Well whoever called it is correct. The Right wing still takes its cues from Rush Limbaugh, be they John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, or now, Mitt Romney. Rush said "It's hard to run against Santa Clause, a guy who offers a lot of free stuff." That's about as petty and pathetic since Nixon's famous "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more" speech delivered after his failed run for Governor in 1962. I couldn't believe it. I never want to hear again that people's "private thoughts" don't count in public life. And what's this about younger women pressing Nancy Pelosi to retire. If she's 72 then I'm not a day over fifty. She's still not a bad looking woman. My motto is "experiance counts". As you know I'm a long time opponent of term limits. Of course the tea party is right about one thing. President Obama never has to run again so now he can do whatever he damn well pleases, just like Grandpa Simpson. And don't think the Republicans don't know that. I think there is even a Dylan song about a Christian saying "They know that he can't be bought or bullied or restrained by the chain that the devil has them by". Something like that. Now we hear that California may see light at the end of the tunnel and the days of deficets may soon be over. That's because this economy is improving faster than a lot of people on the right dare to admit, as labor statistics get revised all right, but upward, and not downward, as they have been praying for. People who saw the President's press conference today say that he's got his Mojo back. That's good to hear. He doesn't seem the least bit cowed by people who think he's covering up something with this Libyan ambassador situation. Of course when Collin Powell was shown to be a liar testifying about "yellow cake uranium" and all that, we regarded him as a hero. But when a member of the Obama administration does it- - they want to bring him up on impeachment charges or something. I hear that scads of people have "De-frended" Romney on his web sites. My own blogger numbers have been way up, and I'm definitely happy about that. But you know, times are getting tough. Even now there is some Grandpa out there, out to frame one of Santa's reindeer for something they would never do. So I'm giving Santa a little advice this year - - "Drive carefully".
OK all you people in Everett Washington and Aspen Colorado get ready to light up in celebration - - if you got the question to our little pop Quiz right on the last posting in "Cosmic Tides". The correct answer, of course, is Arllo Gutherie. By the way there is no truth for the roomer that Everett Washington is code named J C in the Japanese Purple codes. Knowing I slip in everything not without a reason it occurred to me that there is something I could have tried to get back that other posting that suddenly went "poof!" the other day, and it's related to something Johnny Cochrin chided the police for not doing when they came upon the Bundy Drive murder scene in June of 1994. One problem created by these people around here was just solved this evening, or will be, without my having to come out and proactively make a request for help, which I probably wouldn't have done anyhow. That earns that couple brownie points with me. The Bela Tagis B's are a motley crew, (but Motley Crew) is not among them, as far as disperate rock groups go. Frank Zappa has even gotten sponsorship from the B's. But I was thinking of Ronnie Van Zant and particularly the original lead guitar player of Leynard Skynard, who I guess wasn't killed. We have said that this guitar player was more cosmically in tune with the group. My Romulan friends have hinted- - -Frank Henshaw did in 1978, that there is also some Atlanta Romulan influence in the Leynard Skinnard group. Other "Beatlejuice" B's include, of course, Kansas, Styx, Genisis, Judas Priest, and Alice Cooper. I warned you! J C is also one of the B's, of course. I open doors now and then, but sometimes I slam them shut later, like a good web site.
I'm been working on a lot of math theories lately. There are two things
I'd like to retract or amend in my letter to Pete Richards a few days ago. One was the assertion that
the hyperbolic tangent numbers are incorporated in Einsteins addition of
volicities theory. I read it in a Wickipedia article, but I can't find any
mathematical connection myself. I don't know where they got it. I've seen some really dingbat associations with this tangent line including things like world population and life expectancy. The average student probably scores 76% on any test. This would mean that if the average student tried 33% more, he'd get a hundred. Maybe. The other is
the whole thing about statistical sampeling. We all know what a ninety is in regular trig, but what is the significance of the "One" in hyperbolic trig? We know Will Horton, these days as queer as a three dollar bill (which J C said about Michael Jackson in 1983) but now we know there was still a little Stud left in the fellow and somehow he wasn't so completely repulsed by a woman that he wasn't able to get it up. Personally if I were James Dobson I'd say "This is God himself opening the pathway door of escape for you from the damnable gay life style that leads nowhere". If I were Will I'd take it. I'd do a lot of things in other people's places, and perhaps it's ego but I think the world would be a better place if I did. Somehow when I updated this posting the spaces between paragraphs were lost. Let's get them back.
Well, I've been thinking about it and actually I have a
more ingenious theory about "the right number to statistically sample". It's
kind of like the Four Degrees of the Golden Mean formula, the traditional
version of which is itself based on "Sampling" so I thought I could make use of
it. (and no, that is not the name of a new Chinese resturant) As you know the fourth in the series of number progressions for the Golden
Mean is 8 and 13, which will only result in - - like smaller than a two decimal
place over - - error or just a tiny percent sampling error. The other part of the
theory is the squared theory. Let me illustrate the geometric logic of my theory. You know in Excel and Lotus and in BASIC if you want to denote a block of figures or coordinates you don't need all four points of the rectangle. Two points will give you the information you really need to exactitude. Another aspect of this theory is is you want to talk about zero degrees of the Golden Mean or NO information- - the odds, in so far as what you are looking for is mathematically quantifiable- - - will be off by sixty percent. If you ask someone to pick a number between one and ten they could be off as much as, for instance 900% or as little as 0% or 10%. For instance if you have four people you sample two people. That's how it works. If you have a small group you need to sample a higher percentage of them. If you have one person you need to "sample him" and then you'll know how he feels. Doesn't that make sense? If you have nine people you sample a third of them and if you have
sixteen you sample four, and for twenty five you sample five, or if you have a
hundred you sample ten. For instance, just by way of clarifying illustration - - if you were told there was a pattern to the following squares, one hundred of them, when you touched them wheel of fortune style and light up either white or black - - and five black squares were odd and the five white squares you touched were even- - you'd be pretty safe in assuming THIS as a pattern. You would not need the remainder of ninety to verify it either- - to "check your own validity" all you would need was an additional 41 squares remaining- - that met this criteria because this would constitute a majority, hence significant. Even if NONE of the remaining 49 squares met the criteria, your sample would still be deemed as a positive hit. More precisely we want to acertain the "median" square. This is the goal of statistical sampling, to learn what the median is. Capish? With ten thousand you would sample a hundred - - so
there is your one percent everyone talks about. Of course for a million would
have to sample one thousand, and for a hundred million people - some sweeping survey indeed, you would sample ten thousand. Aut keep in mind these are RANDOM samples, not
scientifically screened for variables. if you screen the sample, you're going
to get a lot smaller number anyhow, which will result in a bigger necessary
percentage of sample. Where the golden mean comes in is the Four Degrees. So
if you have say sixteen people and you only want to sample three perople rather
than four your accuracy goes to down to the 5 and 8 ratio, which is not as
close. But you can run the risk. If you want two degrees of accurecy you can
use that golden mean pair- - and sample one out of four or ten a mere two out of sixteen or four out of 64. That would be 5 over 3. Why do any more work than you have to? Anyhow I just came up with this formula today. Now it's "yesterday" because I'm refining this article the next morning. You will remember in fifth grade geometry if you knew the sides of a rectangle - - or Twice - the square root, approximately- - you could know to exactitude the area of that rectangle. Maybe that example will help you.
No comments:
Post a Comment