Bands of freedom (Dutch readers only)

Ik moet niets hebben van de oranje 'respect'-armbandjes, die gode zij dank het straatbeeld hier niet zo verpesten als ik van tevoren had gevreesd.

Maar waar ik al langere tijd naar zocht, was een manier om steun te betuigen aan de (ook Nederlandse) troepen die in Irak en Afghanistan goed werk hebben gedaan, en in veel gevallen nog steeds doen. En dan graag niet al te schreeuwerig, à la 'America Fuck Yeah'. Ik heb een hekel aan Michael Moore, maar net zo goed aan soortgelijke retoriek van de rechtervleugel. Bovendien is Amerika van de westerse landen weliswaar degene die de zwaarste klappen opvangt, maar niet het enige.

Iets neutralers dus, met 'vrijheid', zocht ik.

Nou, zulke armbandjes zijn er ook. Probleempje is alleen dat ze uit de Verenigde Staten moeten komen, en per verpakking van 10 stuks worden verstuurd. Dat ga ik dan maar doen, maar in tegenstelling tot sommige Hindoe-goden heb ik 'slechts' twee armen. Ik heb er dus geen tien nodig.

Wie doet er mee?

Lezers die er eentje willen, kunnen zich melden op jageilzonarmbandje (at) zachtei.nl.

Kosten zijn 1 euro per stuk (= 1 dollar plus aandeel in verzendkosten), afhalen in Amsterdam, of per post voor 1,50 euro.

Ik wacht tot vrijdag met bestellen, dus je opgeven kan tot en met donderdag.

23:09

permalink comment(s) (1) trackback(s) (0)

On sociologists and their inaptitude at maths

Meet Peter Swanborn. Peter is considered to be quite the expert at methodologies of sociological research. Peter is also the author of the manual for research methodologies ('Basisboek sociaal onderzoek') on which I will have an oral exam on Thursday.
Boy, is the professor in for a treat.
I've been annoyed by Swanborn's book ever since he failed to differentiate between a theory, a theorem and a hypothesis in chapter 1 (he sets things right later on, but that's too late to my taste), and doesn't distinguish between a 'causality problem' and an 'explanation problem' (proving cause and effect can be done without offering any explanation whatsoever - in the end it turns out 'explanation' is just his phrase for 'causality').

It took me until the final chapter, however, to conclude that this book needs a dramatic overhaul.

It's not just that Swanborn can't be bothered to look up the name of famous statistician Maurice Kendall, who is adressed as Kandall all the way through, or that 'Kandall' is credited with having invented the statistic variable Q, which was the work of George Udny Yule. Kendall invented a method to calculate rank correlation coefficients, which is known as the variable Tau.

I can forgive that. After all, 'q' and 'tau' are only a few letters apart in the alphabet. Granted, they're two altogether different alphabets, one being the Latin version, the other one being the Greek, but hey, Rome wasn't burnt down on one day.
However, it's when he starts doing math when I find myself unable from trying to claw my own eyes out.
Here's one example, from page 275:

'(213/212) / (221/334) = (213/212) * (334/221), or 213 * (334/212) * 221 = 1,52'

What he means, of course, is:

'(213/212) / (221/334) = (213/212) * (334/221), or (213*334) / (212*221) = 1,52'

Mind you, this is the 'fourth, completely revised edition'. Obviously, the revision process at 'Boom' Publishing House ('Boom' means tree, which is a pity, because after reading this book, I feel they might benefit from a huge explosion) is managed by people who graduated summa cum laude in French reductionist mathematics, which teaches that calculations which yield correct results are examples of neodialectic western cultural imperialism, or something to that effect. Either that, or they're retards.

Anyone who can't spot the error in said calculation is kindly requested not to come near me, at least not tonight, unless you're Scarlett Johansson, or a clone thereof.

(Note: for clarity reasons I've added parentheses in the transcription of the calculation above. Swanborn doesn't bother with them, he just hits the space key a few more times. Also, I've substituted 'x' with '*'. Sure, any first year student should know you don't use 'x' for multiplying since it's also the most common variable in existence, but we're dealing with a sociologist here.)

Nitpickers can click 'Lees verder' for some additional information.

More...

21:31

permalink comment(s) (0) trackback(s) (0)

e-Qaeda

Read more about it here (the film that's hyperlinked there is in English, the blog entry itself is in Dutch. Sorry to make it this complicated, but the site I'm linking to, Blognoot, is a paid blog, i.e. it provides part of my rent. Only fair to give them the pageviews too.)

14:31

permalink comment(s) (0) trackback(s) (0)

Why the shuttle sucks

Slightly more eloquently put by that guy with that impronouncable name (yeah, I'm talking) at Idle Words:

Taken on its own merits, the Shuttle gives the impression of a vehicle designed to be launched repeatedly to near-Earth orbit, tended by five to seven passengers with little concern for their personal safety, and requiring extravagant care and preparation before each flight, with an almost fetishistic emphasis on reuse. Clearly this primitive space plane must have been a sacred artifact, used in religious rituals to deliver sacrifice to a sky god.

As tempting as it is to picture a blood-spattered Canadarm flinging goat carcasses into the void, we know that the Shuttle is the fruit of what was supposed to be a rational decision making process. That so much about the vehicle design is bizarre and confused is the direct result of the Shuttle's little-remembered role as a military vehicle during the Cold War.

End the shuttle now, and use the funds to finally get us on Mars. I've got a bet running, you know.

13:00

permalink comment(s) (2) trackback(s) (0)