Earthquake Unzips Japanese Road Down the Center Line By Mike Magrath

alchemists and quacks

There are no control studies in economics, no way to hold everything else constant to determine the impact of one variable, no way to falsify conclusions that models spit out. Financial Times columnist John Kay, writing yesterday about risk modelers, referred to them as “alchemists and quacks.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-03/goldman-sachs-model-evokes-blood-sucking-leeches-caroline-baum.html

Balanced, neutral journalism is RUBBISH and that's a FACT

Not just boring but unhealthy to read

By Lewis Page

. . . balanced, neutral journalism is not just incredibly boring, it is also bad for readers' mental health and turns them into apathetic drones who can't be bothered to engage with the world around them.

"There are consequences to journalism that just reports what each side says," asserts Raymond Pingree, a prof at Ohio State university. "It makes readers feel like they can’t figure out what the truth is ... this attitude may lead people to tune out politics entirely, or to be more accepting of dishonesty by politicians."

To confirm this thesis, Pingree conducted an experiment on 538 college students.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/11/balanced_journalism/

But does higher education pay in the first place?

"The notion that education pays and that better education pays better is taken for granted by almost everyone. For college professors like me, this is a very convenient idea, providing a high and growing demand for our services.

"Unfortunately, the facts seem to disagree. A recent study by economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger showed that going to more selective colleges and universities makes little difference to future income once one accounts for the underlying ability of the student. Their work confirms other studies that find no financial benefit to attending top-tier schools."

http://tinyurl.com/5uqzwpc

Taylor says Ben Bernanke is misrepresenting Taylor rule on interest rates

Bernanke refers to Taylor rule in every testimony before Congress or the Senate: John Taylor, the creator of the rule said Bernanke is wrong.  If he had a proper interpretation the Fed Chairman should already be hiking rate. Yet leave it to Bernanke to believe he knows better what the rule is supposed to mean....than even its creator.


From the WSJ: "Stanford University professor John Taylor, an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve in recent years, has a new complaint: He says Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is misrepresenting Mr. Taylor’s eponymous rule on interest rates." 


So is the entire US monetary policy based on a rule derivative that is not even endorsed by its creator? The answer is a resounding yes.

It's not magic, but almost.

http://processingjs.org/

Processing.js makes your data visualizations, digital art, interactive animations, educational graphs, video games, etc. work using web standards and without any plug-ins. You write code using the Processing language, include it in your web page, and Processing.js does the rest. It's not magic, but almost.

Originally developed by Ben Fry and Casey Reas, Processing started as an open source programming language based on Java to help the electronic arts and visual design communities learn the basics of computer programming in a visual context. Processing.js takes this to the next level, allowing Processing code to be run by any HTML5 compatible browser, including current versions of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, and even the upcoming Internet Explorer 9. Processing.js brings the best of visual programming to the web, both for Processing and web developers.