 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>I used to stuff mine into a bag that was custom-made for my bicycle,
>ride to the laundromat, fill up half a dozen machines, and get two
>weeks of laundry done in an hour or two.
>
>I washed the bag too, so that I could use it to bring the folded
>laundry back.
>
>Now it seems as though I'm doing laundry all the time, and I don't get
>anything else done on laundry day.
I do one load per day, never have a laundry day, and never have to
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>I used to stuff mine into a bag that was custom-made for my bicycle,
>ride to the laundromat, fill up half a dozen machines, and get two
>weeks of laundry done in an hour or two.
>
>I washed the bag too, so that I could use it to bring the folded
>laundry back.
>
>Now it seems as though I'm doing laundry all the time, and I don't get
>anything else done on laundry day.
wear dirty clothes. We don't have an iron though. When we had kids
the loads were bigger. Previous generations wore the same clothes
for a lot longer between washes. It takes about 5 minutes per day.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 24, 2012, 12:08:32 AM2/24/12
to
Robert Carnegie
Feb 24, 2012, 3:23:09 AM2/24/12
to
spills, one less bulky box in your kitchen, economy of scale, and,
however they achieve this, faster. Of course it is convenient to be
able to do machine-washing at home late at night... but also, back in
the day, laundry is women's work and you don't want to have women
going out of the house. I think that's a big part of the home washing-
machine story.
I grudge, because I've had more than one home flood due to washing-
machines, and because currently I'm using a laundrette four miles
away. I believe there would be one nearer if my neighbours didn't all
have washing-machines. Or they'd have them in workplaces.
David DeLaney
Feb 24, 2012, 6:11:54 AM2/24/12
to
see, THERE'S your problem!
Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Howard Brazee
Feb 24, 2012, 11:18:44 AM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:23:09 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>You can use a laundry pick-up service or a laundrette. No noise, no
>spills, one less bulky box in your kitchen, economy of scale, and,
>however they achieve this, faster. Of course it is convenient to be
>able to do machine-washing at home late at night... but also, back in
>the day, laundry is women's work and you don't want to have women
>going out of the house. I think that's a big part of the home washing-
>machine story.
Some students at Iowa State University had worked for their Dad's
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>You can use a laundry pick-up service or a laundrette. No noise, no
>spills, one less bulky box in your kitchen, economy of scale, and,
>however they achieve this, faster. Of course it is convenient to be
>able to do machine-washing at home late at night... but also, back in
>the day, laundry is women's work and you don't want to have women
>going out of the house. I think that's a big part of the home washing-
>machine story.
laundromat while in high school. They created the Suds & Duds
franchise (lamently after I attended that school), that sold beer
while your clothes were washing.
In my condo, the washer & dryer are in the basement next to my
computer. My wife's computer is on the 2nd floor next to our
bedroom, so I take clothes down and wash & dry them while on my
computer, and return them to the bed, where my wife puts them away.
Not much work at all, if I do it pretty close to daily.
Robert Carnegie
Feb 24, 2012, 11:45:31 AM2/24/12
to
On Feb 24, 4:18 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:23:09 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:23:09 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >You can use a laundry pick-up service or a laundrette. No noise, no
> >spills, one less bulky box in your kitchen, economy of scale, and,
> >however they achieve this, faster. Of course it is convenient to be
> >able to do machine-washing at home late at night... but also, back in
> >the day, laundry is women's work and you don't want to have women
> >going out of the house. I think that's a big part of the home washing-
> >machine story.
>
> Some students at Iowa State University had worked for their Dad's
> laundromat while in high school. They created the Suds & Duds
> franchise (lamently after I attended that school), that sold beer
> while your clothes were washing.
>
> In my condo, the washer & dryer are in the basement next to my
> computer. My wife's computer is on the 2nd floor next to our
> bedroom, so I take clothes down and wash & dry them while on my
> computer, and return them to the bed, where my wife puts them away.
> Not much work at all, if I do it pretty close to daily.
You seem to be describing an equivalence of "beer" (back in the day) =
> >You can use a laundry pick-up service or a laundrette. No noise, no
> >spills, one less bulky box in your kitchen, economy of scale, and,
> >however they achieve this, faster. Of course it is convenient to be
> >able to do machine-washing at home late at night... but also, back in
> >the day, laundry is women's work and you don't want to have women
> >going out of the house. I think that's a big part of the home washing-
> >machine story.
>
> Some students at Iowa State University had worked for their Dad's
> laundromat while in high school. They created the Suds & Duds
> franchise (lamently after I attended that school), that sold beer
> while your clothes were washing.
>
> In my condo, the washer & dryer are in the basement next to my
> computer. My wife's computer is on the 2nd floor next to our
> bedroom, so I take clothes down and wash & dry them while on my
> computer, and return them to the bed, where my wife puts them away.
> Not much work at all, if I do it pretty close to daily.
"computer" (now).
You also seem to have forgotten to put any of the clothes on after
washing them, but I won't judge. :-)
(There was this Levi jeans advert - )
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 24, 2012, 12:10:40 PM2/24/12
to
On 2/24/12 6:11 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> Shawn Wilson<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am a Libertarian and a highly trained economist.
>
> see, THERE'S your problem!
>
> Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
> Shawn Wilson<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am a Libertarian and a highly trained economist.
>
> see, THERE'S your problem!
>
> Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 24, 2012, 12:12:44 PM2/24/12
to
remember, so over 40 years. I NEVER recall a flood from one of them.
(and we generally put them in the basement anyway, where flooding is
least likely of a concern).
My DISHWASHER has flooded us on occasion. But then, so do kids taking a
bath in the tub.
Bill Snyder
Feb 24, 2012, 12:39:18 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:10:40 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 2/24/12 6:11 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am a Libertarian and a highly trained economist.
>>
>> see, THERE'S your problem!
>>
>> Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
>
> Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
>economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
Now, now. There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 2/24/12 6:11 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am a Libertarian and a highly trained economist.
>>
>> see, THERE'S your problem!
>>
>> Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
>
> Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
>economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
Richard R. Hershberger
Feb 24, 2012, 12:57:26 PM2/24/12
to
On Feb 24, 12:39 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:10:40 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
> >> Shawn Wilson<ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:10:40 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
> >>> I am a Libertarian and a highly trained economist.
>
> >> see, THERE'S your problem!
>
> >> Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
>
> > Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
> >economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>
> Now, now. There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
Because his training is objectively incomplete, when compared with
>
> >> see, THERE'S your problem!
>
> >> Dave "that's why it's making these funny noises" DeLaney
>
> > Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
> >economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>
> Now, now. There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
people who actually finished their degrees. Or does that make those
people super-dooper trained?
Brian M. Scott
Feb 24, 2012, 7:11:51 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:57:26 -0800 (PST), "Richard R.
Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in
<news:7a7eb664-34a1-43b3...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
Or does it make him pooper-scooper trained?
Brian
Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in
<news:7a7eb664-34a1-43b3...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
Brian
Greg Goss
Feb 24, 2012, 8:19:28 PM2/24/12
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> I grudge, because I've had more than one home flood due to washing-
>> machines, and because currently I'm using a laundrette four miles
>> away.
>
> My family's been using washing machines for ... well, as long as I can
>remember, so over 40 years. I NEVER recall a flood from one of them.
>(and we generally put them in the basement anyway, where flooding is
>least likely of a concern).
>
> My DISHWASHER has flooded us on occasion. But then, so do kids taking a
>bath in the tub.
We moved a bunch of times in 2003-2005 (move to a city, then a move
>> I grudge, because I've had more than one home flood due to washing-
>> machines, and because currently I'm using a laundrette four miles
>> away.
>
> My family's been using washing machines for ... well, as long as I can
>remember, so over 40 years. I NEVER recall a flood from one of them.
>(and we generally put them in the basement anyway, where flooding is
>least likely of a concern).
>
> My DISHWASHER has flooded us on occasion. But then, so do kids taking a
>bath in the tub.
within the city to a "permanent" home, times three, plus one. three
temp homes, four "perm".)
One of our design goals when looking for a townhouse was a laundry
room on the bedrooms floor. Of the four "permanent" homes, one had
the laundry in the basement, two had it in the pantry off the kitchen,
and one had it on the bedrooms level. If my first wife had survived,
we would have had the plumbing and wiring installed to put a stacking
pair in the walk-in closet in my current home. In the house where I
lived in the eighties, I installed the plumbing and wiring for an
under-counter pair in the entry hall off the kitchen on the bedroom
level.
Carrying laundry down two flights then back up again seems like a
waste of effort.
I've never had a leak from a clothes washing machine, either in all my
years on my own, or in the family home where I grew up. I've had two
one-shot leaks from dishwashers. One when I added liquid dish soap to
the dishwasher "to see what happens" (I have no idea how my parents
remained sane), and once when the renovations were completed at a
house where we were moving in -- the latter one had dried-out seals
and the second load was fine.
Shawn Wilson
Feb 25, 2012, 12:44:24 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 24, 10:57 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com>
wrote:
> > > Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
> > >economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>
> > Now, now. There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>
> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
dissertation.
wrote:
> > > Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking he was an
> > >economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>
> > Now, now. There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>
> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
dissertation.
Mark Zenier
Feb 24, 2012, 1:42:20 PM2/24/12
to
In article <07ebe920-8ed6-4b2a...@pi3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>American phenomenom and everyone else simply scrapes leftovers into
>the bin.
Modern America's way of making sure it's the nicer neighborhoods that
have the most sewer rats...
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>I found this quote interesting, where she's lamenting the lack of mod-
>cons in the houses:
>
>"there were no garbage disposals (instead you use a fine mesh bag
>inserted into a small bucket-sieve in the sink)"
>
>I found this quote interesting, where she's lamenting the lack of mod-
>cons in the houses:
>
>"there were no garbage disposals (instead you use a fine mesh bag
>inserted into a small bucket-sieve in the sink)"
>
>I've travelled many places in the world and I don't think I've ever
>even SEEN a garbage disposal. I'd guess they're purely a North
>American phenomenom and everyone else simply scrapes leftovers into
>the bin.
Modern America's way of making sure it's the nicer neighborhoods that
have the most sewer rats...
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Scott Lurndal
Feb 26, 2012, 4:02:41 PM2/26/12
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Feb 24, 10:57=A0am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > > =A0 =A0Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking =
of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>On Feb 24, 10:57=A0am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > > =A0 =A0Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking =
>he was an
>> > >economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>>
>> > Now, now. =A0There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>> > >economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>>
>>
>> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
>
>
>
>Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>dissertation.
>
Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
>
>
>
>Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>dissertation.
>
of training. All prior is simply preparation.
JRStern
Feb 26, 2012, 5:54:23 PM2/26/12
to
On 26 Feb 2012 21:02:41 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>>Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>>dissertation.
>
>Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>of training. All prior is simply preparation.
When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you will have learned.
J.
wrote:
>>Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>>dissertation.
>
>Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>of training. All prior is simply preparation.
J.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 27, 2012, 11:14:53 AM2/27/12
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:
> Carrying laundry down two flights then back up again seems like a
> waste of effort.
I've never lived anywhere with the laundry facilities closer than that
> Carrying laundry down two flights then back up again seems like a
> waste of effort.
(sometimes they were farther). The way I see it, laundry is a small
enough part of what's done in a home that using valuable main-level
space for it is a waste of resources.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 27, 2012, 11:15:49 AM2/27/12
to
got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
idea how he did in the training.
Howard Brazee
Feb 27, 2012, 12:26:30 PM2/27/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:19:28 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Carrying laundry down two flights then back up again seems like a
>waste of effort.
If I were designing my own home, the laundry room would be next to the
>Carrying laundry down two flights then back up again seems like a
>waste of effort.
bedrooms. But then I wouldn't have stairs at all.
That said, my computer is in the basement of our condo, and our
bedroom is on the 2nd floor. Every day I take a load of laundry down
and listen to the washer and dryer as I am on my computer. My wife
has a hard time with stairs, and her computer is in the room next to
our bedroom. I take the clean clothes up and put it on the bed where
she puts them away. Neither of us spends 5 minutes a day to stay
caught up.
DougL
Feb 27, 2012, 1:03:51 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 10:15 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
I have no idea if Shawn passed the qualifying exam. The disertation
defense is the test that your can present your results in an
understandable way.
If you're a researcher then you haven't accomplished anything
particularly worthwhile till you TELL SOMEONE about it. The defense is
both training in presentation and the exam to show that you can
explain your results to people who aren't neccessarily specialists
working with you in your field.
I was clearly told that my disertation defense should be aimed at the
laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
theorists.
I was showing the committee that I could explain things to people, far
more than I was showing that I knew my stuff.
I had half a dozen conference papers presented prior to my defense,
and that was strongly expected. The purpose of having me present at
those conferences was to check that I could present to specialists;
and the purpose of the defense was to show that I could present my
research results in a way that made them understandable to non-
specialists. The occassional talk I've presented since has been fairly
low stress, which was part of the point.
Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> > Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
> > of training. All prior is simply preparation.
> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
> idea how he did in the training.
Qualifying exam is the final exam to assure that you know your stuff.
> > Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
> > of training. All prior is simply preparation.
> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
> idea how he did in the training.
I have no idea if Shawn passed the qualifying exam. The disertation
defense is the test that your can present your results in an
understandable way.
If you're a researcher then you haven't accomplished anything
particularly worthwhile till you TELL SOMEONE about it. The defense is
both training in presentation and the exam to show that you can
explain your results to people who aren't neccessarily specialists
working with you in your field.
I was clearly told that my disertation defense should be aimed at the
laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
theorists.
I was showing the committee that I could explain things to people, far
more than I was showing that I knew my stuff.
I had half a dozen conference papers presented prior to my defense,
and that was strongly expected. The purpose of having me present at
those conferences was to check that I could present to specialists;
and the purpose of the defense was to show that I could present my
research results in a way that made them understandable to non-
specialists. The occassional talk I've presented since has been fairly
low stress, which was part of the point.
Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 27, 2012, 1:14:56 PM2/27/12
to
DougL <lamper...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Feb 27, 10:15 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> > Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>> > of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>
>> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
>> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
>> idea how he did in the training.
>
> Qualifying exam is the final exam to assure that you know your stuff.
> I have no idea if Shawn passed the qualifying exam. The disertation
> defense is the test that your can present your results in an
> understandable way.
It's also the chance for somebody beyond his thesis advisor to weigh in
> On Feb 27, 10:15 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> > Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>> > of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>
>> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
>> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
>> idea how he did in the training.
>
> Qualifying exam is the final exam to assure that you know your stuff.
> I have no idea if Shawn passed the qualifying exam. The disertation
> defense is the test that your can present your results in an
> understandable way.
on the quality of the work.
> If you're a researcher then you haven't accomplished anything
> particularly worthwhile till you TELL SOMEONE about it. The defense is
> both training in presentation and the exam to show that you can
> explain your results to people who aren't neccessarily specialists
> working with you in your field.
>
> I was clearly told that my disertation defense should be aimed at the
> laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
> members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
> theorists.
>
> I was showing the committee that I could explain things to people, far
> more than I was showing that I knew my stuff.
>
> I had half a dozen conference papers presented prior to my defense,
> and that was strongly expected. The purpose of having me present at
> those conferences was to check that I could present to specialists;
> and the purpose of the defense was to show that I could present my
> research results in a way that made them understandable to non-
> specialists. The occassional talk I've presented since has been fairly
> low stress, which was part of the point.
>
> Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
> non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
> group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
training in a skill.
DougL
Feb 27, 2012, 1:32:32 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 12:14 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
the ONLY training we give most Ph.D. candidates in that skill is the
disertation defense and the preparation for the defense. And of those
the actual defense is at least as important as the preparation.
There's often no better training available in something than doing it.
I think this is definitely true for public speaking and presentations.
Someone who didn't do the disertation and the defense is entirely
missing this training and practice.
DougL
> DougL <lampert.d...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
> > non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
> > group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
>
> Still, it's not training, it's a test; a demonstration of skill, not
> training in a skill.
I disagree. Explaining your work to non-specialists is a skill. And
> > Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
> > non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
> > group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
>
> Still, it's not training, it's a test; a demonstration of skill, not
> training in a skill.
the ONLY training we give most Ph.D. candidates in that skill is the
disertation defense and the preparation for the defense. And of those
the actual defense is at least as important as the preparation.
There's often no better training available in something than doing it.
I think this is definitely true for public speaking and presentations.
Someone who didn't do the disertation and the defense is entirely
missing this training and practice.
DougL
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 27, 2012, 1:53:53 PM2/27/12
to
DougL <lamper...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Feb 27, 12:14 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> DougL <lampert.d...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
>> > non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
>> > group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
>>
>> Still, it's not training, it's a test; a demonstration of skill, not
>> training in a skill.
>
> I disagree.
Your right, as always
> On Feb 27, 12:14 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> DougL <lampert.d...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > Without a defense Shawn is missing some of the training in talking to
>> > non-specialists, which may in fact be a part of his problems on this
>> > group. Or maybe not, I don't pay that much attention to his posts.
>>
>> Still, it's not training, it's a test; a demonstration of skill, not
>> training in a skill.
>
> I disagree.
> Explaining your work to non-specialists is a skill.
> And the ONLY training we give most Ph.D. candidates in that skill is
> the disertation defense and the preparation for the defense. And of
> those the actual defense is at least as important as the preparation.
> There's often no better training available in something than doing it.
> I think this is definitely true for public speaking and presentations.
>
> Someone who didn't do the disertation and the defense is entirely
> missing this training and practice.
Thomas Womack
Feb 27, 2012, 2:24:20 PM2/27/12
to
In article <c25b4828-db02-46a6...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
math PhD defence was four hours in a room with three people, one of
whom was an expert in the precise bit of number theory I was working
on and two of whom were experts in adjacent fields. Never did I have
to talk to the general public!
Tom
DougL <lamper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was clearly told that my disertation defense should be aimed at the
>laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
>members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
>theorists.
Ah, this is a completely different culture from the British one; my
>I was clearly told that my disertation defense should be aimed at the
>laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
>members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
>theorists.
math PhD defence was four hours in a room with three people, one of
whom was an expert in the precise bit of number theory I was working
on and two of whom were experts in adjacent fields. Never did I have
to talk to the general public!
Tom
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 27, 2012, 2:52:39 PM2/27/12
to
served on two dissertation committees). The candidate is certainly
ENCOURAGED to make their dissertation as clear as possible to an
educated layperson (such as myself) but they will be asked hard,
to-the-point questions by experts in the field, who are familiar with
the area of research, and they must answer those questions very well.
DougL
Feb 27, 2012, 4:11:54 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 1:52 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > In article<c25b4828-db02-46a6-a91d-22a57c075...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> > DougL<lampert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
was still a cake-walk compared to the Q&A after the conference papers,
or compared to the qualifying exam, or compared to the orals for the
qualifying exam, or compared to doing the research itself.
A conference paper presentation has far more knowledgable experts in
the room than you can plausibly get togather for a committee.
I actually flubbed one of the questions on my defense; said "I don't
know, I'd need to think about that" to something that should have been
obvious, and no one bothered to call me on it. At least two of the
people on the committee caught that it should have been obvious, and
didn't think missing it under pressure during a presentation mattered
at all. That didn't happen on the oral quals!
DougL
> > In article<c25b4828-db02-46a6-a91d-22a57c075...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> > DougL<lampert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I was clearly told that my disertation defense should be aimed at the
> >> laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
> >> members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
> >> theorists.
>
> > Ah, this is a completely different culture from the British one; my
> > math PhD defence was four hours in a room with three people, one of
> > whom was an expert in the precise bit of number theory I was working
> > on and two of whom were experts in adjacent fields. Never did I have
> > to talk to the general public!
>
> It's a different culture from the American one I'm familiar on (I've
> served on two dissertation committees). The candidate is certainly
> ENCOURAGED to make their dissertation as clear as possible to an
> educated layperson (such as myself) but they will be asked hard,
> to-the-point questions by experts in the field, who are familiar with
> the area of research, and they must answer those questions very well.
Oh, sure, there was a cross-examination after my presentation, but it
> >> laymen like my friends and family in the audience, and the committee
> >> members who weren't graph theorists, not aimed at other graph
> >> theorists.
>
> > Ah, this is a completely different culture from the British one; my
> > math PhD defence was four hours in a room with three people, one of
> > whom was an expert in the precise bit of number theory I was working
> > on and two of whom were experts in adjacent fields. Never did I have
> > to talk to the general public!
>
> It's a different culture from the American one I'm familiar on (I've
> served on two dissertation committees). The candidate is certainly
> ENCOURAGED to make their dissertation as clear as possible to an
> educated layperson (such as myself) but they will be asked hard,
> to-the-point questions by experts in the field, who are familiar with
> the area of research, and they must answer those questions very well.
was still a cake-walk compared to the Q&A after the conference papers,
or compared to the qualifying exam, or compared to the orals for the
qualifying exam, or compared to doing the research itself.
A conference paper presentation has far more knowledgable experts in
the room than you can plausibly get togather for a committee.
I actually flubbed one of the questions on my defense; said "I don't
know, I'd need to think about that" to something that should have been
obvious, and no one bothered to call me on it. At least two of the
people on the committee caught that it should have been obvious, and
didn't think missing it under pressure during a presentation mattered
at all. That didn't happen on the oral quals!
DougL
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 27, 2012, 4:17:02 PM2/27/12
to
off the hook on such things. It was fairly brutal, actually, and while
he EVENTUALLY got a pass he had to do some extensive reworking of the thesis
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 27, 2012, 4:32:02 PM2/27/12
to
wrong!
Erik Max Francis
Feb 27, 2012, 5:38:43 PM2/27/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Feb 24, 10:57=A0am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking =
>>> he was an
>>>>>> economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>>>>> Now, now. =A0There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>>>> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
>>>
>>> Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>>> dissertation.
>>>
>> Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>> of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>
> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
> idea how he did in the training.
Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Feb 24, 10:57=A0am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking =
>>> he was an
>>>>>> economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>>>>> Now, now. =A0There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>>>> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
>>>
>>> Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>>> dissertation.
>>>
>> Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>> of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>
> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
> idea how he did in the training.
is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
quality as qualifications, which is where the subject is now. (And
let's put aside the question of whether or not he's even being remotely
truthful about what he claims to have almost done; I wouldn't know one
way or another, but he's basically claiming something that's publicly
unverifiable.) The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he just
says things that are laughably wrong. It doesn't take training, or a
dissertation, or a Congressional Medal of Who-gives-a-shit, to tell
that. Nitpicking about what technically qualifies as training or a
degree is entirely beside the point.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
I will always remember / This moment
-- Sade
David DeLaney
Feb 28, 2012, 1:34:55 AM2/28/12
to
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
>is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
>quality as qualifications, which is where the subject is now. (And
>let's put aside the question of whether or not he's even being remotely
>truthful about what he claims to have almost done; I wouldn't know one
>way or another, but he's basically claiming something that's publicly
>unverifiable.) The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
Oh, be nice: he's a generalist, stating such "facts" in many different
>Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
>is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
>quality as qualifications, which is where the subject is now. (And
>let's put aside the question of whether or not he's even being remotely
>truthful about what he claims to have almost done; I wouldn't know one
>way or another, but he's basically claiming something that's publicly
>unverifiable.) The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
fields of knowledge! He just only claims to be an expert in economics.
>Nitpicking about what technically qualifies as training or a
>degree is entirely beside the point.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Bill Snyder
Feb 28, 2012, 2:31:41 AM2/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:34:55 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:
>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>>Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
>>is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
>>quality as qualifications, which is where the subject is now. (And
>>let's put aside the question of whether or not he's even being remotely
>>truthful about what he claims to have almost done; I wouldn't know one
>>way or another, but he's basically claiming something that's publicly
>>unverifiable.) The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>>states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>>introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>>rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>>in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
>Oh, be nice: he's a generalist, stating such "facts" in many different
>fields of knowledge! He just only claims to be an expert in economics.
Yes, but he has a much more . . . err, "interesting" grade of
DeLaney) wrote:
>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>>Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
>>is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
>>quality as qualifications, which is where the subject is now. (And
>>let's put aside the question of whether or not he's even being remotely
>>truthful about what he claims to have almost done; I wouldn't know one
>>way or another, but he's basically claiming something that's publicly
>>unverifiable.) The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>>states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>>introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>>rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>>in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
>Oh, be nice: he's a generalist, stating such "facts" in many different
>fields of knowledge! He just only claims to be an expert in economics.
facts than you get from all those tedious people who waste their
time making actual observations.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 28, 2012, 10:14:04 AM2/28/12
to
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he
> just says things that are laughably wrong. It doesn't take training,
> or a dissertation, or a Congressional Medal of Who-gives-a-shit, to
> tell that. Nitpicking about what technically qualifies as training or
> a degree is entirely beside the point.
The problem with that is that people with extensive publications in
> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he
> just says things that are laughably wrong. It doesn't take training,
> or a dissertation, or a Congressional Medal of Who-gives-a-shit, to
> tell that. Nitpicking about what technically qualifies as training or
> a degree is entirely beside the point.
peer-reviewed Economics journals often think that about each other's
articles. Thus, it can't be used to show that somebody is ignorant.
Richard R. Hershberger
Feb 28, 2012, 11:59:50 AM2/28/12
to
On Feb 27, 5:38 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
poking at an anthill with a stick. Were I a better person, I would
have resisted the temptation. The thing is, Shawn has a history of
explicitly claiming that economics is so difficult that formal
academic qualifications are absolutely necessary to speak on the
subject. This was contrasted with, for example, Albert Einstein, who
merely dabbled in trivially easy stuff like physics: not a
mathematically rigorous discipline like economics. Hence the
hilarious argument he had with David Friedman, where he dismissed
Friedman on the grounds of comparing who had spent more time sitting
in classrooms listening to econ lectures. (This required ignoring the
time Friedman had spent standing in classrooms giving econ lectures.)
So when I saw Shawn inflating his formal qualifications, I could not
help myself.
Richard R. Hershberger
Michael Stemper
Feb 28, 2012, 12:46:36 PM2/28/12
to
In article <jeednX9twrRpmNHS...@giganews.com>, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Feb 24, 10:57=A0am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> =A0 =A0Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking =
>>>> he was an
>>>>>>> economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>>>>>> Now, now. =A0There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>>>>> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>>>> dissertation.
>>>>
>>> Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>>> of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>>
>> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
>> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
>> idea how he did in the training.
>
>Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
>is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Feb 24, 10:57=A0am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> =A0 =A0Jeez. He wasn't satisfied with deluding himself into thinking =
>>>> he was an
>>>>>>> economist, now he has to be a "highly trained" economist.
>>>>>> Now, now. =A0There are "highly trained" dogs, so why not Shawn?
>>>>> Because his training is objectively incomplete,
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me? My TRAINING is complete. I just never did a
>>>> dissertation.
>>>>
>>> Many consider the defense of a dissertation to be the completion
>>> of training. All prior is simply preparation.
>>
>> It's the final exam, but I don't see it as training at all. So, he's
>> got the training, but since he hasn't taken the final exam, we have no
>> idea how he did in the training.
>
>Precise qualifications or whether he actually did a dissertation or not
>is not really relevant -- never mind what people consider actually
>states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
>introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
But, it's the way to bet.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.
Shawn Wilson
Feb 28, 2012, 1:23:47 PM2/28/12
to
On Feb 27, 3:38 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
Excuse me? Name ONE such. If you like I can go into quite extensive
> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
mathematical detail about whys and wherefores. That YOU disagree with
somethign is neither here nor there. That somethign is printed in a
textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he just
> says things that are laughably wrong.
Shawn Wilson
Feb 28, 2012, 1:30:05 PM2/28/12
to
On Feb 28, 9:59 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
> Hence the
> hilarious argument he had with David Friedman, where he dismissed
> Friedman on the grounds of comparing who had spent more time sitting
> in classrooms listening to econ lectures.
Excuse me, but David was stating things which were explicitly
> Hence the
> hilarious argument he had with David Friedman, where he dismissed
> Friedman on the grounds of comparing who had spent more time sitting
> in classrooms listening to econ lectures.
incorrect and supporting his position with his supposed
qualifications, when he actually has ZERO training in economics. (he
has a PhD, in Physics...)
Specifically he was misapplying undergrad microeconomic concepts to
the macro effects of a minimum wage, and I corrected him. He was
offensive in his manner, so I wasn't polite.
> (This required ignoring the
> time Friedman had spent standing in classrooms giving econ lectures.)
genetically. He was dead wrong. He DID NOT UNDERSTAND what he was
talking about.
David DeLaney
Feb 28, 2012, 2:31:57 PM2/28/12
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
>Excuse me? Name ONE such. If you like I can go into quite extensive
>mathematical detail about whys and wherefores. That YOU disagree with
>somethign is neither here nor there. That somethign is printed in a
>textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
...EVERY previous time you've tried to defend some economic point that someone
>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
>Excuse me? Name ONE such. If you like I can go into quite extensive
>mathematical detail about whys and wherefores. That YOU disagree with
>somethign is neither here nor there. That somethign is printed in a
>textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
else has called you on,
a) you dig yourself in deeper with stuff that is obviously not right to even
the casual observer, let alone an actual economist
b) your extensive mathematical detail is about the level of algebra
and
c) you have proved totally incapable of even SEEING where your mistakes are,
much less recognizing or correcting them, and it gets rather boring after a
while to watch you insisting that you're right while completely ignoring all
those pointing out helpfully where you're wrong.
>> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he just
>> says things that are laughably wrong.
>
>Ok, I call bullshit on you.
get into are just painful to watch, and lose the laughable quality maybe three
or four exchanges in.
Shawn Wilson
Feb 28, 2012, 2:46:11 PM2/28/12
to
On Feb 28, 12:31 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
> >> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
> >> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
> >> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
> >Excuse me? Name ONE such. If you like I can go into quite extensive
> >mathematical detail about whys and wherefores. That YOU disagree with
> >somethign is neither here nor there. That somethign is printed in a
> >textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
>
> ...EVERY previous time you've tried to defend some economic point that someone
> else has called you on,
> a) you dig yourself in deeper with stuff that is obviously not right to even
> the casual observer, let alone an actual economist
> b) your extensive mathematical detail is about the level of algebra
> and
> c) you have proved totally incapable of even SEEING where your mistakes are,
> much less recognizing or correcting them, and it gets rather boring after a
> while to watch you insisting that you're right while completely ignoring all
> those pointing out helpfully where you're wrong.
As I said- BULLSHIT. Cite an example and I will go into excruciating
> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
> >> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
> >> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
> >> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
> >Excuse me? Name ONE such. If you like I can go into quite extensive
> >mathematical detail about whys and wherefores. That YOU disagree with
> >somethign is neither here nor there. That somethign is printed in a
> >textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
>
> ...EVERY previous time you've tried to defend some economic point that someone
> else has called you on,
> a) you dig yourself in deeper with stuff that is obviously not right to even
> the casual observer, let alone an actual economist
> b) your extensive mathematical detail is about the level of algebra
> and
> c) you have proved totally incapable of even SEEING where your mistakes are,
> much less recognizing or correcting them, and it gets rather boring after a
> while to watch you insisting that you're right while completely ignoring all
> those pointing out helpfully where you're wrong.
detail about whys and wherefores. I will choke you with the details.
You will of course utterly gnore them as you won't understand any of
it, but your ignorance is not my problem.
And, really, look at what you are saying. Do you really think YOU
have a magical ability to see 'truth' about economic matters? Based
on what? You aren't smart and you have no education in the field.
Intuition is not a substitute for rational thought. It turns out the
Earth is NOT flat, and man IS descended from apes, intuition
notwithstanding.
Oh, and think carefully before you start. We aren't arguing over MY
ideas. I am not a loon like Robert Vienneau. An education is the
process of learning OTHER people's ideas. Nobel prize winning
grandmasters in the field and the like.
> >> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he just
> >> says things that are laughably wrong.
>
> >Ok, I call bullshit on you.
>
> Oh, they're wrong, and they're laughable, but the extended 'defenses' you
> get into are just painful to watch, and lose the laughable quality maybe three
> or four exchanges in.
shut up. All those previous discussions demonstrated was your utter
inability to even understand, let alone engage with, reasoning through
economic processes.
Brian M. Scott
Feb 28, 2012, 6:05:12 PM2/28/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:52:39 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:jigmu7$m3r$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
Mine was dead easy. The point-set topologists had read the
dissertation and were apparently happy with it, the outsider
wanted a quick intelligent layman's version, and someone
asked me what I planned in the way of further research in
that direction. It was over and done with in under an hour,
including their brief deliberation behind closed doors, and
Mary Ellen and I went off for pizza.
My view is that if the adviser has done a proper job, the
defense should be largely a formality. It's the
dissertation that's important, not the defense.
Brian
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:jigmu7$m3r$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
dissertation and were apparently happy with it, the outsider
wanted a quick intelligent layman's version, and someone
asked me what I planned in the way of further research in
that direction. It was over and done with in under an hour,
including their brief deliberation behind closed doors, and
Mary Ellen and I went off for pizza.
My view is that if the adviser has done a proper job, the
defense should be largely a formality. It's the
dissertation that's important, not the defense.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Feb 28, 2012, 8:22:24 PM2/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:30:05 -0800 (PST), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:db38b536-6e72-4154...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> (This required ignoring the time Friedman had spent
>> standing in classrooms giving econ lectures.)
> Yes, he has a famous father, but knowledge is not
> transmitted genetically.
Non sequitur. Richard is talking about the time that DAVID
has spent teaching economics.
> He was dead wrong. [...]
It's quite possible; in my opinion he's wrong about a lot of
things, and his intellectual arrogance may even exceed
yours. But unlike you, he isn't pathetic.
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:db38b536-6e72-4154...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> (This required ignoring the time Friedman had spent
>> standing in classrooms giving econ lectures.)
> Yes, he has a famous father, but knowledge is not
> transmitted genetically.
has spent teaching economics.
> He was dead wrong. [...]
It's quite possible; in my opinion he's wrong about a lot of
things, and his intellectual arrogance may even exceed
yours. But unlike you, he isn't pathetic.
David Goldfarb
Feb 28, 2012, 11:19:33 PM2/28/12
to
In article <gjy2iyukfy2j.o7sadz2r3sfx$.d...@40tude.net>,
a Ph.D. a couple of years ago) apparently doesn't even have their
candidates do oral defenses at all. They just need to get the
committee to sign off on the dissertation, and that's that.
(The office where you turn it in gives out lollipops with a little
sign on them saying "Ph.inisheD".)
--
David Goldfarb |"Obviously proud of knowing a word I didn't know,
goldf...@gmail.com |Horace carefully repeated, 'Meretricious!'.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |Whereupon I replied, 'And a happy new year to you.'"
| -- Isaac Asimov
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>My view is that if the adviser has done a proper job, the
>defense should be largely a formality. It's the
>dissertation that's important, not the defense.
The physics department at UC Berkeley (from which my wife received
>My view is that if the adviser has done a proper job, the
>defense should be largely a formality. It's the
>dissertation that's important, not the defense.
a Ph.D. a couple of years ago) apparently doesn't even have their
candidates do oral defenses at all. They just need to get the
committee to sign off on the dissertation, and that's that.
(The office where you turn it in gives out lollipops with a little
sign on them saying "Ph.inisheD".)
--
David Goldfarb |"Obviously proud of knowing a word I didn't know,
goldf...@gmail.com |Horace carefully repeated, 'Meretricious!'.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |Whereupon I replied, 'And a happy new year to you.'"
| -- Isaac Asimov
Brian M. Scott
Feb 29, 2012, 2:25:16 AM2/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 04:19:33 GMT, David Goldfarb
<gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote in
<news:M0500...@kithrup.com> in
rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <gjy2iyukfy2j.o7sadz2r3sfx$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>My view is that if the adviser has done a proper job, the
>>defense should be largely a formality. It's the
>>dissertation that's important, not the defense.
> The physics department at UC Berkeley (from which my wife
> received a Ph.D. a couple of years ago) apparently
> doesn't even have their candidates do oral defenses at
> all. They just need to get the committee to sign off on
> the dissertation, and that's that.
> (The office where you turn it in gives out lollipops with
> a little sign on them saying "Ph.inisheD".)
I like that!
The biggest hassle with mine was making sure that the
formatting was exactly to the library's specifications.
Fortunately, the person whom I paid to type it up was
familiar with the requirements.
Brian
<gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote in
<news:M0500...@kithrup.com> in
rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <gjy2iyukfy2j.o7sadz2r3sfx$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>My view is that if the adviser has done a proper job, the
>>defense should be largely a formality. It's the
>>dissertation that's important, not the defense.
> The physics department at UC Berkeley (from which my wife
> received a Ph.D. a couple of years ago) apparently
> doesn't even have their candidates do oral defenses at
> all. They just need to get the committee to sign off on
> the dissertation, and that's that.
> (The office where you turn it in gives out lollipops with
> a little sign on them saying "Ph.inisheD".)
The biggest hassle with mine was making sure that the
formatting was exactly to the library's specifications.
Fortunately, the person whom I paid to type it up was
familiar with the requirements.
Brian
Michael Stemper
Mar 2, 2012, 1:03:57 PM3/2/12
to
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Fruit flies like a banana.
Erik Max Francis
Mar 2, 2012, 4:40:38 PM3/2/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>
>> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he
>> just says things that are laughably wrong. It doesn't take training,
>> or a dissertation, or a Congressional Medal of Who-gives-a-shit, to
>> tell that. Nitpicking about what technically qualifies as training or
>> a degree is entirely beside the point.
>
> The problem with that is that people with extensive publications in
> peer-reviewed Economics journals often think that about each other's
> articles. Thus, it can't be used to show that somebody is ignorant.
Well, sure, and a squabble amongst astronomers, and all that. But you
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>
>> The issue isn't his political or economic philosophy; it's that he
>> just says things that are laughably wrong. It doesn't take training,
>> or a dissertation, or a Congressional Medal of Who-gives-a-shit, to
>> tell that. Nitpicking about what technically qualifies as training or
>> a degree is entirely beside the point.
>
> The problem with that is that people with extensive publications in
> peer-reviewed Economics journals often think that about each other's
> articles. Thus, it can't be used to show that somebody is ignorant.
clipped out the point where I was talking about _elementary topics_ in
any introductory textbook. Wilson doesn't even get that far before
blowing it completely -- and then being so intent on never backing down
(much less just dropping it) that he becomes more and more absurd as the
conversation goes no until, after he's made an utter fool of himself, he
finally retires from the thread. Only to start up again about some
other topic in short order.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
-- (a Latin proverb)
Erik Max Francis
Mar 2, 2012, 4:49:33 PM3/2/12
to
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:38 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
> Excuse me? Name ONE such.
Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
> On Feb 27, 3:38 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
>> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
>> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
>> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
> Excuse me? Name ONE such.
but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
win the long run? That was pretty funny.
Or the time that you emphasized that a person who got taken in by a
confidence trickster really was making a good economic decision, but
only for the time that he thought it was legitimate? Yes, that's right
kids, it's sound economic judgement as long as you remain ignorant of
the fact that you're being swindled.
Or, to pick a more mundane example, how about that time that you
insisted that the "official" (whatever that means) economic term for
something was determined by the equivalent of a Google Fight, rather
than restoring to, y'know, anything to do with any tools that one might
have gathered in the course of a technical education on any subject, let
alone economics?
And that's only the things to do (peripherally or not) with economics?
You've had much grander fuckups on a wider arrangement of topics that
have come up related to other technical subjects.
> If you like I can go into quite extensive
> mathematical detail about whys and wherefores.
things, an when called on it, continue to assert it more and more
ridiculously.
> That somethign is printed in a
> textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
just resort to appeals to self-authority. "Because I said so" is not a
very convincing argument when you're a blowhard and can't back it up
with anything more than repeating yourself.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2012, 12:11:33 PM3/3/12
to
On Mar 2, 2:40 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Well, sure, and a squabble amongst astronomers, and all that. But you
> clipped out the point where I was talking about _elementary topics_ in
> any introductory textbook.
And how naive of you, to ass-ume that because it is printed in an
> Well, sure, and a squabble amongst astronomers, and all that. But you
> clipped out the point where I was talking about _elementary topics_ in
> any introductory textbook.
elemantary textbook it is necessarily correct...
Wilson doesn't even get that far before
> blowing it completely -- and then being so intent on never backing down
> (much less just dropping it) that he becomes more and more absurd as the
> conversation goes no until, after he's made an utter fool of himself, he
> finally retires from the thread. Only to start up again about some
> other topic in short order.
Google Groups latest service outage is over so I can see and respond
again.
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2012, 12:25:09 PM3/3/12
to
On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
> >> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
> >> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
> >> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
> > Excuse me? Name ONE such.
>
> Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
> but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
>
> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in any
> >> introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen in
> >> rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about economics
> >> in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>
> > Excuse me? Name ONE such.
>
> Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
> but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
>
> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
statistics 101.
lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
> Or the time that you emphasized that a person who got taken in by a
> confidence trickster really was making a good economic decision, but
> only for the time that he thought it was legitimate?
retirement your entire life, and get hit by a bus the day before.
Were you making a bad economic decision? No. Same deal.
Once again YOU are wrong, and I am right.
> Yes, that's right
> kids, it's sound economic judgement as long as you remain ignorant of
> the fact that you're being swindled.
the world.
> Or, to pick a more mundane example, how about that time that you
> insisted that the "official" (whatever that means) economic term for
> something was determined by the equivalent of a Google Fight, rather
> than restoring to, y'know, anything to do with any tools that one might
> have gathered in the course of a technical education on any subject, let
> alone economics?
> And that's only the things to do (peripherally or not) with economics?
> You've had much grander fuckups on a wider arrangement of topics that
> have come up related to other technical subjects.
revealed truth. The problem is clearly you, not me.
> > If you like I can go into quite extensive
> > mathematical detail about whys and wherefores.
>
> Why do you never, ever do so, then?
it. You just stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'la-la-la-I-
can't-hear-you'. So I quit wasting the time (unless I am in a
particularly good mood). You are incapable of understanding it
anyway.
> You just assert ridiculously stupid
> things, an when called on it, continue to assert it more and more
> ridiculously.
make ME the ridiculous one...
> > That somethign is printed in a
> > textbook is irrelevant. if it's wrong it's wrong.
>
> And yet you never feel justified in pointing out _why_ it's wrong; you
> just resort to appeals to self-authority. "Because I said so" is not a
> very convincing argument when you're a blowhard and can't back it up
> with anything more than repeating yourself.
must resort to the sort of juvenile nonsense you CAN understand.
John F. Eldredge
Mar 3, 2012, 12:42:34 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:25:09 -0800, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in
>> >> any introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen
>> >> in rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about
>> >> economics in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>>
>> > Excuse me? Name ONE such.
>>
>> Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
>> but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
>>
>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>
>
> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
> statistics 101.
>
> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>
> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
> On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in
>> >> any introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen
>> >> in rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about
>> >> economics in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>>
>> > Excuse me? Name ONE such.
>>
>> Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
>> but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
>>
>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>
>
> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
> statistics 101.
>
> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>
> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Bill Snyder
Mar 3, 2012, 1:40:15 PM3/3/12
to
On 3 Mar 2012 17:42:34 GMT, "John F. Eldredge"
been in semester 2.
<jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:25:09 -0800, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>>> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in
>>> >> any introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen
>>> >> in rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about
>>> >> economics in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>>>
>>> > Excuse me? Name ONE such.
>>>
>>> Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
>>> but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
>>>
>>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
>>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>>
>>
>> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
>> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
>> statistics 101.
>>
>> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>>
>> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
>
>I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
>fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
>other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
>more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
He didn't get to the part on cost-benefit ratios; that would have
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:25:09 -0800, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> The simple fact is that he routinely and laughably
>>> >> states "economic facts" that are demonstrably false as indicated in
>>> >> any introductory economics textbook, at least insofar as we've seen
>>> >> in rec.arts.sf.science (maybe he's brilliantly insightful about
>>> >> economics in rec.arts.sf.written for all we know).
>>>
>>> > Excuse me? Name ONE such.
>>>
>>> Let's see. I've only been exposed to your ridiculousness on r.a.sf.s,
>>> but here's a couple of easy ones off the top of my head.
>>>
>>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
>>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>>
>>
>> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
>> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
>> statistics 101.
>>
>> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>>
>> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
>
>I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
>fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
>other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
>more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
been in semester 2.
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2012, 2:40:15 PM3/3/12
to
On Mar 3, 11:40 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
> >>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>
> >> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
> >> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
> >> statistics 101.
>
> >> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>
> >> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
>
> >I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
> >fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
> >other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
> >more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
>
> He didn't get to the part on cost-benefit ratios; that would have
> been in semester 2.
Look, fucktard, I said a specific thing, I answered a specific
> >>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
> >>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>
> >> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
> >> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
> >> statistics 101.
>
> >> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>
> >> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
>
> >I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
> >fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
> >other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
> >more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
>
> He didn't get to the part on cost-benefit ratios; that would have
> been in semester 2.
question. Now you are just bringing irrelevant shit up because I push
your inferiority complex buttons.
But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
will be greater than zero is 1. No matter how low the odds, non-zero
gets trumped all to hell by *infinity*.
You won't, you can't. This is DIFFERENT than the expected value,
which I have to explicitly point out because you are fucking
retarded. You can't same a random walk won't do something, because
the probability of it happening is not zero.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Mar 3, 2012, 4:09:04 PM3/3/12
to
In rec.arts.sf.written Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
> being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
> over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
> will be greater than zero is 1.
Well, you're wrong. After an infinite number of trials you're going to
> But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
> being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
> over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
> will be greater than zero is 1.
have won an infinite amount of money in prizes, but you will have
spent an infinite amount of money on lottery tickets. Your cost will
be greater than your winnings by a finite multiple.
> No matter how low the odds, non-zero
> gets trumped all to hell by *infinity*.
are the odds that you will be able to recoup your losses over the next
N tries. At the limit of infinity, your odds will be zero. At no point
will your odds be even.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2012, 5:58:37 PM3/3/12
to
On Mar 3, 2:09 pm, Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
> > But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
> > being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
> > over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
> > will be greater than zero is 1.
>
> Well, you're wrong. After an infinite number of trials you're going to
> have won an infinite amount of money in prizes, but you will have
> spent an infinite amount of money on lottery tickets. Your cost will
> be greater than your winnings by a finite multiple.
Sigh... You miss the point. The issue is not the 'end' of infinite
> > But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
> > being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
> > over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
> > will be greater than zero is 1.
>
> Well, you're wrong. After an infinite number of trials you're going to
> have won an infinite amount of money in prizes, but you will have
> spent an infinite amount of money on lottery tickets. Your cost will
> be greater than your winnings by a finite multiple.
trials. The issue is the path those infinite trials cover.
> > No matter how low the odds, non-zero
> > gets trumped all to hell by *infinity*.
>
> The further along towards infinite number of tries you are, the lower
> are the odds that you will be able to recoup your losses over the next
> N tries.
it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
eventually.
> At the limit of infinity, your odds will be zero.
Howard Brazee
Mar 3, 2012, 6:20:38 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:58:37 -0800 (PST), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
>it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
>eventually.
Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
>it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
>eventually.
And conditions change. There's a non-zero chance that a meteorite
will fall on your house. That doesn't mean that eventually a
meteorite will fall on your house.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Bill Snyder
Mar 3, 2012, 6:36:27 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 11:40:15 -0800 (PST), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 11:40 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> >>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
>> >>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>>
>> >> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
>> >> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
>> >> statistics 101.
>>
>> >> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>>
>> >> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
>>
>> >I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
>> >fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
>> >other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
>> >more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
>>
>> He didn't get to the part on cost-benefit ratios; that would have
>> been in semester 2.
>
>
>Look, fucktard, I said a specific thing, I answered a specific
>question. Now you are just bringing irrelevant shit up because I push
>your inferiority complex buttons.
>
>But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
>being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero.
We'll skip lightly by the fact that what you want me to prove is
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 11:40 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> >>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
>> >>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
>>
>> >> The probability of always losing goes to zero as the number of trials
>> >> goes to infinity, REGARDLESS of the (non-zero) odds. Probability and
>> >> statistics 101.
>>
>> >> lim n->infinity (1-p)^n, p>0 = 0 is a rather trivial calculus problem.
>>
>> >> YOU are dead wrong here. I am right, as always.
>>
>> >I think we are seeing a disagreement over the meaning of "win". In a
>> >fair lottery, if you play long enough, you will win some money. On the
>> >other hand, if you play long enough, you are also guaranteed to spend
>> >more money on lottery tickets than you will win back from the lottery.
>>
>> He didn't get to the part on cost-benefit ratios; that would have
>> been in semester 2.
>
>
>Look, fucktard, I said a specific thing, I answered a specific
>question. Now you are just bringing irrelevant shit up because I push
>your inferiority complex buttons.
>
>But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
>being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero.
something other than the negation of your claim. The burden of
proof is on you: *You're* the one who said that you *must* win if
you just played long enough. Feel free to prove your claim; or
feel free to shove it.
> It seems likely to me that
>over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
>will be greater than zero is 1. No matter how low the odds, non-zero
>gets trumped all to hell by *infinity*.
statement that starts out "it seems likely to me." Unless, of
course, "highly trained economist" math is very, very different
from the real article.
>You won't, you can't. This is DIFFERENT than the expected value,
>which I have to explicitly point out because you are fucking
>retarded. You can't same a random walk won't do something, because
>the probability of it happening is not zero.
of it happening is zero.
Erik Max Francis
Mar 3, 2012, 6:55:15 PM3/3/12
to
Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.written Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
>> being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
>> over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
>> will be greater than zero is 1.
>
> Well, you're wrong. After an infinite number of trials you're going to
> have won an infinite amount of money in prizes, but you will have
> spent an infinite amount of money on lottery tickets. Your cost will
> be greater than your winnings by a finite multiple.
What's hilarious here is not only did he continue on with the original
> In rec.arts.sf.written Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
>> being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero. It seems likely to me that
>> over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
>> will be greater than zero is 1.
>
> Well, you're wrong. After an infinite number of trials you're going to
> have won an infinite amount of money in prizes, but you will have
> spent an infinite amount of money on lottery tickets. Your cost will
> be greater than your winnings by a finite multiple.
error, but he upped the ante and made an even more blatant error, making
even his original _intent_ (which was already plenty misguided)
incorrect. Now he's not even understanding that the way the lottery
works is by collecting more money on net than it pays out, never mind
the fact that it collects _much_ more money than it pays out than it
pays to any random, regular player (even in the limit where they play
forever).
No one's mentioned the obvious problem with his claims that I
paraphrased -- before he even dug himself deeper, anyway. It's this:
Yes, if you live forever, you'll eventually win the lottery. The
problem is that people _don't live forever_. So "You'll win eventually"
is an utterly foolish statement, especially coming from a supposed
"economist." Opportunity cost and all that.
It's really amusing to see this kind of basic foolishness repeated and
he just picks up the ball and runs with it headlong into a brand new
brick wall of his own making. His original useless claim was "You'll
win eventually." His now even more wrong claim is "You'll break even in
the long run." Hilarious.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
-- Neneh Cherry
David DeLaney
Mar 3, 2012, 7:39:51 PM3/3/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
>>it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
>>eventually.
>
>Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
And, as usual (this is not limited to Shawn, for some inexplicable reason),
>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
>>it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
>>eventually.
>
>Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
the word "infinity" has nothing to do with "complete set". Nothing about
doing things an unbounded number of times guarantees that every possible way
OF doing the things will happen in that sequence.
>And conditions change. There's a non-zero chance that a meteorite
>will fall on your house. That doesn't mean that eventually a
>meteorite will fall on your house.
David DeLaney
Mar 3, 2012, 7:40:51 PM3/3/12
to
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>It's really amusing to see this kind of basic foolishness repeated and
>he just picks up the ball and runs with it headlong into a brand new
>brick wall of his own making. His original useless claim was "You'll
>win eventually." His now even more wrong claim is "You'll break even in
>the long run." Hilarious.
Let's see if he'll go for the troika and claim "You'll be able to get out
>he just picks up the ball and runs with it headlong into a brand new
>brick wall of his own making. His original useless claim was "You'll
>win eventually." His now even more wrong claim is "You'll break even in
>the long run." Hilarious.
of the game"?
Dave "while crows sing backup" DeLaney
Howard Brazee
Mar 3, 2012, 7:34:15 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:39:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:
>>Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
>
>And, as usual (this is not limited to Shawn, for some inexplicable reason),
>the word "infinity" has nothing to do with "complete set". Nothing about
>doing things an unbounded number of times guarantees that every possible way
>OF doing the things will happen in that sequence.
There's an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, and not a one
DeLaney) wrote:
>>Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
>
>And, as usual (this is not limited to Shawn, for some inexplicable reason),
>the word "infinity" has nothing to do with "complete set". Nothing about
>doing things an unbounded number of times guarantees that every possible way
>OF doing the things will happen in that sequence.
of them is pi.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Mar 4, 2012, 12:15:46 AM3/4/12
to
> So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
> it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
> eventually.
Because it _is_ zero, you dolt. As the number of trials tend towards
> it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
> eventually.
infinity, the probability that your wins will outweigh your losses
tends towards zero. At the limit it _is_ zero.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Shawn Wilson
Mar 4, 2012, 4:14:10 PM3/4/12
to
On Mar 3, 4:36 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> >>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
> >> >>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
> >> >>> How about that time you insisted that a lottery player would ultimately
> >> >>> win the long run? That was pretty funny.
> >But, feel free to PROVE that the probability of the accumulated return
> >being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero.
>
> We'll skip lightly by the fact that what you want me to prove is
> something other than the negation of your claim. The burden of
> proof is on you: *You're* the one who said that you *must* win if
> you just played long enough. Feel free to prove your claim; or
> feel free to shove it.
YOU claimed I was wrong. Prove it. You don't get to ass-ume your
> >being >0 AT SOME POINT is in fact zero.
>
> We'll skip lightly by the fact that what you want me to prove is
> something other than the negation of your claim. The burden of
> proof is on you: *You're* the one who said that you *must* win if
> you just played long enough. Feel free to prove your claim; or
> feel free to shove it.
statement is correct.
> > It seems likely to me that
> >over infinitely many trials the probability that at some point the net
> >will be greater than zero is 1. No matter how low the odds, non-zero
> >gets trumped all to hell by *infinity*.
>
> Guess what, Shawnie-poo. You don't get to put QED at the end of a
> statement that starts out "it seems likely to me." Unless, of
> course, "highly trained economist" math is very, very different
> from the real article.
usual...
> >You won't, you can't. This is DIFFERENT than the expected value,
> >which I have to explicitly point out because you are fucking
> >retarded. You can't same a random walk won't do something, because
> >the probability of it happening is not zero.
>
> I can say that you won't reason cogently, because the probability
> of it happening is zero.
You make outlandish statements and when called on them you engage in
personal attacks and abuse, because you are an ignorant, stupid
aggressive asshole.
You were peerfectly free to do your own reasoning in this discussion,
and refrain from abouse. Instead you failed to reason and engaged in
abuse.
Shawn Wilson
Mar 4, 2012, 4:09:37 PM3/4/12
to
On Mar 3, 4:20 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
> >it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
> >eventually.
>
> Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
Siugh, I have thought it through carefully. And my conclusion is...
> >So what? You have INFINITELY MANY CHANCES. So long as it isn't zero
> >it will happen. Every non-zero possibility should come up, somewhere,
> >eventually.
>
> Not all infinities are the same. Some are lots bigger than others.
All of you are fuckwits.
I am right, you are wrong. You are arguing a topic you understand
litertally NOTHING about with someone who not only is a near PhD in a
mathematical field, but who minored in math AND who specifically had a
course in probability and statistics.
Really, how did you all get so arrgogant AND so stupid?
At EVERY pooint in this series of trials there is a non-zero
probability that the future random walk will take the total above
zero. The odds may fall as the series of trials increases, but they
will never and can never be zero. The series of trials is infinite.
The probability is finite, therefore it will happen. QED.
> And conditions change. There's a non-zero chance that a meteorite
> will fall on your house. That doesn't mean that eventually a
> meteorite will fall on your house.
eventually a meterorite WILL fall on your house. Eventually an
elephant in the act of mating with a rhinocerous will fall on your
house, given enough time.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages