Showing posts with label holidays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label holidays. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Facebook is down! Mayday, mayday!
And on New Year's Eve, no less! All I get is some Swedish root site. What's going on?
EDIT: The mobile site seems to work.
EDIT2: And the regular site is now back in business. Ho hum.
EDIT: The mobile site seems to work.
EDIT2: And the regular site is now back in business. Ho hum.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sarcasm, applied properly
In case you've been living in a cave for the past few weeks -- or rely on the mainstream media for your news -- you've probably heard about climate scientist Joe Romm's expose of the shoddy work on global warming in the new book SuperFreakonomics by Levitt and Dubner. (Excellent compilation of the discussion in the blogosphere and some mainstream publications.)
Long story short, it's like the kerfuffle a while back between me and Bob Murphy about his own, um, imprecise commentary on global warming, except that the mistakes by Levitt and Dubner were much bigger, they got called on their shoddiness by a lot more people, and they continued to dig themselves much deeper that Bob ever tried to. To top it off, they deliberately misrepresented one of their experts (Ken Caldeira added the quote you see to his web page in contradiction of a position attributed to him in the book after he found out what was in it.)
(Note: this isn't about "rah rah let's cut carbon emissions" vs. "those durn whiny hippies". Regardless of your opinion on the issue, Levitt and Dubner's handling was extremely shoddy, and exactly the kind of thing that neither side should want, even and especially if you agree with their policy positions.)
With that in mind, take a look at this post on the Freakonomics blog, where Levitt complains that he's unfairly portrayed, in his university's alumni magazine, as someone not tackling the "big questions" and who's ruining economics.
Yep, this is one of those times when only Silas-grade sarcasm will do. Here's what I posted:
Needless to say, the comment didn't make it through moderation.
By the way, it's my birthday today! Wish me a happy 28th if you haven't already!
Long story short, it's like the kerfuffle a while back between me and Bob Murphy about his own, um, imprecise commentary on global warming, except that the mistakes by Levitt and Dubner were much bigger, they got called on their shoddiness by a lot more people, and they continued to dig themselves much deeper that Bob ever tried to. To top it off, they deliberately misrepresented one of their experts (Ken Caldeira added the quote you see to his web page in contradiction of a position attributed to him in the book after he found out what was in it.)
(Note: this isn't about "rah rah let's cut carbon emissions" vs. "those durn whiny hippies". Regardless of your opinion on the issue, Levitt and Dubner's handling was extremely shoddy, and exactly the kind of thing that neither side should want, even and especially if you agree with their policy positions.)
With that in mind, take a look at this post on the Freakonomics blog, where Levitt complains that he's unfairly portrayed, in his university's alumni magazine, as someone not tackling the "big questions" and who's ruining economics.
Yep, this is one of those times when only Silas-grade sarcasm will do. Here's what I posted:
Well, it's a good thing you've moved on from sumo-wrestling into important issues like global warming, where you've carefully researched the issue, accurately represented expert opinion, and presented an even-handed, informative discussion of the issue that helps sustain the University of Chicago's excellent reputation.
Needless to say, the comment didn't make it through moderation.
By the way, it's my birthday today! Wish me a happy 28th if you haven't already!
Labels:
economics,
envrionmentalism,
holidays,
peer review,
self-deception
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Another interesting thermodynamics result
Here's another interesting insight on thermodynamics and information theory to add to my previous: I realized why "joules per kelvin" is a measure of entropy. Not exciting? Wait, you'll see.
In the previous post on this topic, I mentioned all the parallels between entropy in information theory and entropy in thermodynamics. Also, some properties can be calculated by their information-theoretic definition or their thermodynamic definition, such as the thermodynamic availability, which can be calculated as the Kullback-Leibler divergence, a measure from information theory. But what's interesting is that this value can be expressed in terms of bits, or in terms of Joules per Kelvin, which has units of energy over temperature, with a simple constant multiplier for conversion.
Huh?
You see, there's the hard part: why on earth would bits -- which measure how much memory your computer has -- possibly refer to the same property as "Joules per Kelvin", the way that inches and meters refer to the same property?
And that's where we get to the interesting part. First of all, what is temperature? It's not how much internal energy something has, but rather, it's internal energy per degree of freedom. In this context, a "degree of freedom" is a distinct way that something can be modified at the molecular level. A single-atom molecule may be viewed as having three degrees of freedom, since it can translate in three dimensions. Once the molecule has shape, however, it can rotate in addition to translating. So, two different substances at the same temperature can have different internal energy, because one of them may be stuffing that energy into more degrees of freedom.
So where does that get us with Joules per Kelvin and energy per unit temperature? Well, watch what happens when you expand out temperature in the entropy expression:
energy
------------------------
energy/degree-of-freedom
= energy * degree-of-freedom/energy
= degree-of-freedom (!)
So there you have it! Once you expand it out, energy per unit temperature is simply a roundabout way of saying "degrees of freedom".
Now you may ask, "Nice, but that still doesn't explain what that has to do with bits." But then, what is a bit but a binary degree of freedom? When you have memory of n bits, then there are n values that you can independently set to one of two possible values, making it likewise a measure of degrees of freedom. (Note that this capability allows you to store 2^n possible states.) And informational entropy, in turn -- also expressed in bits -- is the logarithm of the number of possible states a system can be in, making it proportional to the degrees of freedom as well.
The two lessons to take away are that:
1) The number of degrees of freedom a system has depends on the arbitrary choice of what you count as a degree of freedom, just like the number of "units of length" something is.
2) Whichever consistent method you use of counting degrees of freedom, the number of degrees of freedom is proportional to the logarithm of the number of possible states.
Mystery solved! (No, I don't know if this discussion is given in any textbook treatment of the issue.)
Oh, and: Happy Saint Patty's Day!
In the previous post on this topic, I mentioned all the parallels between entropy in information theory and entropy in thermodynamics. Also, some properties can be calculated by their information-theoretic definition or their thermodynamic definition, such as the thermodynamic availability, which can be calculated as the Kullback-Leibler divergence, a measure from information theory. But what's interesting is that this value can be expressed in terms of bits, or in terms of Joules per Kelvin, which has units of energy over temperature, with a simple constant multiplier for conversion.
Huh?
You see, there's the hard part: why on earth would bits -- which measure how much memory your computer has -- possibly refer to the same property as "Joules per Kelvin", the way that inches and meters refer to the same property?
And that's where we get to the interesting part. First of all, what is temperature? It's not how much internal energy something has, but rather, it's internal energy per degree of freedom. In this context, a "degree of freedom" is a distinct way that something can be modified at the molecular level. A single-atom molecule may be viewed as having three degrees of freedom, since it can translate in three dimensions. Once the molecule has shape, however, it can rotate in addition to translating. So, two different substances at the same temperature can have different internal energy, because one of them may be stuffing that energy into more degrees of freedom.
So where does that get us with Joules per Kelvin and energy per unit temperature? Well, watch what happens when you expand out temperature in the entropy expression:
energy
------------------------
energy/degree-of-freedom
= energy * degree-of-freedom/energy
= degree-of-freedom (!)
So there you have it! Once you expand it out, energy per unit temperature is simply a roundabout way of saying "degrees of freedom".
Now you may ask, "Nice, but that still doesn't explain what that has to do with bits." But then, what is a bit but a binary degree of freedom? When you have memory of n bits, then there are n values that you can independently set to one of two possible values, making it likewise a measure of degrees of freedom. (Note that this capability allows you to store 2^n possible states.) And informational entropy, in turn -- also expressed in bits -- is the logarithm of the number of possible states a system can be in, making it proportional to the degrees of freedom as well.
The two lessons to take away are that:
1) The number of degrees of freedom a system has depends on the arbitrary choice of what you count as a degree of freedom, just like the number of "units of length" something is.
2) Whichever consistent method you use of counting degrees of freedom, the number of degrees of freedom is proportional to the logarithm of the number of possible states.
Mystery solved! (No, I don't know if this discussion is given in any textbook treatment of the issue.)
Oh, and: Happy Saint Patty's Day!
Labels:
holidays,
information theory,
measurement,
science,
thermodynamics
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Have a very merry DDR Christmas!
Last year, I made a video of myself doing the Christmas- and Winter-themed dances from the video game series Dance Dance Revolution (DDR), and put it on my YouTube page. But back then, I didn't have a rockin' blog to link it from!
Since Christmas is going to hit soon, here's the video, the most viewed on my page:
Since Christmas is going to hit soon, here's the video, the most viewed on my page:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)