# Shallow Water Walker

Dallas, TX, United States

### Bio

The name says it all...

Shallow Water Walker
Seth Shostak: ET is (probably) out there -- get ready
So it's not a log-log gimmick because being exponential to begin with is startling in and of itself? Why? We see exponential growth in many situations. So what is startling about it? Also, I see no line with a slope of 0.62. For the scatter plot in the link you provided, the approximate slope is much closer to 1 than 0.62. Using the data given for Sagan, the slope of the best fit line is near 0.94. If the slope was close to 0.62 then the upper-left corner of the scatter plot would be closer to 10^6. So what exactly are you talking about? I have questions for just about every sentence/phrase in your post, so I'll summarize by saying that it reads sloppily and I am confused on what you are trying to say.
Shallow Water Walker
Seth Shostak: ET is (probably) out there -- get ready
The plot in the link is a log-log gimmick. Let X denote ANY data which grows exponentially. Let Y denote the difference between successive data values in X. Then Y will be exponential as well. It's just the way exponents work; I'll explain it if you ask. Since X and Y are both exponential then taking the logarithm of each yields a linear relation, which is why the plot shows a scatter plot that closely fits a straight line. Straight lines are nice sales pitches for order, but the only order seen in the plot is mathematical: log(exp) = linear The golden ratio's role as some guiding force in nature is bunch of hocus pocus.
Shallow Water Walker
Shereen El-Feki: HIV -- how to fight an epidemic of bad laws
Dragan, your example on "how you use statistic" is all over the place. I'd like to know your source that claims drug addiction in the U.S. is at 2.6% while Russia is at 0.1%. Or is there confusion on what you are saying? From http://en.rian.ru/society/20100601/159275131.html, "There are 2.5 million drug addicts and more than 5.1 million drug users in Russia, according to the report by the International Narcotics Control Board. These figures have nearly doubled since 2002. Every year 80,000 new drug addicts are registered in Russia, and among the drug dependent population, approximately 2-2.5 million are between the ages of 18 and 39. Based on statistics, 20% of all drug addicts in Russia are school children, 60% are young people aged 16 to 30, and 20% are older. Statistically, drug use begins between the ages of 15 and 17 in Russia on average. The percentage of drug users among children between the ages of 9 and 13 has been increasing dramatically. There have been cases of drug use by children aged 6 to 7, who are introduced to drugs by parents who are addicts. Russia ranks first in the world in the consumption of heroin; 21% of the world's heroin production and 5% of all opium-based drugs are consumed in Russia, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime Prevention report, published in October 2009. Nearly 90% of all drug addicts in Russia use opiates, and primarily heroin, which is produced entirely in Afghanistan. There are an estimated 1.68 million opiate users in Russia." From the numbers given above, 0.1% is not even close to the addiction rate. But my favorite part is the 90% of drug addicts in Russia being primarily heroin users, echoing Tynie's point on injection drugs.
Shallow Water Walker
Hans Rosling: Religions and babies
@ Michael Dams He's not assuming a basis of only two people in the original population. He's saying that 2 produce 8, i.e. the next generation is multiplied by a factor of 4. If P is the population of the current generation (and supposing 2 produce 8), then 4*P is the population of the second generation 16*P = (4^2)*P is the pop of the 3rd gen 64*P = (4^3)*P is the pop of the 4th gen ... 4^(n-1) * P is the pop of the n-th gen The point is that if everyone sought to produce 8 children, then the world population would increase by at least a factor of 4^5 = 1024 > 1000 in 6 generations, i.e. the population of every city, town, village, etc. is multiplied by 1000 in less than 200 years (~6 generations). A goal "2 producing 8" is beyond ridiculous in terms of a sustainable population.
Shallow Water Walker