By Rob CoxNEW YORK (Reuters Breakingviews) - This is the week when all Americans give thanks for the bounties bestowed on them by the Blessed Creator...
All recent posts are listed here in reverse chronological order. For a more focused view you can use the "Blog Topics" listing on the right - and the little icons on the right of the topic names toggle display of subtopics (if any).
By Rob CoxNEW YORK (Reuters Breakingviews) - This is the week when all Americans give thanks for the bounties bestowed on them by the Blessed Creator...
Source: Munk Debates - U.S. Election
This is a very misleading press release! It leads the non-reader to conclude that the resolution was approved by the audience when the "winning" team just managed to reduce its rate of disapproval. This result would only be a "surprise" if one had advance expectation that the Con team were the better debaters (which, with no disrespect to the Con team, would certainly be foolish given the people involved).
In general, I find that commitment to a text which one can interpret for oneself is less harmful than commitment to some class of annointed interpreters of such a text. And although I don't share such a commitment myself, I do find much in the bible that I agree with, as well as excuses within the text for discounting those parts I find offensive. By and large I find the JW interpretations to be supportive of a humane treatment of our fellow beings and, with or without the biblical support, I find their publications to present fair and reasonable advice regarding human behaviour.
But what I particularly enjoy in those publications is the "Was it Designed?" feature in their 'AWAKE!' magazine. This regular feature describes some wonderful aspect of our biological world with the conclusion "What do you think? Was it the product of evolution? Or was it designed?". The puzzles posed are sometimes easy but often quite challenging and I cannot imagine a better set of resources for a Biology teacher wishing to encourage students to see how the evolutionary algorithm so often produces designs which improve substantially on the best that an "intelligent" human might have devised.
Source: Website Search | JW.ORG
Matthew Buckley is writing a nice series of articles for the Boston Review about The Search for New Physics at CERN . He is aiming to give enough of the background for readers to get an idea of how recent observations may indicate something beyond the "standard model" of elementary particles. If confirmed by subsequent observations this will provide a significant constraint on the kind of theory that can bring gravitation into the big house of quantum theory - and by doing so may help to focus the currently diverse efforts on a track that has the best chance of success.
This is a great series of articles, but I do have one quibble.
In his discussion of the Higgs discovery Buckley says:
"How likely was it that the bump was due to chance? Not very likely: 1 in 3,488,560."
But I think there is a difference (recently pointed out by the ASA in its "statement on P-values") between the likelihood that the bump *was* due to chance and the probability that such a bump *would* occur in the absence of non-chance effects.
I suspect that Buckley is well aware of this as he does not make the same error in his subseqent statement about the new observation:
"Similar calculations show that the ATLAS bump at 750 GeV could occur by chance only once in 6285 tries."
Indeed his expressed fear of being trapped into working on the explanation of an effect that is not real shows that he doesn't really think that the probability of this new bump being just a chance occurrence not due to a real effect is as low as 1 in 6285.
Celebrating his status as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump thanked his family and supporters, and was as magnanimous as he could manage regarding his recent opponent Ted Cruz. But he turned somewhat ungracious in his concession of the actual presidency to Hillary Clinton who, he predicts, 'will be a poor president' .
British journalist Paul Mason seems to echo Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything in his claim that There Is No Market-Driven Solution To Our Climate Catastrophe
But although I am no fan of concentrated private capital I think both of them beg the question by overlooking the constraints that must inevitably be included in the definition of any market. These almost always are expected to include laws against theft and murder, and the solution to all environmental problems including climate is just to also include the prohibition of any permanent environmental impact. If "dumping" of wastes into the atmosphere and oceans was just flat out prohibited (with the onus being on any economic actor to retain and maintain control over any by-products of its activity) then the market would immediately favour whatever source of energy (or anything else) could be made most cheaply within that constraint.
(I am not claiming that this would be easy, just that it is quite independent of solving the problem of fair distribution of wealth and/or opportunity)
(He left off the word "consumption" but I'm sure that's what he meant)
The Chronicle of Higher Education asks: Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists? But I suspect that it's more about whom the discipline appeals to than how they are trained
Some things that might attract a person to engineering (not necessarily applicable to all engineers, but strong enough to attract a non-representative sample into the profession):
-need for control
-attraction to systems with well-defined rules
-being more interested in things than in human feelings
-desire for ability to surprise by doing things that others can't
-being committed to a campaign of terror and wanting the skills to carry it out
Need I go on? No one factor will explain all cases, but there are good reasons not to be surprised by seeing more engineers among the terrorists than say womens' studies majors.
Of course the proportion of terrorists who are engineers is not the same as the proportion of engineers who are terrorists, but the 90 identified engineering terrorists are undoubtedly a larger proportion of the total population of engineers than the 500 of the full sample are as a proportion of the entire Islamic world. So perhaps Donald Trump should take note of the fact that being an engineer is a higher risk factor than being a muslim. And since we don't know how to identify which is which, we should subject all engineers to special scrutiny in airports etc - at least until they agree to weed out their own bad apples - and maybe the only way for a country to be truly safe is to ban them from entry altogether and put ankle-bracelet location monitors on those that are already here.
Source: Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists? - The Chronicle of Higher Education
It's now possible to incorporate very large amounts of variable renewable power like solar and wind into the electric grid cost-effectively without harming reliability. Here's how.
This is all very well, but the main problem with renewables is not load balancing (which is merely a technical, albeit perhaps non-trivial, issue), but rather achievable capacity. The basic fact that needs to be addressed is that although solar power could concievably meet all of our needs for as long as we will exist as a species, it cannot concievably be brought up to scale within the next 100 years. Wind, on the other hand just doesn't have the potential to do more than cover our non-transport needs. To power our demands for personal and materials transport, something much more substantial is needed, and for the next 100+ years "renewables" aren't it. There is however an option which has been available for over half a century with the capacity to be ramped up within half a century (from whenever we decide to actually go ahead with it), to provide all of our energy desires (let alone needs!). But it is politically incorrect to advocate it, so I will leave it to you to guess what it might be.
If anything is sillier than demanding "original receipts" for purchases on behalf of an organization it must be the idea of doing likewise for "gifts in kind" - especially since many such gifts are of items purchased so long ago that any receipt would probably have faded into illegibility if not actually dissolved into dust. But electoral organizations do have to provide some sort of accounting for such gifts so it may be both useful to develop some capacity for doing so between elections, and also to have some understanding and appreciation of the extent of member contributions beyond the merely financial.
Certainly all member contributions need to be acknowledged and have their importance understood, but this does not require any detailed accounting at the level of requiring receipts or whatever.
And with regard to establishing and enforcing contribution limits, it is important not to place a greater reporting burden on those with smaller individual contributions.
Yes, it is important to be aware of (and hopefully limit) the extent to which wealthy individuals and corporations can influence the outcome of an election by contributing goods and services of high value to their preferred candidates. But we need to do so in a way that does not place a burden on the less wealthy to account for the costs of baking a cake for a potluck that equals or exceeds that placed on a major corporation for those of providing a campaign bus or private jet for their chosen right wing candidate!
Source: gifts in kind - Google Search
I am a member of an organization whose Finance Committee has been advised to require "original receipts" for all reimbursement requests (and also for "gifts in kind"! But I'll get to that second bit of nonsense later).
Now it should be obvious that the idea is made ridiculous by the fact that most vendors will happily print out a second copy of the "original" receipt if requested (and that these flimsy items typically fade to invisibility within just a few months anyhow!), but for a bit more authoritative response I tried a Google Search. And what did I find?
We are looking at eliminating the requirement of obtaining all original receipts. We currently require original receipts and scan these into our systems.
Nov 25, 2014 - Original expense receipt requirements are an old school approach to expense control. In fact, I saw a recent list of the top five reasons why ...
Dec 22, 2010 - The rule that supports scanned receipts is called Revenue Proclamation 97-22. The rule states that scanned receipts are acceptable as long as they are identical to the originals and contain all of the accurate information that are included in the original receipts.
Learn CRA's and IRS's policies about accepting scanned receipts in place of originalsource documents ... they are different!
This is cool because it has several components. That the iron content of spinach is a myth is itself a myth is just the starting point of a fascinating investigation of a number of related myths about how the confusion first came about and then came to light (some of which are themselves actually true and so only mythically myths). Thanks to Mike Sutton who may well be the world's champion in identification of mythical myths.
A story started thirty years ago by nutritionist Professor Arnold Bender, and famously supported by the immunohaematologist Professor Terence Hamblin, that a decimal point error made in 19th Century research of the iron content of spinach led to its erroneous promotion, is completely untrue.
In a review of Vaclav Smil's books on global energy use, Tim Maly at The Atlantic, after explaining the virtual impossibility of transitioning to low energy density primary power sources in time to avert potentially catastrophic global warming, tells us that:
A recent article in The Atlantic piqued my interest but left me very much unsatisfied as to what, if anything, underlies the "pantone" system. So I decided to Google for more info.
The second reference I found was a lot quicker and less "gushy" in getting to the point (or at least to the point that I was interested in), but only slightly more informative.
And the third was clearer about the Pantone distinction - in that it identified the Pantone system as involving many more different pigment types than CMY. But in the end it too failed to explain why more than three are needed.
In fact any colour experience can be reproduced with just the three signals corresponding to our three kinds of cone receptors, so the RGB system is capable of producing a light to match any colour that we can ever see.
But no actual thing we see, whether object or pigment, actually "has" a colour. It is light that has colour and what pigments do is modify the colour of the light with which they are illuminated by subtracting more of some frequencies than others. The colour of the reflected light then is what we see, but this depends both on the properies of the object and on the spectrum of the ambient light. Since lights of quite different detailed spectrum can produce the same RGB signals in our eye, and there are many different detailed subtractions that can take a given "white" light to any particular value of the RGB signals, it is both possible to have the same pigment look different under two "white" lights which we cannot tell apart and to have two pigments which look the same under one light and different under another - even when the two lights seem to us to be exactly the same. This last is the real weakness of the Pantone Matching System. Unless one is just comparing with other Pantone products, a matching that works under one light might not work under another.
According to conventional wisdom (as expressed in 'Seriously,Science?' at discovermagazine.com):
We all know that plastic is generally terrible for the environment because it doesn’t biodegrade, and just sits in landfills.
But why is having carbon locked up in relatively small known locations (rather than oxidized and maybe even methanized into the atmosphere and/or distributed widely in micro-particles of unknown toxicity) to be considered as "generally terrible for the environment"?
I think I would define consciousness in purely computational terms and I don't think I'd make it dependent on the specific structure in which the computation takes place.
eg, perhaps: "An entity is said to be 'conscious' if its state changes according (at least in part) to a computational process in which the input data includes a partial model of the state of the computational process itself."
Dear Conservative Canadians,
I share the fear of masked figures that is common in our culture, and I am more inclined than most to be put off by overt displays of religious and other affiliation. But the attempt to reduce our political debate to the level of such feelings is so shameful that it must not be allowed to succeed.
For many the niquab is an imposed symbol of male domination, but for others it is a choice based on feelings of religious commitment or maybe even just on a learned sense of what I would consider excessive modesty. But however little I empathize with the particular motives, the idea of forcing a woman to reveal herself when she does not want to feels like a kind of sexual assault.
As conservative commentator Andrew Coyne has pointed out, over the past years there have been just two women who felt unable to expose their faces in public an so were permitted to do so in private rather than during their actual citizenship ceremonies.
The cynical attempt by our current ruling party to make an issue of denying such women the right to citizenship without public violation of their privacy is something which will disgrace all of us if it is successful - or even if it seems to have been successful. So it must be made to fail.
The biggest factors contributing to our economy are external, and the actual differences between our parties on economic issues are minor compared to the harm that could be done to our social fabric by this kind of xenophobic bullying. So if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of the alternatives, then please just stay home on the 19th. Don't shame yourself by supporting the man who would make us a nation of small-minded bullies.
Our history proves why racial and religious division is dangerous.
Those who are anti-coal, anti-gas, anti-dam, and anti-nuclear when it comes to energy development in the developing world are implying that people there shouldn’t use electricity at nearly the level or low price that Westerners do. This, in turn, denies people safety, security, longevity, and comfort.
From Alex Frankl in The Guardian (referring to Tony Abbot's anti-environmental success in Australia)
"After years running focus groups I’ve learned one thing: technical terms like ‘carbon’ and ‘emissions’ can never win against a simple story about tax"
except here in BC where Tieleman invented this regressive "populist" message and managed to turn it into a (well-deserved) loser for the NDP.