http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Mandelbrot on efficient markets - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/496fa77e4c853268?hl=en
* Consciousness without borders - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/3a77a001bc2891b9?hl=en
* BLOODY HAM - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/7ad7d91510b7ebbc?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mandelbrot on efficient markets
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/496fa77e4c853268?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 25 2009 8:16 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee
On Oct 25, 8:46 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> the bulls make money, the bears make money, and
> the hogs always get slaughtered; that is,
> market "up" or "down" makes no difference
> to the physical economy, if they are raking it all of
> in the "voluntary CO2 emmisions-trading scheme;"
> does it?
Racial, cultural, national, institutional, personal, career factors
count rather more than some moneys gained or lost in the share/
property markets. Moneys come and go, but prejudices linger.
> > start good business, but now in our Einsteinian world all
> > of these high-minded ideals (if they ever existed) have
> > long gone down the drainpipes. Will anyone
> > fund a Hydrogen Transmission Network, or the
> > development of the Internal Force Engine?
>
> thus:
> that is the penintimate waffle.
I don't know if this is a put-down, but to stick to my earlier point,
only the truly scientific methods/approaches can conquer prejudice,
over the long term.
Arindam Banerjee
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 3:40 am
From: "Arindam Banerjee"
"Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hbr3p1$r9h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> "Virgil" <Virgil@home.esc> wrote in message
>> news:Virgil-64345C.01342722102009@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>> In article <lyk4ynvqii.fsf@circe.aeaea>,
>>> The Other <other@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marko Amnell <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a short review which I thought was fair:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but all of this is very old news. People have known for
>>>> decades that distributions of returns are nonnormal. As the guy says,
>>>> the models are used anyway when there's nothing better. It's another
>>>> case of looking for your keys under the streetlight when you dropped
>>>> them in the alley, because the light is better there. The main thing
>>>> is that the people developing and implementing these analytics, the
>>>> "rocket scientists", very rarely have a background in statistics. (I
>>>> think Nissim Taleb emphasizes this fact.) I'm not talking about the
>>>> big names here, but about the ones who actually do the stuff. They've
>>>> typically learned their probability and statistics in physics courses,
>>>> sometimes econometric courses, or sometimes even on their own.
>>>> They're financial *engineers*, and like all engineers, they have no
>>>> patience for "philosophical" questions like whether their models are
>>>> really justified. That's the kind of stuff statisticians worry about;
>>>> it's not what the customer is paying for. Engineers just want to find
>>>> a formula that "works".
>>
>> Let us see, in my engineering institute we had separate engineering
>> degree from different departments in Agricultural, Aeronautical,
>> Electrical, Electronics and Electrical Communication, Chemical,
>> Mechanical, Civil, Mining, Metallurgical, Naval Architecture - what the
>> hell is a financial engineer? Looks like there is an effort in this ng
>> to give genuine engineers a bad name. Most deplorable!
>>
>
> I don't agree with your assessment - "financial engineering" isn't
> actually engineering, and most engineers care a great deal about
> philosophy.
I don't see how you are disagreeing with my assessment, when you yourself
say that "financial engineering" isn't actually engineering. You are only
making my point.
>
>>> But, in this case at least, it appears the formulas don't work!
>>>
>>> Even engineers should eventually notice when that keeps happening.
>>
>> True, which is why *WE* from IIT Kharagpur say that e=mcc is the most
>> absolute bollocks, and all peoples in all nations that *believe* in that
>> sort of crap should not get any sympathy when their economies, morals,
>> health, etc get busted.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Arindam Banerjee.
> --
> Les Cargill
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 3:42 am
From: "Arindam Banerjee"
"spudnik" <Space998@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf57be45-ca91-4898-9873-260b241a250c@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> two things: a)
> just attended a promulgation of "free markets"
> re _Turning Oil into Salt_ -- look it up,
> in which (I think) the head of the institute,
> where it was given, suggested a "floor price"
> for "alternative energy," which was immediately
> confuzed with one for oil ... so, I asked,
> with a resounding non-response, if that latter was not
> the same as applying a tariff to imported oil; b)
> just read that mister Merriwether,
> who started the ill-fated LTCM hedgie,
> based upon the Nobel Prize-winning (sic) formula
> of Scholes et al, is starting a new one, his third
> (it (FT) also said that the average hedgie was
> only about two to three times leveraged,
> which I guess was "bollocks," what ever that is.
>
> now, as for E=ccm, it is just an extension
It is more than a wrong formula, derived from a bungle. It is much more
disastrous. It is a wrong ideology, that appearance is actually reality,
that the Earth is standing still... it is the height of anti-science.
Arindam Banerjee
> of Leibniz'z well-known formula from *vis-viva*
> (sp.?), and not so earth-shattering ...
> no matter what Leo "doc strangelove" szilard did with it!
> (things, only the Larouchiacs know .-)
>
>> > True, which is why *WE* from IIT Kharagpur say that e=mcc is the most
>> > absolute bollocks, and all peoples in all nations that *believe*
>
> --Cap'n'trade is an arbitrageur's delight;
> an actual tax on imported oil is a tariff e.g..
> http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
> ".... beyond that level (today, it is over 300 ppm),
> the effectiveness of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas decreases
> exponentially (Figure 1). This exponential
> decline in the effectiveness of carbon dioxide as a
> greenhouse gas is not contested by the believers in
> global warming; they simply ignore it.
> There is an experiment anyone can do to understand
> this principle: Take a sheet of paper, and place it
> over a window with sunlight coming through. You ...."
> http://larouchepub.com/lar/Articles_2009/Articles_2009/Cap_and_Trade.pdf
> http://larouchepub.com/lar/Articles_2009/Where_Punt_sp09.pdf
> www.wlym.com
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 5:07 pm
From: Les Cargill
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hbr3p1$r9h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> "Virgil" <Virgil@home.esc> wrote in message
>>> news:Virgil-64345C.01342722102009@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>>> In article <lyk4ynvqii.fsf@circe.aeaea>,
>>>> The Other <other@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marko Amnell <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a short review which I thought was fair:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, but all of this is very old news. People have known for
>>>>> decades that distributions of returns are nonnormal. As the guy says,
>>>>> the models are used anyway when there's nothing better. It's another
>>>>> case of looking for your keys under the streetlight when you dropped
>>>>> them in the alley, because the light is better there. The main thing
>>>>> is that the people developing and implementing these analytics, the
>>>>> "rocket scientists", very rarely have a background in statistics. (I
>>>>> think Nissim Taleb emphasizes this fact.) I'm not talking about the
>>>>> big names here, but about the ones who actually do the stuff. They've
>>>>> typically learned their probability and statistics in physics courses,
>>>>> sometimes econometric courses, or sometimes even on their own.
>>>>> They're financial *engineers*, and like all engineers, they have no
>>>>> patience for "philosophical" questions like whether their models are
>>>>> really justified. That's the kind of stuff statisticians worry about;
>>>>> it's not what the customer is paying for. Engineers just want to find
>>>>> a formula that "works".
>>> Let us see, in my engineering institute we had separate engineering
>>> degree from different departments in Agricultural, Aeronautical,
>>> Electrical, Electronics and Electrical Communication, Chemical,
>>> Mechanical, Civil, Mining, Metallurgical, Naval Architecture - what the
>>> hell is a financial engineer? Looks like there is an effort in this ng
>>> to give genuine engineers a bad name. Most deplorable!
>>>
>> I don't agree with your assessment - "financial engineering" isn't
>> actually engineering, and most engineers care a great deal about
>> philosophy.
>
> I don't see how you are disagreeing with my assessment, when you yourself
> say that "financial engineering" isn't actually engineering. You are only
> making my point.
Ah. Violent agreement, then!
>>>> But, in this case at least, it appears the formulas don't work!
>>>>
>>>> Even engineers should eventually notice when that keeps happening.
>>> True, which is why *WE* from IIT Kharagpur say that e=mcc is the most
>>> absolute bollocks, and all peoples in all nations that *believe* in that
>>> sort of crap should not get any sympathy when their economies, morals,
>>> health, etc get busted.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Arindam Banerjee.
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>
--
Les Cargill
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 5:32 pm
From: spudnik
well, fisrt of all, if you are still referring
to "E=cmc," it is just the short version, and
it may not be in the best form, but it is *still*,
essentially, Leibniz's *vis viva*, which corrected
someone's "linear" formula (I think, Poor Galileo's).
> It is more than a wrong formula, derived from a bungle. It is much more
> disastrous. It is a wrong ideology, that appearance is actually reality,
> that the Earth is standing still... it is the height of anti-science.
thus:
holy grapes; M&M's experiment was *not* a null; although
the annual anomaly was rather small, it was regular enough.
Miller's result confirmed this. the write-up was brought
to Einstein, at one of hte few times that he was
at his office at Caltech, and he poo-pooed it (according
to I. 4 Gott).
and one *still* has to account for all of the actual results
"proving relativity & so on."
> You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller,
> and countless others looked for and did not find?
--Sir Dirty Harry Potter & Trickier Dick Cheeny want you:
Sudancrusade!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/Observations%20on%20Diophantus.pdf
1. Yes, this is his statement of what has come
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consciousness without borders
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/3a77a001bc2891b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 4:08 am
From: Arindam Banerjee
> the positive spirit going. In physics, of course, energy is conserved,
Completely wrong. Energy is always getting created and subsequently
destroyed. This is exactly what the Sun and all the stars do, with
the help of endless Space.
> and
> you cannot produce more energy from less.
Pressure variations create energy, which then gets destroyed.
obMyBook: "The Principles of Motion" where all physical phenomena
relating to motion and energy are explained...
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BLOODY HAM
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/7ad7d91510b7ebbc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 10:31 pm
From: beekay <12rychemond@gmail.com>
Hazel Whitby gives the low down on murder on the film set!
http://belindalawrence.webs.com/bloodyham.htm
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment