## Sunday, May 12, 2013

### Simulations/models

I’m a mediocre mathematician, but I do know how to design, build and run models.  I just have to get help from good mathematicians occasionally…

Simulations/models are essentially math equations or series of equations.  Some allow us to accurately predict outcomes.  Others are presented as accurate but are not.  The more assumptions you make the more inaccuracy you introduce.  As Donald Rumsfeld famously and accurately noted there are three kinds of forces:
1.      The known – predictable impact in a model
2.      The known unknown – usable assumptions but introduce model error
3.      The unknown unknown – false confidence in the model

We can build accurate models when we know:
·         all the significant forces
·         the impact of each force
·         have a stable environment – forces aren’t changing
·         have accurate and adequate data for each force
·         when using assumption, have adequate volume of data for each force
·         when using assumption, have adequate indicators for validity

In lean-six-sigma “design of experiment” forecasts impact of process changes.  In insurance and banking, underwriting and pricing models forecast the risk of an individual or a group of individuals.  NASA use models to plot the orbit of spacecraft, space debris, and celestial objects.

Some forces are constant, like the speed of light (known).  Models that use constants can be very accurate.

Some forces are variable, like air temperature (known unknown).  When using variable forces you have to make assumptions.  These models can be useful as long as the assumptions are accurate.

Accuracy is relative because of our limited ability to measure.  Time, cost, and value considerations lead us to accept approximations as good enough.  Of course, many people, including some scientists often falsely treat measurements as if they are perfectly accurate.

To do deal with measurement inaccuracy we use ranges (tolerable error).  When done formally, the ranges come from distribution curves built using “historical data” and work well if you get your data from stable systems (first hand and/or controlled).  However, most of these models ignore the “outliers” or the data that doesn’t fit the norm.  Example, pro golfers are outliers from the whole human population.  Tiger Woods and Justin Rose are outliers within the golf population.

Historical data derived from samples – gettin jicky widit.  When you don’t have firsthand data, or data from a controlled system, you can populate a database with samples.  For example, using tree rings to estimate historical rain fall.  Just know that:
·         the trees may represent a sample not a population – red flag
·         the trees may not represent a truly random sample – red flag
·         tree ring analysis to estimate rainfall is an estimate – red flag
·         assumes all water came from randomly distributed rain – red flag

Additional assumptions have to be made sometimes to account for things we have trouble understanding.  For example, to deal with the tendency for large, complex, systems (like Earth’s environment) to resist change requires concepts like Le Chatelier's principle. In other words, we often need more assumptions to explain the unknown unknown.

Wow.  All of that to get to this point about Climate Impact Models
Our environment is too complex to model with accuracy, and our climate is just one sub-system within the environment.
·         We have too much variance in our known unknowns
·         We have too many unknown unknowns
·         We cannot provide qualitatively adequate data
·         We cannot provide quantitatively adequate data

Should we keep trying to improve our models?  Yes, of course.

Are climate change models trustworthy?  No, not until we learn much more.

When can we trust them?  When they can predict with practical accuracy!
When will that be?  Don’t know.  Not in the foreseeable future.

## Friday, May 3, 2013

### my fifth abortion post - legal murder

assumption:
most, maybe not all, people on the left are concerned about women's rights.  i get it.  i am concerned about all peoples rights, not just women and not women more than anyone else.  but i get it.

the left has concern for murdered innocents.  Yeah, me too.

why do so many on the left, but not all, have less concern for life just because the human hasn't been born?  I don't get it.

consider the annual volume:
1,200,000 abortions versus 30,000 murders.

consider the law:
if you do something to a pregnant woman and kill her unborn baby you are charged with murder, but if it is a medical procedure it is called a woman's right

thus, most of the left supports killing 1,200,000 humans annually in the USA while they bluster about the rights of 200 prisoners in Gitmo, and try to eliminate guns to save 30,0000

worse, if the left had its way, my taxes would be used to pay for unlimited abortions

q

## Tuesday, April 30, 2013

### If i were king of all the britons

i would use my sword to change these things about the UK:
• we would use the names that americans use for all the things invented or originally mass produced by america: example, cars have windshields, roofs, and trunks
• we would stop saying "wiff" and start saying "with"
• we would by edict of the Monarchy get over getting our asses kicked by america - twice - and stop calling the people across the pond "yanks"
• we would respect the rights of americans to own guns (even though they used them to kick our asses - twice) so they can help defend us again in the future
• we would go back to the good ol English system and dump the rediculous metric system used by the French and Germans
• we would acknowledge that america is the master of the automobile by driving on the correct side - right side - of the road
that's all for now...
• oh yeah, bangers will be called sausage...

### 1,200,000

1. 30,000 americans will be killed by guns this year
2. many will suicide - even sans guns they will suicide (ie japan, sweden)
3. most are violent criminals killed by other violent criminals
4. at this rate 1,200,000 americans are killed by gun in only 40 years
5. this year 1,200,000 americans will be killed by abortion - a method designed for one and only one purpose - to kill innocent, defenseless humans - sadly many people are more concerned about the rights of terrorists in Gitmo, others are more concerned about the gun deaths

## Sunday, April 28, 2013

### But not the democrats and the left...

According to polls, for the first time since 9/11, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.  Even in the wake of  Boston the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

When asked “Would you give up some personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism?”
• In 2013, 45 percent answered no, 43 percent yes.
• In 2001, 40 percent answered no, 33 percent yes.
A Fox News poll broke the responses down by political affiliation:
• 51 percent of Democrats would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.  (They have no regrets taking freedoms from others in the process.  How is that not facism?)
• 47 percent of Republicans opposed giving up freedoms, only 43 percent in favor.
• Independents are most resistant, 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americans-fear-government-more-than-terror/

## Saturday, April 27, 2013

1. you pass laws that prohibit bad things
2. put them in prison for doing bad things
3. execute people for heinous crimes
4. take away their tools
INSPITE ALL OF OUR EFFORTS THERE IS NO STOPPING BAD PEOPLE:
1. they import drugs from all over the world
2. they make bombs out of everyday items
3. they invent new drugs
4. they sneak people into our nation
5. they kidnap and sneak people out of our nation
6. they steal secrets and innovations
7. they counterfeit money
8. they counterfeit art
9. they steal assets from the elderly
10. they forge checks
11. they break into secured buildings
12. they break into vaults
13. they hack computer systems
WE GOOD PEOPLE GIVE UP MUCH FREEDOMS TO LIMIT BAD PEOPLE:
1. allow our communications to be monitored
2. submit to government for permission to drive, vote, and even work
3. submit to government audits and inspections of our personal wealth and property
4. submit to government regulations on all aspects of our homes
5. submit to required education
6. submit to limits on speech
7. submit to vehicle inspections
8. submit to water inspections
9. submit to noise level limits
10. submit to required smoke detectors in our homes
11. submit to government inspections of our businesses
12. spend our money on security systems, locks, and monitors
13. pay for police that show up after you are raped or dead
14. pay for border control
15. pay for prisons
16. pay to feed and care for criminals that would gut us for fun
17. the list is much longer...
THE LEFT WOULD HAVE US GIVE UP MORE FREEDOMS:
1. give up our guns and ammo
2. give up our right to defend ourselves
3. give up more taxes
4. give up border control
5. submit to government control of pay
6. submit to government control of health care
7. submit to more government control of transportation

THE LEFT ARE FACISTS

## Thursday, April 25, 2013

### Double Standard on the Privacy Front

On the double standard front we have this:

...citing the dead terror mastermind’s right to privacy. ((I didn't know dead people had rights))  Across the board, state agencies flatly refused to provide information about the taxpayer-funded lifestyle for the 26-year-old man and his brother and accused accomplice Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

> On EBT card status or spending, state welfare spokesman Alec Loftus would only say Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his wife and 3-year-old daughter received benefits that ended in 2012. He declined further comment.

> On unemployment compensation, labor department spokesman Kevin Franck refused to say whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev ever collected, saying it was “confidential and not a matter of public record.”

> On Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s college aid, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth spokesman Robert Connolly said, “It is our position — and I believe the accepted position in higher education — that student records including academic records and financial records (including financial aid) cannot under federal law be released without a student’s consent.”

> On cellphones, the Federal Communications Commission would not say whether either brother had a government-paid cellphone, also citing privacy laws.

> On housing, Cambridge officials and the family’s landlord ducked questions on whether the brothers were ever on Section 8 assistance.

> The Department of Transitional Assistance wouldn’t release information about how long or how much they received.

Yet, when the American press felt compelled to report the names and addresses of people that own guns and/or have a gun permit the government didn't see a need to protect their rights.  After all, they aren't dead, and the left wanted that information to be presented...

### Racist!!!

When people from texas or the south say libarry or nuculer everybody jumps on the "you are such stupid hick" bandwagon.  But when black Americans say axe, as in "can I axe you a question?" you better not criticize lest you be labeled RACIST.

Just saying...

### Weapons of mass destruction

Under Obama's administration it seems a pressure cooker that kills 4 people is a WMD.  Using that standard, I'd say Iraq had WMD's!

W is exonerated in the eyes of the left and the Democrats!!!

### Fool Me Once Shame On You...

...Fool Me Twice Shame On Me.

In 2002 the Russians, Israelis, French, Germans, and Brits confirmed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Sound similar to news coming out of Syria this week?

## Sunday, April 21, 2013

### Ammo and gun count

The American press is obsessed with reporting the number of guns and ammo bad guys have.  They make 1,000 bullets sound CraaAaZzyy.  It is clear our unbiased press (high IQ dumbasses) don't shoot or they would know better. How can you be unbiased if you have no knowledge of both sides?

I'm fixin tuh use right-wing, low IQ math so it outta be easy fer ya to git it...

some context
yesterday I went to trap shooting (clay targets, nothing died dumbasses).  I shot 200 rounds in an hour.  I didn't shoot as much as the others...  that was one event.  when times are good I shoot every weekend.  When I target shoot with my pistol I use at least 100 rounds but that takes more time than trap shooting.  when plinking with a low caliber gun I might shoot 500 rounds in 3 or 4 hours.

so, unless I want to run to the store every time I shoot (and I don't want to) I need extra ammo at home.  you know, like extra vittles in the pantry.  Can yer understand that?  i'm not counting the bullets my wife and daughters shoot.  And boy can they shoot!

Assumptions:
I go bullet buyin once or twice a year
I have 5 guns (yeah i'm ROFLMAO).
gun1 - 250 rounds per event, 6 times per year
gun2 - 100 rounds per event, 10 times per year
gun3 - 100 rounds per event, 10 times per year
gun4 - 100 rounds per event, 5 times per year
gun5 - 25 rounds per event, 4 times per year

Per is fancy math talk for times.  so, i'm gonna commence tuh ciphering now...
gun1, 250 times 6 = 1500
gun2, 100 times 10 = 1000
gun3, 100 times 10 = 1000
gun4, 100 times 5 = 500
gun5, 25 times 4 = 100

now you sum em up...
1500 + 1000 + 1000 + 500 + 100 = 4,100 bullets per year

What does this mean?  It means active sportsmen can easily shoot several thousand rounds a year and it is logical for someone to possess thousands of bullets without them being nefarious.

Chill out dumbasses

### Some near future trends

One of my strategy duties is to watch the future marketplace.  We have an international presence so I watch a lot of “stuff”.  Here are a few items about to go commercial that will converge and radically change our lives.

Cameras everywhere - On “Face the Nation” I just heard the USA has installed an additional 30 million government security cameras.  That is 30,000,000.  My small town has at least 24.  I’ve heard there are a few on top of water towers but cannot confirm.

Image analysis - In California and New Jersey two townships have cameras on every street entering their city.  They capture an image of the car license plate and in moments know if it is reported stolen or has associated traffic violations, warrants, etc.

Retina scanning - A Mexican city of 1 million citizens has installed cameras that capture an image of your retina as you walk by.  Wearing sunglasses and masks have no effect.  If you can see, it can capture your retina image.  They are in all government and public buildings. They have recorded the retina images of everyone under age 15 at school and will have the images of all adults by 2014.  As folks move about the city a system tracks them.  It also keeps track of people not in their system…

Real AI - I recently worked with IBM about their AI system, Watson.  I’ve also done related work with MIT (who did much research on Watson).  AI systems are on the verge of proliferating dramatically.  Watson can find this comment, understand that I’m talking about it, and report it to whoever might be care.  When Watson won Jeopardy, the computer required a 3,000 square foot room. Now it is size of a microwave oven.  In sixty seconds it is able to read 200 million web pages and understand all the conversations. I’ve gone out of my way to avoid revealing my employer and my home town since I first got on the web. Watson can find my comments, comments of others about me, assimilate them, and identify the company I work for and my town.  No doubt.  I am one hundred percent confident.

Predictive analytics – We give hordes of personal data to Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple and others.  They analyze it and sell it.  Did you hear about Target?  Two years ago Target figured out one of their customers was pregnant by the items bought.  They mailed some stuff to her home. Her parents were shocked to find out that their 16 year old daughter was pregnant… ooops.  Target doesn’t do that anymore…  My company has been watching and dabbling in analytics for 25 years (not counting the actuarial stuff where we predict the risk of a large group).  I’m talking about on an individual level.  I assure you we are behind leaders like Capital One.  Let me also say, we are on the verge of knowing that you are going to buy a car, what kind of car you will want, and where you will look for a car, before you do…

Our world is changing. Not the people. The people will still be driven to control others.

## Saturday, April 20, 2013

Recently I've had some fun making minor tweaks to my LinkedIn profile.  What makes it fun is trying to predict the attributes of people that will visit my profile base on the changes I make.

The best response was when I updated my job title from "lead strategy advisor" which is a high level job at my company but not in the management path, to "enterprise strategy director".  it was a level change (same pay, benefits, functions, authorities) and i'm still an individual contributor (not managing others).  The chief strategy officer thought changing the title would generate authority.  I'd say he was right because here is what happened:

I got 40 invitations from fellow employees - seems i'm now a player (that director word)

I got invitations from 12 people outside my company.  But, nobody with "strategy" in their title...

### A movie idea

Just for grins let's imagine America gets rid of all guns.  Yea, now Lucy will come visit me, my wife, and my girls in Texas.  Your welcome anytime too Cheezy.  Noah, all you have to do is drive out of the way an hour or so.

Nobody have them except the police and the military.  No bad guys have guns (well, except for some freaks in the police and military like Hasan who murdered 13 and wounded 31 at Fort Hood.  He couldn't have gone to a school and killed everybody).  No guns come across the border.  None.

Now, suppose you want to make a movie about a bad guy that wants to kill a bunch of people. How would a movie about a would be mass murderer who wants to kill a bunch of kids look?  Let's cut to the script writers office now...

Writer 1 "Damn all the guns are gone now what do we do?"

Writer 2 "We could make a movie about a guy that is frustrated so he gets a hair cut, an education and starts working."

Writer 1 "Hey, it could be this guy, and he like goes to Wal-Mart, and he gets a pressure cooker and makes a bomb.  No, a small propane tank.  Oh! Oh! he'll use a Wal-Mart gas can."

Writer 2 "No!  I got it!  THIS IS GREAT!  He'll use his whole car as a bomb!"

Writer 1 "Nahhh. Now that all the guns are gone there is no way to kill a bunch of people..."

### Left Logic - alcohol, drugs, guns

The Left

Alcohol leads to trillions of dollars in medical costs - we have rights, tax all Americans to pay for nationalized health care (make the innocent pay)

Drugs lead to billions of dollars in medical costs - you can't get rid of drugs so legalize them and tax all Americans to pay for nationalized health care (make the innocent pay)

Alcohol causes most traffic deaths in America - we have rights, put drunks in jail (make the innocent and a few unfortunate guilty pay)

Too many people are murdered - take guns from law abiding citizens (make the innocent pay)

Too many people are still murdered (by all the criminals that kept their guns and smuggled new guns in the country) - how do we make the innocent pay now?