January 29, 2010
Another big numbers post, I give you… the meaningful Universe.
Use the left and right arrow keys to zoom in and out.
Tip o’ the hat to Paulie.
January 28, 2010
From Coderoom, a post entitled:
3 Simple Rules That Will Make You a ‘Superstar’ Developer
Read the whole thing, if you run any sort of technical or programming project team. From the end of the post:
Postscript for the naive: This post is a mild satire on programming in teams. These three rules, while undoubtedly effective, are evil. They harm overall project progress for your own benefit. They don’t make you a better programmer intrinsically, only compared to the rest of your team. You may, like I and countless others, have done something like this completely innocently in the past, when you didn’t know better. Now you know better.
Postscript for project managers: If your environment meets the grounds for the Two Fundamental Principles, then you will get programmers playing The Game and your project will suffer. Change the rules. Make sure that programmers are recognised for playing nicely with each other’s code, for working in small teams on larger problems. That rewriting for the sake of it is frowned upon, or that the bugs it introduces are traced back to the rewrite that caused them. I don’t know what the right way to get away from this is. If you do then please, for the love of all projects everywhere, leave a comment!
January 25, 2010
From Object-Oriented Philosophy:
Just now I saw that the estimates for Haiti are 111,000 dead and 600,000 homeless, out of a nation of 8.3 million.
Percentage-wise, for the United States with 304 million, that would be 3,952,000 dead and 21,918,400 homeless.
Or in clearer intuitive terms: everyone in Oregon was killed, and everyone in Ohio and Michigan is homeless.
January 19, 2010
Found at Live Granades.
January 19, 2010
In the course of my MSIS/PhD education, I’ve been exposed to a lot of organizational science (or management theory, depending upon how you want to classify the particular chunk of knowledge). I’ve read some of the seminal works that MBA students read, spent some time perusing the Harvard Business Review and other publications, et cetera.
In many cases, I’ve said to myself, “Yep, that’s true” or “Darn tootin’, that would be the way to go” or some other expression of agreement with what I’ve read.
So here’s the curious part: everywhere I’ve ever worked, there’s been MBA people around. Everywhere I’ve ever worked, there’s been people who have taken classes in project management, or people management, or both. These people presumably have read the same material I’ve been reading (one would think).
So why is it so rare to find anyone who actually practices any of it?
It’s a national joke that MBA-types tend to be pointy-haired bosses, right? It’s the entire premise of Dilbert… people who study MBA material turn out to be terrible at management.
This *can’t* be the fault of MBA programs in general. There certainly are bad MBA programs, I imagine… but even if you teach this material badly the material itself still seems to be worthwhile reading.
Is it just the case that most people who go and *get* their MBAs aren’t cut out to be managers in the first place? That there is an underlying set of characteristics of most MBA-seekers that makes them bad at the job they’re ultimately seeking? I take it for granted that many people who get MBAs are trying to up their chances at higher-paying jobs, of course, but it can’t be the case that self-interest is that tightly coupled with idiocy.
Maybe MBA programs need to focus more on cutting out the chaff? Harder grading? Better gatekeeping? Management is hard, why is it so easy to get an MBA? Do most programs focus too much on, “learn the material” and not enough on “show you can implement it in practice”?
January 17, 2010
Okay, it’s actually 30 days after my last post.
December was a crazy month. Work was a little nuts, my closing class was a little nuts, traveling to New Mexico for the holidays was a little nuts. I actually love my in-laws, it’s just the logistics of a dog & two kids in a car for the two day drive there and two days back (especially with the little side adventures you have with car trips sometimes). Unlike the Montana visits, Albuquerque doesn’t involve as many “go outside and play” moments, so the days aren’t as lazy and decompressive while you’re actually there.
I nursed some sort of congestion thing for a solid chunk of the month, didn’t sleep at all well, and generally was something of a grumpy ass. Can’t say that I’m entirely over the grumpy attitude, as I’m still not getting enough sleep. Tomorrow should be something of an “airing out” day, though. The normal babysitter is coming during the day to earn her hours and Kitty is working, so I’m going to leave the house and go off for a while and have some alone time. Unfortunately, no available James Bond movie this post-holiday season for just this sort of occasion.
I’ve decided that for the next couple of months I’m going to avoid commenting on political blogs; even on the quality blogs I’m starting to get too frustrated with the comment threads (this is a bipartisan frustration). I’m probably going to stick with some creative writing for a while, to clear out the goobers in my brain. so sincere and abject apologies to anyone who reads this blog regularly for computer advice (pause for laughter). I think I’ll start reading VE’s Fantastical Nonsense regularly again.
This turned out to be a rather unfocused and meandering post, but what can I say, I’m rusty… thanks to Kitty and Andy for reminding me that I had one of these blog thingies…
December 8, 2009
People of course ask you what you want for a gift this holiday season. Generally speaking, I think you’re supposed to know, right? Isn’t that part of the point?
But, in the interests of making things easier for people (and simultaneously bringing Meet The Press Mondays back into the post cycle, and also getting me to start blogging again), here’s some stuff I’m interested in owning, offered as an insight into Pat’s character.
#1 on my list, unattainable currently and would require major contributions and scheduling, is a roundtrip airplane ticket from LAX to Orlando, FL, on April 3rd returning April 7th. Second-to-last shuttle launch is scheduled for the 4th, three days of leeway in case the launch is delayed. (edited to add) Missions have been shifted, according to the NASA web site (thanks, Kitty!) I don’t think I can make it, and I’m really bummed about that. You can always travel the world. There’s only a couple more chances to see the shuttle launch.
On a much more practical scale:
Movies are always good. If you’re reading this, you should have a good idea of what I like, if not what I have. This, this, this, and this are all on the must-have list. I don’t want to go another Halloween without proper cinema. These two are of course most important:
Something from here or a similar site, in the skill level 1 bracket. This would be a fun Dad & Jack project. Launch kit would be necessary as well.
Gregory Benford’s Eater, Artifact, or Furious Gulf
Myriad things that nobody can afford, like a Sony Bravia 42″ TV, a fully loaded Alienware M17x laptop, a house with a backyard and a garage, a ticket on Virgin Galactic, piles of gold bars, that sort of thing. Sorry, back off the practical scale for a minute there. Unfortunately, many of the other things I want that are actually doable won’t fit in my teeny tiny house, so I can’t take ‘em even though I want ‘em.
Scotch is always a good option. I’m running low. Laphroaig 10, Balvenie 12 Doublewood, Lagavulin 16, anything by Arbeg, Springbank, the Talisker 12 year distiller’s, etc., etc. I take care of those who give me good scotch, they get remembered in prayers.
Oh, I could really use one of these, Peet’s AirScape Canister in Bronze. Actually, two, one for home and one for the office. Airless storage for coffee beans makes a huge difference over the 10-12 days it takes me to use up my supply.
I’d kill for a ceramic coffee travel mug that will fit 18-24 oz of coffee (smaller is too small) and doesn’t have a freaking handle so that I can put it in a cup holder. Not a metal cup, it has to be ceramic. I doubt you can find one, I’ve looked everywhere. If it has a handle, it would have to look something like this one (no luck, this thing is plastic, yuck), but even this one is probably too top-heavy:
All travel mugs are either steel, too small, wide base, or have a plastic inner liner for some Godforsaken reason no sane person would understand. International communist conspiracy, for certain.
Not much else, really. Vintage board games are good, but they seem to be in the rage right now so the prices are all high on eBay. Some other games I’ve heard good things about (or have played and want) include Citadels and anything by Cheapass Games (particularly the classic Give Me The Brain). I don’t have a copy of Awful Green Things, which is still published.
I’ll let you know if I think of anything else…
November 22, 2009
I read Karl Denniger’s blog. He has fascinating observations on the economic woes of the nation. Even when I don’t agree with him, I usually find what he has to say interesting.
Not so much this time around. Karl wrote two posts about this story in the news:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
Karl offers a couple of observations here and here:
Science is the process by which we take a question and:
That’s “The Scientific Method.”
Not quite, Mr. D. That’s one method of exploring questions scientifically, yes. But many questions can’t be explored by experimentation, and it’s certainly not the only method of scientific inquiry.
Uncertainties in measurement are additive – that is, if I measure two rulers and each is reported as “12 inches +/- 0.1 inch” then the total length of the two rulers is 24 inches +/- 0.2 inch – because it is possible that both errors were on the same side.
Yes and no. In your particular case, yes. However, when you’re talking about extremely complex behaviors, your measurements are not necessarily combined this way. For example, phenomena A may have an error in measurement, and phenomena B may have an error in measurement, but it may actually be the case that those errors are not independent. I could be measuring PSI and temperature in a pressure cooker. My thermometer may have an error margin, and my pressure indicator may have an error margin. But if they are both incorrect in different directions, a composite measurement would reveal this.
To the extent that method is corrupted on purpose one does not have science. To the extent that it is corrupted out of necessity (e.g. missing data that one requires, and thus one “guesses”) this is accepted provided one discloses one’s guess and how it was derived – that is, provided there is no material concealment.
In the “Big Science World” the check and balance on concealment – and outright fraud – is peer review and post-publication duplication. To be able to duplicate the results claimed, however, the algorithms, code, methods and data sets must be made publicly available so that anyone who desires to do so can validate the claimed experimental results.
In the spirit of science, I will note that I fully expect others to try to validate (or dispute) my observations below. As such you can find the original archive at Wikileaks should you decide you would like to do so, and I encourage all other independent investigation.
The first point is correct, but needs clarification. With regards to a particular scientific field, you’re talking about an incredibly large body of literature. Every scientific field is in a dynamic state, but generally speaking there is a collection of assumptions that each field currently regards as acceptable assumptions. For example, in physics, it is currently regarded as acceptable to assume that gravity is a constant. Since we don’t know the mechanism by which gravity operates, this *is*, in fact, an assumption. No physicist, however, would take the time to put in any sort of disclaimer about this assumption in their publication; it’s assumed that gravity is a constant, because we have no reason to expect otherwise.
The second point is correct… and I personally as yet have had no trouble whatsoever acquiring access to anybody’s data when I’ve asked them for it. Data sets are typically not included in journal publishing, due to space limitations (yes, in this day and age, this is stupid and data sets should at least be accessible in electronic copies of journals… but this is a reflection of a hundred years of traditional science publishing, not conspiracy). Most climatologists have their data linked from their own websites, or blogs, or the data is a public data set and already in the public domain in any event.
In short, I see nothing in that data set that implies that the messages have been tampered with, but there is also no reasonable way to prove their provenance as the necessary information to do so (routing and message-id information) is missing. A well-place FOI request should resolve that problem, if anyone is particularly interested in doing so.
The data sets included in the archive are also interesting. Again, a reasonably-detailed look through them shows nothing implying that they have been tampered with, and they include data and computer code (source program code) from a wide variety of time periods. It appears authentic.
On the contrary, Karl, this is bad framing, as you yourself note earlier in your own post. This is a demonstrably pitifully incomplete selection of data gathered over a period of 13 years. Emails are missing. Off-email conversations are not referenced, and so on. If I gave someone access to every document I’ve created and my email store since 1996, I have no doubt whatsoever that you’d be able to construct a 60MB zip file containing enough emails, blog posts, snippets of papers I’ve written, and dump that up at the Department of Homeland Security and net me a visit from some counterterrorism division. I write about security and information systems; this would be a trivial exercise.
I have long argued that the major problem with so-called “published papers” on global warming is that it is rare to see find measurement uncertainties reported in the alleged findings, and competing studies have cited wildly different values for the same thing (e.g. atmospheric CO2 emitted by man per year.)
I believe we can now deduce why those uncertainties are missing – they are not being carried through the computational process as is required for any scientific calculation and this omission is in fact intentional.
That’s not a major problem (and usually isn’t the case).
Karl, you really must not read a lot of scientific papers. Limitation sections are a requirement. Have you really read a large chunk of the climate science of the last 3 decades?
Measurement uncertainties usually are cited, of course… and when they aren’t, it’s usually because those measurement uncertainties are known among the particular science community. An aside for the non-scientists among the readership: most academic journal articles are not written for the layman to understand (side note: this is one reason why science reporting is usually so bad… science reporters are generally *not* well versed enough to accurately report on what they’re reading). They are written with the assumption that the persons reading the articles are fairly well versed in the field in question. If you think about it, this is not only normal it’s absolutely necessary. Academic journals have to assume that the person reading the article is familiar with: (a) basic undergraduate science (b) basic undergraduate mathematics (c) advanced graduate level science in the particular field (d) whatever advanced mathematics are necessary tools for examining that particular field. You’re talking about 6 or so years of academic study assumed as known.
In some sense, yes, the omission is intentional. This is not indicative of nefariousness.
Without hard proof of whatever answer is propounded to that question we as the people of this planet must insist on a full stop for all purported “climate amelioration” efforts, as there is every possibility that the entirety of this so-called science in fact proves exactly nothing, except that the so-called “researchers” have added much CO2 to the atmosphere producing the electricity required to power their computers!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and from the released set of data that proof is, quite simply, not present and accounted for.
Yes, Karl, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof. So let us reframe the issue at hand.
Climate science journals have been publishing papers supporting global climate change papers for over 30 years now. I have not seen a single academic paper that has been published since 1980 that refutes the global warming hypothesis (compare this to the earlier “global cooling” hypothesis that some climate change denialists point at, which was not well supported by any body of literature and never regarded as a mainstream theory). Minor disclaimer, this is my cursory reading of the literature, I’m not a climatologist myself… but I have looked at both the general body of literature and I’ve tried to follow the “skeptic” crowd’s trail of evidence and found nothing, so it is (at the very least) a decent investigation by someone who doesn’t qualify as a rank amateur or layman.
Global warming theories are grounded in basic thermodynamics (physics) and the properties of greenhouse gasses (chemistry). Impacts have been seen in species diversity (biology), ice cores and rock strata (geology), and marine lifecycles (marine biology and oceanography). No credible falsification evidence has been presented in any journal, be it any of the major climate journals, the more general Science or Nature, or any other peer reviewed publication in any of the other fields listed here.
There are two possibilites here (edited to add: there are actually three*). Either the global climate change (and its proposed human root causes) are very close to highly probably true, or there is a massive, cross-national, cross-cultural, pervasive conspiracy… in not one but possibly dozens of scientific fields… to cover up the truth.
Knowing what I do of conspiracies in general, the second possibility would be laughable to consider just on the sheer numbers involved. However, even supposing that you could in fact keep such a conspiracy under wraps, I don’t understand what the actual motiviation would be for such a conspiracy; why would a geologist or an oceanographer care about publishing refuting the global warming hypothesis? They’re not climatologists, they’re not going to lose their shot at tenure for challenging another field (in fact, given what I know of university politics, they’d be more likely to get tenure by challenging a basic hypothesis of another field).
This clearly counts as a very, very extraordinary claim.
And what evidence exists to bolster this claim? An illegally acquired, demonstrably incomplete, cherry picked selection of contextually limited data from a single climate center representing a subpopulation of climate scientists obtained by an individual or group whose motives are unknown, containing… ah, what looks like a very few emails that could be interpreted as malicious by someone who already assumed that global warming was a completely fabricated theory, or could also be interpreted as the diplomatically uncautious phrasing of perfectly normal behavior among reasonable scientists.
I don’t think that qualifies as extraordinary evidence.
* (edited to add): the third possibility is complex. It is possible that global climate change hypothesis is based upon a causal theory that has been reinforced entirely by correlative evidence in other fields, but the principle causes are independent and not in fact tied to the global climate theory. This is possible, but as time goes on it becomes increasingly unlikely. People who support AGW tend to claim that this has already reached the point where the lack of falsification results in other fields shows that those other fields support the causal hypothesis. People who challenge AGW tend to claim that each one of these instances of lack of falsification have independent explanations. It is possible that the second group is correct, but I as yet have not seen a substantive analysis supporting this view. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible to construct such an analysis.
November 16, 2009
An Idea from Ann:
In this great new world called BlogWorld, we are all the press. We are the reporters, the editors, the advertising agents, and the publishers. Well, I guess Google is the publisher. Anyway.
Much like in the real world, I’ve created a character for myself here.
In an effort to have some sort of zero tolerance policy about something or other, I hereby create Meet the Press Mondays. (I fully expect no one will play.) On Meet the Press Mondays, bloggers should share a little piece of themselves. Whether you haven’t shared it in the blog world, or you haven’t shared it in the “real” world, or you haven’t shared it in any world outside of your crazy little mixed up confusion mind… there is a place for it here, on Mondays.
I like this idea. You’ll have to take the jump to her place to see her tidbit. Here’s mine (although the family won’t be surprised by it):
I love musicals. West Side Story, Singin’ In The Rain, Easter Parade, White Christmas, even bad ones like Xanadu.
You tell ‘em, Cosmo…
