BaalChatzaf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    16,285

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by BaalChatzaf

    william.scherk

    Posted

    13 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Your literal mind read "'Russia Hack' of the 2016 US presidential election" narrowly. Thanks for pointing out that the phrase can be misunderstood, and may need replacing with a better conceptual frame.  

    There are several current alternatives that don't use 'hack,' such as meddling, interference, active measures -- without specifying that actual reported "hacks" (cyber-intrusions, information theft, spear-phishing 'attacks' on state election systems, etc) must have been Russia-directed. Not to mention the details of the aggressive 'active measures' in the field of information warfare. We need not agree that Russia meddled to have discussion on policy and the road ahead.

    To the point of the OT ...

    I suggested setting aside the two contentious issues of RussiaHack RussiaTrumpCollusion , in order to focus on what can be known of RussiaGeoStrategy, of aims and goals of the Russian Federation.  

    So, Bob, set aside the two moshpits and maybe give the initial post another gander. Maybe even have a dunk into the article I cited.  Maybe give your informed opinion. 

    -- I'll get back to revising the shorthand phrase "Russia Hack," but will make it in another blog post. Here is hoping you have something to say of interest to our OL readers, further to the third set of Russia questions above. 

    In other words, if there is disagreement on Russia1 and Russia2, how about Russia3 ... ?

    In modern times,  powerful nations  have  interfered with or attempted to influence the internal affairs of other nations. During the cold war, the U.S. broadcast propaganda to the Soviet Union and its satellite  nations.  That is  "hacking" in the broad sense of the term.   As you rightly assumed,  I took the term in the narrow computer application context of the word.  Exposing secrets is another extensions of the term,  particularly if the secrets are extracted from some form of computerized storage. 

    william.scherk

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

    Looks like the back of a C-130 transport plane with the military (HALO [high altitude low opening]) skydivers already departed.

    Cargo and paratroopers (static line) go out at about 1200' above ground level.

    --Brant

    That brings back memories.  Back in 1990 I was on a software contract out in Colorado where (1)  I learned how to fly a glider [I earned a solo licence] and (2)  I learned how to parachute jump (the lessons cost me a bundle).   Now why would I do that?  I wanted to see if Einstein was right.  After taking many lessons and training I did a jump from about 8000 feet. For somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds I felt nothing (no pull toward earth).  I was more like the ground was coming to me.  Then I began to feel air resistance  and then I opened the chute and air drag did its thing.  I am here to tell you about it.

    I wanted to see if Einstein was right, that gravitation is NOT a force, like magnetism or electrical attraction.   Einstein was right.  I achieved my goal and I never jumped again.   The idea of jumping out of a perfectly functional airplane is insane. But curiosity is a strange thing....

    william.scherk

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    It's more correct to say this is anecdotal evidence. As such it suggests a possible avenue of study and inquiry. It's an open-ended question but saying it's fallacious (post ergo propter hoc) closes the door. Logic can be too delimited and delimiting and should be carefully used; it doesn't provide data. It helps evaluate data and conclusions from data.

    --Brant

    I'm glad no one believes in magic (huh?)

    A question raised is often a good thing.  A question begged is most often a bad thing.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    13 hours ago, jts said:

    One example of confirmation bias, which in this case you and most people probably would regard as correct thinking, is a case of a woman who got rid of a tumor by a 24 day fast. She went back to the doctor who diagnosed the tumor and he confirmed that the tumor was gone. But he was (like most doctors) opposed to fasting and thought it was a stupid thing to do and refused to believe that the tumor autolyzed. He said it was a mix up.

    Here we have a conflict between a fact and a theory. The fact was the tumor autolyzed during the fast. The theory was tumors can't autolyze. Ordinarily facts trump theories; facts rule, theories serve; in any conflict between a fact and a theory, the theory is wrong.

    Perhaps this was an exception, where the fact was false and the medical theory contrary to the fact was true.

     

    autolyzed during the fast.

    The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

    By the way,  what about all those people who fasted but their tumors grew large and killed them?

    Our best scientific theories are far from complete.  They do not predict everything  that happens.  They do not even retrodict (i.e. explain) everything that happens.  Physical and chemical science is a work in progress.  Even our fanciest fundamental physics does not explain all of the known interactions of matter and energy.  We do not yet have a working  quantum theory for gravitation.  As a result our best physics  is in two major pieces.  The piece that accounts for gravitation  and the piece that accounts for the rest.   And the piece that accounts for gravitation has not yet come to terms with "dark" matter and "dark"  energy.  "dark" is a term meaning I don't know what the fuck it is.   

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Nothing can violate the second law of thermodynamics  Heat leaves the body and enters the air trapped by a blanket (the air initially being cooler than the body) and   its entropy in leaving the hot body is less than the entropy of entering the cooler air.  Entropy has increased  according to the second law.  Blankets  are insulators.  Eventually the heat trapped the air will warm up the blanket which will then radiate heat to the cold outside the blanket.   Black Bodies will achieve thermodynamic equilibrium or tend to thermodynamic  equilibrium by radiating heat  to the colder outside.  The rate of heat radiation is proportional to the 4 th power of the temperature difference between the black body and the temperature of the outside.  This is the Stephan-Boltzmann law. 

    william.scherk

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:
    a·larm
    əˈlärm/
    noun
    1. 1.
      an anxious awareness of danger.
      "the boat tilted and the boatmen cried out in alarm"
    verb
    1. 1.
      cause (someone) to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger.
      "the government was alarmed by an outbreak of unrest"

     

    -- that was straight from the jaws of Google. Also from them jaws, hoopla:

     

    all the more days I could get out and ride my bike.   Moderate warmth never killed anyone.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    I can see your reasoning clearly, but I am still under the Trump spell.  Knowing that 'all polls are wrong' (in varying ways and degrees) means that a whole state race may be mis-called (as with 2012) by the forecasts, models and averages. But, of course, you only know afterwards which particular race was 'wronged' and how.

    So, here, I am going to give Trump Florida by fraction-magic. I am just going to edge him over Clinton, despite the early-vote intelligence, despite the polling and aggregates, despite Nhate's odds.

    But look at this. All that colouring Florida red gets me is Nevada.  Whither Nevada?

    creepyEC-268to264.png

    Yeah. He edges out in Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire and grabs half of Maine's two EC votes.  But but but, but, if Clinton edges him with a surge of Hispanic support, Nevada finishes his 2016 hopes.

    Which makes me think I have to watch the election returns in three stages. Starting with the first returns from the east. 

    ClosingEastern.png?1477599760

    -- so, between 7 and 8 Eastern we will have had initial counts from my 'Go Red' states: Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Florida. My Trump needs every one of those to get to 264. 

    So, if by 8:45ish  Eastern or so everything falls into line with my simulation, I can actually call the most important Eastern states. If Mr Trump wins Florida without triggering recounts and delay -- wins solidly -- then I will be chewing the inside of my mouth until 10 pm Eastern, when Nevada returns begin to be posted. 

    Here is Mr Trump's last big rally in Vegas. He is scheduled to be back in Washoe County today.  He is fighting hard for what he needs.

     Oh, and there is this.  The hottest invitation in town. 

    hottestticketintown.png

     

     

    Nearer My God  to Thee,  Nearer to Thee.....

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Will people who favor Trump have be gripped by a moment of regret just before their mark their ballot or pull the lever?  If anyone but Hillary were running as the Democrat nominee that could very well happen.  But for those voters who are just "on the edge" for Trump,  Hillary's  butt  ugliness will determine  their pro-Trump vote.   Hillary is Dreadful.   Back in 2008  Obama a superficial attractiveness that assured his election.  Whatever else was wrong with Candidate Obama,  moral ugliness  was not one of his wrongs.  There may have been reasons to vote against Obama  but there were reasons to vote for him.   Not so with Hillary.  For the majority of pro-Hillary voters the ONLY reason they are voting for Hillary is that she is not Trump.   

    Trump is butt ugly, but for some that is a positive.  Trump is clearly not a "typical"  candidate.   I am voting for Trump, for example,  for much the same reason that I own a SCION XB.  Ugliness does have its attractions....

    william.scherk

    Posted

    12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Bob, can you explain what the New York references are here? (this is Number 3 on Trump Video Bingo today). "But there's something about that fellow that looks a bit schmeery."  Warning: crude language.

     

    I had no idea that Jon Stuart's full name is John Stuart  Leibowitz.    Live another day,  learn another new thing.

    Schmear.  Yiddish for laying it on thick or spreading it on.  

    william.scherk

    Posted

    11 hours ago, merjet said:

    Ah, you are a subjectivist. And the issues are way more complicated than your overly simplistic portrayal. Interpretations of Probability.

    all probability is subjective.  Even t he frequentist view makes reference to equal likelihood.   Right there!  Subjective.  

    Di Finetti and Jaynes  advanced the view that prior probabilities are established subjectively,  in part at least.  But  updating the probabilities  to posterior probabilities  by Bayes Theorem is a  strict formal and mathematical  processes. 

    william.scherk

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    I am calling Florida for Trump. I know it's early, with only 40-odd percent of the vote in (via vote-by-mail, or in-person early voting), but the signs of a squeaker are there:  a tonne of attention from both campaigns and respective parties, fearsome GOTV efforts by some very capable machines, and a suite of polling results "just in" -- along with some excellent in-the-weeds reporting of wonk-fest details.

    Using the peripheral activities of the political party operative to update your estimate  show that you are  a Bayesian   at heart.   Good show. 

    A person who adhered to the frequency theory of probability and statistics would require at least 30 Florida races under the prevailing conditions to either keep his null hypotheses (Trump wins)  or rejecting it and taking the alternative hypothesis (Hillary wins). 

    william.scherk

    Posted

    39 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    This should have maybe gone in the Nate Silver thread, but it offers scenarios for win/loss as per the opening topic. This is from the article "You’ll Likely Be Reading One Of These 5 Articles The Day After The Election."  It is the last and most fun for a Trump supporter, and if it is true, i will eat crow.

     

    Is this fiction or fantasy?  I will have to see the outcome with my own eyes before I accept it as fact.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

    More from a newish thread touting a CATO publication ... knocking on with Bob and William.

    (I'll be editing this over the afternoon so ... no need for alacrity)

     

     

     

     

     

     

    \

     

    \

     

     

    Here is a brief review of the saga of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age  before and after Michael Mann got a hold of it.

    In particular the disparity between the 1990 IPCC report  and Mann's Hockey Stick  ought to make one wonder,  just a little bit.

    See: http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

    Also look here  http://tinyurl.com/jdh6kxx

    (that is a TinyUrl)

    Much of the dispute over Mann's "Hockey Stick"  has to do with the thin surrogate data he used.  Tree rings from a single tree for example.  Some of it has to do with his statistical  technique.

    You have to understand that much of the climate modelling is statistical in nature and if you know anything about Bayesian Statistics you know that reasonable people have disagreements over prior probabilities.  

    I wish there was a hard set of observables that could resolve the climate sensitivity questions but there is not.  Climate modeling is by its nature fuzzy and mushy. Even at CERN   statistical analysis of the data was necessary to show that the Higgs Boson had been spotted.  It was extracted statistically from vast data sets. 

    The question of climate will not be settled like the question of the planet Uranus or Neptune.  The people predicting these planets told the astronomers exactly where and when to aim their telescopes and lo!!!!  there were the planets.   For climate it does not work that way.

    What I would like to see and have not yet seen is a prediction that says  within such and such a decade (or 50 years period)  Battery Park in Manhattan will be under ten feet of water at low tide.   A prediction like that if verified would give great credence to the model that produced the prediction.  If not verified then it would show beyond doubt that the model was wrong.   But we have not seen any Bright Line Predictions like that.  

     

    Also have a look at this piece on The Little Ice Age.  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/01/what-caused-the-little-ice-age/#.V97_4_ArKUk

    It may have been triggered off by volcanic eruptions.  Also for  a year or two after Mt. Penitubo blew temperatures world wide drop a degree Fahr.   That was because of all the crud that was blown into the atmosphere when the volcano blew. 

    Now about the Sun.  The only heat (for all practical purposes) that Earth receives is from the Sun.  However solar variability by itself cannot explain the climate changes.  The big question mark is cloud formation.  Cloud formation is not well understood,  but clouds have a very important effect on earth's temperature. The politically approved climate sensitivity models tend to minimize cloud effects which puts a much greater weight on CO2 overload than might be justified.  It is also possible that the CO2 overload is a consequence of deforrestration.   Trees and plants suck up a lot of CO2.  If we cut down too many trees then more CO2 will go into the atmosphere. That are a lot of factors at work.  The problem is complicated and the politicization of climate has not helped our understanding of the problem.  

    william.scherk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

    s.

     

    I don't know. I haven't made a catalog of failed AGW predictions/models over the years/decades, and they don't tend to remain easily publicly accessible once they've seriously gone down in flames. They just kind of disappear, much like Obama's statements about keeping your doctor or saving $2500 quietly disappearing from government healthcare websites. Maybe do a Google search for "climate model fail"? Sorry that I don't have time to be more helpful.

    J

    The failing predictions can be found on the anti- AGW  websites.