EPO and Hobby Cyclists

gwhite

Howard Kveck wrote:

> I wonder if it was on
> a news show, or one of the pundits, like Hannity...

I think it was Ham & Cheese, now that you remind me. It is all rather
foggy. Sure, I get bored like everyone else.

> <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html>)

Thanks, I'll check it out in awhile...

> Anyway, I think that what Fox was trying to do was a sort of "gotcha" on
> Clarke.

Well that would have been Ham, but most certainly not Cheese. I see
your point.

> By taking one sentence out of context and showing something that
> seemed to disprove it, they are trying to discredit everything he said.
> What he seemed to mean was that when he asked her for a meeting to discuss
> al Qaeda, she dismissed it in a way that indicated that they had much more
> important things to think about. You know, "Huh? Why would you want to talk
> about them?!?!"

Could be for all I know. But it is an election year and politically
there just isn't any way a sitting administration up for re-election
can say "I screwed up" about something like 9-11. In fact, I don't
think politics allow much room for admitting mistakes "period."
That's too bad I suppose, but that's kinda "just how it is."

If they did the right thing, they'll say: "I did the best job
possible."
If they didn't do so well they would say: "I did the best job
possible."

Presidential politics don't allow a lot of wiggle room there. Not
that it makes me happy.

I'm not ascribing blame, but people do make mistakes. Admitting I
have not studied this particular issue, I (to date) suspect there is a
good bit of blame to go around. Regarding how it has been handled
politically, I would be cynical if you were to say the democrats, if
they were currently in power, would be any more likely to admit a
mistake of not decisively punching out AQ. I would be cynical if you
were to tell me they would have "done better" as an incoming
administration in 2001.


> I think you're right on the money when you say, "If they (Rice, et al)
> knew about AQ before 9-11, I can see how that could be viewed as negative.
> They knew and didn't do enough."

Yes, it seems like it could be used against them, but again I wasn't
listening to the overall context/framework of the discussion, or
trying to analyze it. In light of that, I think everyone should be
mirandized at birth -- especially potential politicians. "Everything
you say can and will be used against you." Of course, if they're "on
your side," just the opposite will happen. "Everything you say can
and will be used for you."

gwhite

"Tom Kunich" wrote:
> "gwhite" wrote:

> > WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.
>
> Hmm sounds just like what I said and what the other's arguing with you said
> that I couldn't possibly have heard.

Yes, I'm saying it was very unlikely you pulled it out of thin air,
aside from how the statements are specifically viewed by various
politicos.

> > What spin are you referring to?...
>
> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
> doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> terrorism in the world.

Well I certainly don't feel responsible *for* it. The complaints
about things like US trade policy and culture "stomping" as provoking
terrorism are utterly ridiculous. I do feel responsible to do
something *about* terrorism.

We are probably in agreement that an effete (appeasement) policy is
one doomed for long term disaster, death, and chaos. For the purpose
of winning, it doesn't work any better with one's enemies than it does
in a bike race. Basically we get in their face and take them out.
That would be my approach.

Robert Chung

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
> (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
> you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.)

Which are those, and why would one be interested in that particular
criterion?

Howard Kveck

In article <%YPic.8809$eZ5.3417@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Howard, cite some foreign policy that you believe causes the likes of Atta
> to fly a plane into a building. That isn't someone that hates business,
> that's someone that has a bitter abiding hatred for the basic fundamentals
> of our culture.

Foreign policies that they hate the US for would include the perception
that the US has an imperialistic streak, supporting and, in fact,
installing brutal and oppressive leaders in various countries that do not
represent the majority population in any way. The Shah of Iran, Rios Mont,
Marcos, Somoza, Suharto, Pinochet and Saddam (when he was our friend during
the Iran-Iraq war) are a few of those who come to mind. Our support for the
Sauds especially galls them. Top of the list, of course, is the support of
Israel. There's not a chance that any cultural issues tops that last one,
in particular. Mideastern scholars say so, if you'd care to look.

> Here's the long and the short of it - I'm not suggesting WE change anything.
> But if you really believe that our putting gays on TV (Queer Eye?) having
> string bikinis on 13 year old girls and advertising "women's hygene
> products" in magazines isn't any of your or my business, then you have to
> accept that you are part of cause of Islamic hatred.

A very small part. Policy issues trump cultural ones, however. Big time.

> > Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more
> > people to take up the anti-US terorism cause?
>
> Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
> greater number?

Apparently not. Shiites have never tolerated suicide bombing, yet right
now in Iraq, it -is- being condoned, as one example. Perhaps you should
google it - there are many reports in various news outlets online that talk
about recruiting in various Islamic extremist grooups being at an all time
high since the invasion of Iraq.

> Well, do you really believe that leaving Arafat alive and planning his next
> financial additions to his family terrorism business is calming anyone down?
> You have to have a pretty blank mind not to have noticed that Hamas had
> offices in Arafat's building.

If you think that executing Arafat is going to make the Palestinians
say, "Oh, well, that ends that. We'll just let Israel have our homes, olive
orchards and land - they are obviously more deserving..." The pot is about
to boil over after they killed Yasin and Rantisi - right now is the calm
before the storm. Do in Arafat and the explosion will be massive. Here's
another thing you seem not to know: Islamic people the world over identify
with the Palestinians.

> I'd say that while you're saying that the "Iraqi people" are rebelling that
> isn't what the word is from people that are there. In fact they are saying
> that there are a minute portion of the population and that there are more
> members of the KKK in this country than the rebels in Fallujah. So why are
> you implying that a tiny segment are representative of an entire country?

The guys doing the fighting are, indeed, a small percentage of the
population, as is always the case. But they are supported by an
overwhelming percentage of the population. If you don't want to take my
word for it, perhaps try that of Brig. Nick Carter, commander of British
troops in southern Iraq:
"During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that
the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the
goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi."
There are many articles on the web telling of this.
In recent actions in and around Najaf and Fallujah, with Iraqi forces to
be in support of the US, 40% abandoned their positions, and 10% fought
against the US. There will be a huge backlash if the US goes into Najaf -
for Muslims, it would be the equivalent of attacking the Vatican for
Catholics.

> > Ever consider why Osama bin Laden has the house of Saud as one of his
> > primary objectives?
>
> Because of tribal politics that go back 100 years to Ibn Saud himself?

Did you consider that bin Laden would think that the friend and big
supporter of his enemy would be an enemy, too? The Saudi security service
isn't exactly a friendly bunch, and they are trained by Americans, as well
as being supported by US dollars. Very brutal, very repressive. Very hated.

> > You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
> > event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
> > immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.
>
> Obvious reasons for Arabs who HATE the Iranians.

Ehh???? You completely misunderstand that one. Islamic fundamentalists
and extremists state that the removal of Mossadegh was the moment that they
knew that the west did not have the Islamic world's interests at heart.
They hated the US for putting the much despised Shah back in power.
Remember the Iranian Revolution in '77? That had nought to do with culture.
Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda aren't restricted to having
allegiance to one nation state - they have people from many nations working
with them, including people from countries who have natural enmities. Those
antagonisms go away because of the common goal.

> > How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been
> >fought from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an
> > attempt to maintain the status quo.
>
> I suggest you study the Vietnamese war before making such ignorant
> statements. North Vietnam was BEATEN in the Tet Offensive. Any serious
> military action against the North would have caused them to completely
> crumble. They were not allowed to do so by the Liberals. Got that? The WAR
> WAS WON and then handed back to the North Vietnamese who them murdered in
> wholesale numbers.

The NV did lose huge numbers of Viet Cong units in the Tet Offensive,
but it was a calculated maneuver. They still had plenty of regular army and
guerrilla troops available. But they threw Tet in an effort to kill as many
South Vietnamese and US soldiers as possible, as well as demoralize the
rest. They succeeded at both ends. The war wasn't close to being won,
unless you are going by the stories that Westmoreland and Macnamara were
telling at the time. And you are aware that those numbers were cooked,
right? Check out Macnamara's new-ish book. Among others.

> But I have the gist of your claim "It isn't MEEEEEEE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO
> WITH IT!!! IT'S SOMEONE ELSE!"

Speaking for yourself again, eh? The fact you can't recognize that there
are people in the world who don't agree with US foreign policy shows that
you're a man who's in serious denial. I guess Tom knowledge is better than
that of a pile of mid-eastern scholars.

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

gwhite

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
> from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
> any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
> already there.

If true, then indeed he should have ignored them. After all, he was
commander-in-chief, not them. Those guys died for no reason.
Abomination.

I suspect the "to intervene or not intervene" topic is a very long
talk -- I think it is already older than me. The US has history of
doing some great things and some things it would rather forget. And
it never did anything as bad as that of some of history's
super-villains. There is no real excusing the bad things, but does
that mean you can't do good things, or paralyze yourself from doing
so? How do you decide? Laws and property rights might come in handy.

Remember that people still want to come here. And if they can't come,
they willingly want to trade with us, and we in turn do so willingly
-- maybe more than any other 1st world country. If politics can't
solve the nasty problems, free trade will. Growing dependent upon
each other for a better life strongly disincentivizes killing each
other, not to mention opening communication between cultures.
Moreover trade is something free people do in practice, not an
ethereal idea about what they "should do." Models (rules) for a
better society should consider how people actually behave, and not be
based on instructions of how they should behave given great advice
from a morally superior politician, a political sect, a religious
leader, ... and on and on. ;-)

Benjamin Weiner

Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Howard,

> While your points are all correct based on careful, distanced analysis of
> the available FACTS, you'll never get through to a guy who thinks that all
> terrorism is caused by a girl's ass crack.

Our problem is that Western society's corruptive influence isn't
corrosive enough. Several of the Sept 11th plotters were in the
U.S. for months before the attacks, occassionally making forays
into Florida bars (IIRC). If only one of them had been corrupted
enough to think "Hey, I'm not sure I want to die for a holy cause.
I want to spend some more time here drinking Bud Light and checking
out girls' asses," the whole tragedy might have been averted.

I'd still like to see the entire cast of "Friends" launched on
a rocket into the sun, though, but not for foreign policy reasons.

Tom Kunich

"gwhite" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:698b8866.0404252022.5336ef5b@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Kunich" wrote:
> >
> > Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people
are
> > doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> > terrorism in the world.
>
> Well I certainly don't feel responsible *for* it. The complaints
> about things like US trade policy and culture "stomping" as provoking
> terrorism are utterly ridiculous. I do feel responsible to do
> something *about* terrorism.

that's because the "responsibility" is so diaphanous. We believe in live and
let live. We allow "adult book stores" to be opened three doors down from
grade schools and we essentially do nothing about kiddy porn and roadside
bill boards about feminine hygene products all of which are so disturbing to
most of the rest of the world that we don't even have a good idea of just
how outraged they really are.

I worked with very educated people from all over the globe and in many cases
when prompted they have spoken of humiliation when turning on the TV, radio
or even opening a newspaper. Although they will say that they prefer the
freedom of this country, when they go back to their own countries they don't
talk about Standard Oil buying crude from Saudi sheiks, but about "Friends"
(well, actually soap operas but you know what I mean) coming through on the
satellite link to every home. In second world countries they all want to
have the luxuries and comforts that we Americans have but their religious
leaders see the moral corruption much more than the Escalades.

You don't feel responsible but you are. As am I. One of the differences here
is that I have accepted that responsibility. I have considered what we could
do and have come to the conclusion that we have been doing about as good a
job on the overall picture as we could. No one could predict Ayatollah
Komeni and in fact the Shah was a MUCH kinder and gentler governor than the
Ayatohlahs but a substantial margin. To suggest that our support of Shah
Pavlevi was wrong was to completely ignore Iran's history before and after
the Shah. In fact, what brought him down wasn't his somewhat free-handed
secret service who were butchers on the occassion, but that he was
attempting to install a government free from religious affiliations.

> We are probably in agreement that an effete (appeasement) policy is
> one doomed for long term disaster, death, and chaos. For the purpose
> of winning, it doesn't work any better with one's enemies than it does
> in a bike race. Basically we get in their face and take them out.
> That would be my approach.

I think that we have no choice. It really is "us'ns or them".

Benjamin Weiner

Robert Chung <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
> Benjamin Weiner wrote:
> > (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
> > you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.)

> Which are those, and why would one be interested in that particular
> criterion?

Well, you never know, Greg might be your paper's referee.

There's potentially hundreds of ways of fitting a straight line
to a set of points. I have some references cribbed from a grad
student if you care (but you probably know them already).
Amazingly, there is a controversy in my field right now which is
partly because people are arguing about these methods
(Tremaine et al 2003 Astrophys J 574, 740). If you care about
the values of the underlying relation, then a couple of nice
properties are invariance under changes in scale of x or y and
exchange of x and y; not all methods do this. Me, I just act
dumb and use the routine from Numerical Recipes.

Robert Chung

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
> Robert Chung <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>>> (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
>>> you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.)
>
>> Which are those, and why would one be interested in that particular
>> criterion?
>
> Well, you never know, Greg might be your paper's referee.
>
> There's potentially hundreds of ways of fitting a straight line
> to a set of points. I have some references cribbed from a grad
> student if you care (but you probably know them already).
> Amazingly, there is a controversy in my field right now which is
> partly because people are arguing about these methods
> (Tremaine et al 2003 Astrophys J 574, 740). If you care about
> the values of the underlying relation, then a couple of nice
> properties are invariance under changes in scale of x or y and
> exchange of x and y; not all methods do this. Me, I just act
> dumb and use the routine from Numerical Recipes.

I'm less familiar now with the statistical decision theory stuff than when
I was actively studying it -- but I don't think I've ever heard much about
x-y exchange *as a purely statistical procedure.* The closest thing I can
drag off the top of my head is the principal components stuff--but most of
that is used as an aid to factor reduction rather than an end-all
statistical procedure by itself.

I just looked up the black hole mass-velocity dispersion stuff. It's
interesting for two reasons:

1. When I gave my "straightening scatterplots" lecture about a month ago I
had to search around for data I could use for examples. Next year perhaps
I'll use some black hole data.

2. I can only see the abstract of the Tremaine article (2002) so this is
perhaps both unfair and premature but this reinforces something else that
I occasionally mention in my lectures: that the statistical techniques
developed in different fields are optimized to handle different kinds of
issues. Econometric techniques (and techniques developed in the other
social sciences) tend to be much more focused on dealing with the
consequences of crappy data than the techniques used in the physical
sciences, which focus more on the efficiency of the estimator.

Benjamin Weiner

Robert Chung <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> I'm less familiar now with the statistical decision theory stuff than when
> I was actively studying it -- but I don't think I've ever heard much about
> x-y exchange *as a purely statistical procedure.* The closest thing I can
> drag off the top of my head is the principal components stuff--but most of
> that is used as an aid to factor reduction rather than an end-all
> statistical procedure by itself.

Maybe you'd be interested in this:

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/leapz.pdf

A rather long saga, which like Proust's could only be brought
to a conclusion by the death of the author.

> I just looked up the black hole mass-velocity dispersion stuff. It's
> interesting for two reasons:

> 1. When I gave my "straightening scatterplots" lecture about a month ago I
> had to search around for data I could use for examples. Next year perhaps
> I'll use some black hole data.

> 2. I can only see the abstract of the Tremaine article (2002) so this is
> perhaps both unfair and premature but this reinforces something else that
> I occasionally mention in my lectures: that the statistical techniques
> developed in different fields are optimized to handle different kinds of
> issues. Econometric techniques (and techniques developed in the other
> social sciences) tend to be much more focused on dealing with the
> consequences of crappy data than the techniques used in the physical
> sciences, which focus more on the efficiency of the estimator.

Oh, sorry. Damn journal publishers. You can get the full text here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203468
Many of the references can also be found in full-text version by
searching here:
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph

The abstract doesn't capture the statistical-method smack-talk
that is in the body of the paper, although one of their points
is that the difference in statistical methods is not as big as
their colleagues/mortal enemies have claimed. Science and
rbr have a lot in common actually.

It does seem that different fields have very different needs
from statistics. However, in astronomy, we have no shortage of
crappy data, or data with substantial selection effects.

Robert Chung

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>
> Oh, sorry. Damn journal publishers. You can get the full text here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203468

Thanks. From Table 1:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...-dispersion.png

Ewoud Dronkert

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:12:43 +0200, Robert Chung wrote:
> Thanks. From Table 1:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...-dispersion.png

So does log(v)-m have an exponential signature?

Robert Chung

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:12:43 +0200, Robert Chung wrote:
>> Thanks. From Table 1:
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...-dispersion.png
>
> So does log(v)-m have an exponential signature?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...-dispersion.txt

Ewoud Dronkert

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:41:54 +0200, Robert Chung wrote:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...-dispersion.txt

Thanks, just what I needed to keep my mind off the beautiful weather
outside.