Shallow Water Walker

Dallas, TX, United States

About Shallow

Bio

The name says it all...

Comments & conversations

96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
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.
96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
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.
96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
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.
96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
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.
96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
1) That's an odd interpretation of what he said. 2) It is in no way logical to attempt to project the hypothetical "to forever." It's almost like you want a demographer to look through some crystal ball. 3) You made the claim "Demographers...are dead wrong." and have made other strong claims throughout the thread. And all this is based on a hypothetical situation which in turn is founded on the assumption of a belief that is on no way supported by observation in the real world. But when an opposing point is made, you point out assumptions and "certainly will not assume it", even though it is actually supported by the observation of what is an amazing rate of advancement over the past 100 years? That is, to put it bluntly, an obscene double standard. If you are referring to this thread, then I agree that this is not science.
96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.
"Please note of the bit about slander. If a school has a choice between discipline within the school or taking legal action that leaves a child with a criminal conviction then I think a two day suspension is preferable." The school should take the path that is offered to the school; otherwise, the school is making up rules as they go along. Is punishment for an act which has yet to be found unlawful by the courts offered to the schools? If so, please cite. If not, then you are talking about schools playing the role of judge, jury and executioner, with the self-granted power argued by way of "This punishment isn't as bad as the possible alternative."
96777
Shallow Water Walker
Posted about 3 years ago
Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.
Keith explained my point as well as I could have. I can't speak on the Australian system, but I can for what I have seen of education in Texas. Just as you say, the schools are bound by law to provide education, but the citizens are also bound by law to fund the school. By way of a third party (parents), the students are paying for a service, a forced payment for a service determined solely by one's address. They have every right to speak out on the service they receive. - If slander is the case then that is for the courts to decide, not the schools. - If bullying is the case then, while I can understand the school being concerned, the school still has no right to intervene. When I was in (public) school, all athletes had to sign a contract in order to play sports. Included was the prohibition of alcohol under all instances, even though it was perfectly legal for a teenager to drink a beer while in the presence of a parent. The athletic director saw fit to force a contract upon athletes which forbid behavior that was 1) legal and 2) taking place outside of school. That was my first experience with a school stepping outside its jurisdiction and unjustly restricting the behavior of students. Regulating what a student says outside of school grounds/hours is even worse. And we wonder why students have such a bitter attitude towards school...