Author: VD

One more try

As you’ve probably noticed, I’m going to give Disqus another try. We’ll see how it goes; if it turns out to be more annoying than CoComment, we’ll simply go back to that.

UPDATE: No way. Disqus is far more annoying than CoComment can manage at its most quixotic. All the new comment systems require a move to the newer Blogger interface to work properly, which significantly reduces one’s ability to control the layout of the blog.

UPDATE 2: Part of that may have been my fault. I may give it another whirl later. But it’s not promising that the Disqus Appearance Settings page gives you two options: Preview and Cancel… the SAVE option is conspicuously lacking.

Warning signs of junk science

ESR makes some excellent points here:

I’ve seen a lot of “scientific” panics ginned up from nonexistent or scanty evidence over the last several decades. There’s a pattern to these episodes, a characteristic stench that becomes recognizable after a while. I’ll describe some of the indicia, which I’ve culled from episodes like the Alar scare, the ozone-hole brouhaha, the AIDS panic (are you old enough to remember when it was predicted to become endemic among heterosexuals in the U.S.?), acid rain, and even the great global cooling flap of 1975.

So. Here is a non-exclusive list of seven eight symptoms to watch out for:

Science by press release. It’s never, ever a good sign when ‘scientists’ announce dramatic results before publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. When this happens, we generally find out later that they were either self-deluded or functioning as political animals rather than scientists. This generalizes a bit; one should also be suspicious of, for example, science first broadcast by congressional testimony or talk-show circuit.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of eschatological panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “a terrible catastrophe looms over us if theory X is true, therefore we cannot risk disbelieving it”, you can be pretty sure that X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to panic the herd into stampeding rather than focusing on the quality of the evidence for theory X.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of moral panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “only bad/sinful/uncaring people disbelieve theory X”, you can be even more sure that theory X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to induce a state of preference falsification in which people are peer-pressured to publicly affirm a belief in theory X in spite of private doubts.

Consignment of failed predictions to the memory hole. It’s a sign of sound science when advocates for theory X publicly acknowledge failed predictions and explain why they think they can now make better ones. Conversely, it’s a sign of junk science when they try to bury failed predictions and deny they ever made them.

AGW/CC was obviously bogus from the very start, which is why it has been so laughably easy to predict the failures of its models and anticipate its scandals. It is interesting to note how many other aspects of science are easily shown to be junk science this way, beginning with TE(p)NSBMGDaGF and including other notorious non-sciences such as string theory and macroeconomics.

This quote in the comments was particularly apt: “Prediction is everything, and it must work more than once. Explaining everything after the fact is merely making up complicated stories.”

The lawless society

I have been saying for years that there is no law in the USA, merely the pretense of law. Now the absence of justice in the so-called justice system is becoming readily apparent to everyone who is paying even casual attention:

Sarbanes-Oxley requires [John Corzine] as the CEO of a company to (1) guarantee that effective risk controls and rules are in place and (2) monitor their compliance. It renders failure to do so — that is, the old-fashioned “I didn’t know” defense that was routinely used after 2000-era failures in the Internet space — a felony.

Now of course Mr. Corzine is entitled to the presumption of innocence and he is entitled to a trial before being pronounced guilty, but the law on this point is clear: Executives, the CEO and CFO in particular, are required under Sarbanes-Oxley to factually know about matters such as this and they are required to attest to that knowledge — and the presence of appropriate and sufficient risk controls under penalty of felony indictment.

It appears that Mr. Corzine has admitted in front of a Congressional Committee that he does not know, and therefore this appears to be a prima-facie admission that he is in direct violation of this law.

If this is not dealt with on an expeditious fashion and the law is not enforced you have just seen proof on national television that there is no longer a rule of law in this nation of any substance.

The incredible thing is that the federal government is prosecuting and jailing hundreds of thousands of people for all sorts of drug “crimes”, but has no interest whatsoever in even arresting a man who admitted to stealing somewhere between $600 million and $1.2 billion dollars.

The USA may not be the most corrupt nation on Earth, but it is certainly among the most structurally corrupted. This is actually a more insidious form of corruption, because the law itself stands in open violation of Natural Law. We rightly condemn National Socialist Germany and Soviet Russia because their governments legalized murder, and while events haven’t yet reached that level of extremis, it should now be clear that the USA has legalized fraud and theft.

Yowzers

The European banks are seriously desperate for cheap credit:

The European Central Bank said demand for three-month dollar loans surged after it cut the cost of the financing almost in half in a coordinated action last week with five other central banks including the Federal Reserve.

The European Central Bank, based in Frankfurt, will lend $50.7 billion to 34 euro area banks on Thursday for 84 days at a fixed rate of 0.59 percent. That compares with the $395 million lent in the last three-month offering on Nov. 9 at a rate of 1.09 percent. The E.C.B. also lent five banks $1.6 billion in its regular weekly dollar operation, up from $352 million last week.

On an anecdotal note, I’ve observed of late that even firms in the European distribution chain are preferring to buy and sell in USD wherever possible. I was discussing a new product with someone today and they said we didn’t need to bother with EUR pricing… not even for the European customers.

Unelectable redefined

Many people are under the impression that “unelectable” means “insufficiently popular with the electorate. That clearly isn’t true:

[I]n that campaign discussion on Twitter, one candidate has fared better than anyone else. Congressman Ron Paul has enjoyed the most favorable tone on Twitter of all candidates examined. From May through November, fully 55% of the assertions about the Texas Republican on Twitter have been positive-the highest of any candidate-while 15% have been negative-the lowest percentage of any candidate. That is a differential for Paul of 40 points on the positive side.

Paul is also the most favorably discussed candidate in blogs. While he trails significantly in the polls, and has received less coverage than every Republican candidate except Rick Santorum from news outlets, Paul seems to have struck a chord with some cohort in social media.

This treatment of Paul stands in contrast to that of most of the GOP field, for whom Twitter has been a tough neighborhood. Five of Paul’s seven GOP rivals have had negative opinions on Twitter outstrip positive ones by roughly 2-1 or more.

What “unelectable” actually means is “insufficiently popular with the mainstream media”. Or more precisely, “insufficiently subservient to the banking industry”.

Suicide bankers

Bank of America arranges for mutually assured financial destruction:

Recently Bank of America transferred a bunch of derivatives into their banking arm. “A bunch” means somewhere around $80 trillion worth. Now pay very careful attention, because part of the bankruptcy “reform” law in 2005 placed derivative claims in front of depositors in a business failure – including a bank failure.

What JP Morgan is claiming in the MF Global case is that the derivative trade (which is exactly what a “Repo to Maturity” trade is – it’s a derivative) is entitled to preference in the case of MF Global over those who had cash there for safekeeping either as a margin deposit or just as free cash as you would hold free cash in a bank.

If a major bank blows up this very same claim, supported in existing Bankruptcy Law with the changes signed by George Bush in 2005, will be used to steal the entirety of your bank account, and if you detect the impending blowup shortly before it happens — say, 90 days before — you’re still exposed to the risk through clawback!

There is a fairly cogent argument to be made that what BofA did is tantamount to intentionally placing an armed financial nuclear device in the center of the board room table and then daring anyone — including the government — to come tamper with it and risk setting it off, knowing full well that if it explodes it is utterly impossible to contain the damage to our economy and financial system.

Translation: your FDIC guarantees won’t matter if you’re a BoA depositor. Whatever can be salvaged from the mass destruction will go towards paying back its derivative bookie, most likely Goldman Sachs. This sounds rather as if BoA’s executives are planning to abandon ship.

And notice that it was that conservative Republican, George W. Bush, who signed that law into place, again confirming that Republicans are part of the problem, and therefore cannot be part of the solution.

Choosing collapse

This is a rather timely poll, following as it does my recent column on the subject. It makes it very clear that there is no point looking to the Republicans to save the nation. John Hawkins polls the nominal right-wing blogosphere about the Republican primary:

If you had to pick a 2012 GOP contender today, which of the following candidates would you select?

7) Jon Huntsman: 2.5% (2 votes)
6) Rick Santorum: 5.1% (4 votes)
5) Michele Bachmann: 6.3% (5 votes)
4) Ron Paul: 7.6% (6 votes)
3) Mitt Romney: 12.7% (10 votes)
2) Rick Perry: 26.6% (21 votes)
1) Newt Gingrich: 39.2% (31 votes)

Which candidate would you LEAST like to see as the GOP nominee in 2012?

7) Rick Santorum: 1.3% (1 votes)
6) Rick Perry: 1.3% (1 votes)
5) Newt Gingrich: 3.8% (3 votes)
4) Jon Huntsman: 9% (7 votes)
3) Michele Bachmann: 11.5% (9 votes)
2) Mitt Romney: 25.6% (20 votes)
1) Ron Paul: 47.4% (37 votes)

If your top choice couldn’t get the nomination, which candidate would be your second choice?

7) Ron Paul: 3.8% (3 votes)
6) Jon Huntsman: 6.4% (5 votes)
5) Michele Bachmann: 10.3% (8 votes)
4) Mitt Romney: 14.1% (11 votes)
3) Rick Santorum: 15.4% (12 votes)
2) Newt Gingrich: 19.2% (15 votes)
1) Rick Perry: 30.8% (24 votes)

This is why I have absolutely no sympathy for Americans whatsoever, especially not Republicans who claim to be so distraught over what “the Democrats” are supposedly doing to the country. They are revealing themselves to be EVERY BIT as stupid and clueless as the “Hope and Change” Obama Democrats. They are an integral part of the problem, not the potential solution they imagine themselves to be.

I find it particularly telling that Ron Paul is the Republican for whom they harbor the most distaste. No one likes the man who tells you that you aren’t a beautiful snowflake whose every action is justified, much less the one who tells you that the good times are not going to continue rolling and happy days are not here again.

Why I don’t watch NCAA football

It’s just a joke. A complete farce. I’m glad I quit paying attention to it years ago. The idea that Alabama, which has already lost to LSU, should play LSU again for the nonexistent “national title” is simply ridiculous in every way.

What they’re playing for is the SEC title, not the national one, the recent SEC championship game notwithstanding. How many teams outside the SEC have both teams even played? Six! LSU played Oregon, Northwestern State (?), and West Virginia. Alabama played Kent State, Penn State, and North Texas. A real murderer’s row of competitors there. While the SEC is the premier conference in college football, the more salient point here is that neither team has played a single Big 12 team; LSU hasn’t played the Big 10, Alabama hasn’t played the Pac-12.

Who cares if LSU beats Alabama again? We already know they can and probably will. And it’s worse if Alabama upsets LSU, since people will always wonder if Oklahoma State could have beaten them as well. I used to follow college football, but began to lose interest in college football once the focus shifted away from the inter-conference rivalries and towards a mythical “national” championship. I haven’t paid any attention to it in years, and latest debacle confirms my opinion that the NCAA is corrupt and stupid, the BCS is a ridiculous farce, and I’d rather much rather review advanced NFL statistics at Football Outsiders than devote any time to NCAA football.

If I ran the BCS, I would have instituted a simple rule preventing any such travesties. No intra-conference rematches if there is a potential opponent with a similar or better record, regardless of the BCS rating. When one is attempting to determine a national title, there should always be a heavy bias towards matching up teams from difference conferences. Of course, an NFL-style playoff system where the top teams from the six major conferences, plus two wild cards, make the playoffs makes far too much sense for the NCAA to ever adopt it.

No skepticism in science

An illuminating admission in the contemplation of a potential explanation for all that missing “dark matter”:

You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of dark matter – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits….

Conceptually the idea makes little sense. Positioning gravitationally significant mass outside of the orbit of stars might draw them out into wider orbits, but it’s difficult to see why this would add to their orbital velocity. Drawing an object into a wider orbit should result in it taking longer to orbit the galaxy since it will have more circumference to cover. What we generally see in spiral galaxies is that the outer stars orbit the galaxy within much the same time period as more inward stars.

But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit.

For me the most interesting thing isn’t the idea itself, about which I have no opinion, it is the way the Slashdot submitter described it: “As usual, these are extraordinary claims that divert from the consensus, so keep a healthy skepticism.”

This permits us to infer something that we have previously observed on many occasions: scientists and science fetishists do not maintain a healthy skepticism about claims that concur with the consensus. And the fascinating thing is that it is quite easy to factually demonstrate that scientists place more and blinder faith in the various scientific consensuses than religious people do in the tenets of their various faiths. Once more, we are given evidence that the false claims of atheists who subscribe to the cult of science are based on psychological projection.

Speaking of which, I found this Slashdot comment to be amusing: “The creationists trail real science and keep changing their story, but never, ever, ever admit error. What they believe is always the absolute truth and always has been and if you remember having hours long arguments with them over something which they now believe to be the case but didn’t then, your memory is faulty!”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it! As for dark matter, at this point, logic dictates that it most likely will turn out to be a spectacular example of the classic theoretical epicycles to which scientists have been increasingly given ever since medieval astronomers noticed that the observed planetary orbits didn’t correspond well with their Ptolamaic theories.

UPDATE: Fascinating to see that physicists now appear to be making the same mistake as economists: “Not sure about the summary, but the paper is extremely simple. I’ll summarize it: It is commonly assumed that galaxies are evenly distributed. This would mean that if you picked any galaxy at random, you could pick other galaxies whose gravitational pull totally balanced out the effect of the first one. So, overall, no distant galaxy would ever affect anything. What is observed is that galaxies are NOT evenly distributed. There is, indeed, left-over gravitational pull.”

And that, my dear and Dread Ilk, is precisely why anyone schooled in picking apart the flaws of one discipline is actually very well suited to pick apart the flaws of another discipline, even when he knows virtually nothing about that other discipline. Human error tends to follow readily identifiable patterns.

A lesson in unintended consequences

Charles Stross explains how insisting on DRM caused publishers to leap from the frying pan right into the fire:

DRM on ebooks gives Amazon a great tool for locking ebook customers into the Kindle platform. If you buy a book that you can only read on the Kindle, you’re naturally going to be reluctant to move to other ebook platforms that can’t read those locked Kindle ebooks — and even more reluctant to buy ebooks from rival stores that use incompatible DRM. Amazon acquired an early lead in the ebook field (by selling below cost in the early days, and subsidizing the Kindle hardware price to consumers), and customers are locked into the platform by their existing purchases. Which is pretty much how they gained their 80% market share.

An 80% share of a tiny market slice worth maybe 1% of the publishing sector was of no concern to the big six, back in 2008. But today, with it rising towards 40%, it’s another matter entirely.

As ebook sales mushroom, the Big Six’s insistence on DRM has proven to be a hideous mistake. Rather than reducing piracy[*], it has locked customers in Amazon’s walled garden, which in turn increases Amazon’s leverage over publishers. And unlike pirated copies (which don’t automatically represent lost sales) Amazon is a direct revenue threat because Amazon are have no qualms about squeezing their suppliers — or trying to poach authors for their “direct” publishing channel by offering initially favourable terms. (Which will doubtless get a lot less favourable once the monopoly is secured …)

If the big six began selling ebooks without DRM, readers would at least be able to buy from other retailers and read their ebooks on whatever platform they wanted, thus eroding Amazon’s monopoly position. But it’s not clear that the folks in the boardrooms are agile enough to recognize the tar pit they’ve fallen into …

I avoid walled gardens like the plague. I use Kobo and Aldiko as my eReaders and will not even look at any ebook that is not in EPUB format. And while my publishers publish in Amazon’s KZW format, I always urge them to be sure that an EPUB version is also available.