Life as simulation

Or is it simulation as life?

Philip Greenspun talks about his recent experience with flight training. From reading the post, one gets a sense of his having spent several days in a simulator and then having an actual flight in a plane.

Now, are those two equivalent (simulation and flight)? Well, the short answer is that it depends. Yet, that question is at the core of several issues (see Remarks 07/05/09, Turing remix) that we need to resolve.

Also, we know that projects are becoming more reliant upon simulation, and advanced visualization, to an extreme point. Is that, by necessity, how things ought to unfold technically?

...

As a side note, Phil also mentions that his stress level built up in anticipation of the test flight. Sound almost like having too little actual feedback might be a factor. One might ask whether the practice of too little actual contact with reality, which is what we see with simulation, and other abstracted views of thing, just might be more problematic that we have considered.

We'll have to discuss that further at some point as there are several aspects to the problem. After all, folks, all this stuff is relatively new to us; that is, it was only a mere generation ago that such reliance only on simulation would have been impossible, and unconscionable. Of course, at that time, personal jets were not yet a reality.

Remarks:

01/01/2011 -- We have four last posts of December under our belt.

Modified 01/01/2011

Forward progress

What does 'forward progress' mean? Well, there are several things to look at.

For instance, the 787 program exhibited this with the recent first flight (congratulations are in order). As we've said before, complex projects are never easy. Assuming forward motion, at all times, may be problematic since it is really a measurement issue along many dimensions.

Too, some games use the notion, like American football. Here things are little easier to discern, as usually any motion goal is one-dimensional.

Actually, the point of this post is to relate some observation about pedestrians in an automotive society. But, first, let's look at drivers.

Has the world gone crazy? That is, does getting behind the wheel cause some type of idiocy to manifest itself? Well, given that the texting craze has influenced some drivers may indicate so.

That is, who, in their right mind, would not pay close attention when hurling through space, albeit more limited than flying, to the current situation and what is there? Would you drive while blinded? Of course not would say the rational person.

Somehow, using a cell phone, especially with texting, causes some cognitive state change that is analogous to being blind. Even if the state is not as extreme as one might think, the distraction does interfere with assessing situational issues.

Of course, many states have been working to place limits on this type of idiocy. So, we can talk another aspect.

Ever notice how some type of 'forward progress' trance, for drivers, seems to inhibit an act that is so minor that one has to wonder what gives? That is, moving the foot from the accelerator, not necessarily to the brake, seems to be an impossible task.

And, it is so easy to lift the foot from the gas pedal. Yet, failure to do so can make the pedestrians life so uncertain. Now, the driver, in some cases, may be in some type of mindset that does not allow for the walker and that keeps the driver from seeing some on foot. We know that bikers have this problem since their presence may not even register in some car drivers' awareness or that there may be some negative attitude on the part of some car drivers.

And, that type of blindness can happen without the cell phone (tweets) or other distractions. We could use concepts like cognitive inertia, perhaps, where the dissonance comes from not allowing for the walker (or any moving object other than the same type, that is, 4-wheeled) within the worldview.

Some states give the pedestrian the right of way. Others may have the rule that the walker needs to be extremely cautious which does make sense in that those on foot are much more vulnerable.

Which brings up an issue. Is it just that being surrounded by this casing which is the car causes a feeling of invincibility, by necessity? Then, the dynamic becomes a type of hypothetical bumper car game where the driver just hopes that noone takes up their challenge?

This little bit has no goal except to try to phrase some issue that is problematic. There have been people run down who are highly protected by law, namely highway workers, which is really hard to understand. Too, troopers have been hit, however one could account for this, in part, due to the circumstance of high-speed sections where the cognitive look ahead is already impaired. It's like having to make real-time judgments ex post facto (can't work, folks, hence we have a growing need for simulation which can only go so far).

So, initiatives, like Lean, focus on removing causes; that is, eliminate the error possibility. Or, in my time, the best driving rule was to be defensive (for the younger folks, one key point is to pay attention).

But, for the walker, in an urban, or suburban, environment, where the auto does not have the right to claim either presence priority (oh yes, perhaps by being bigger - that's bullying) or speed rights (nope, everywhere that is in a developed country limits vehicular speed where people are expected to be), things can get pretty dire.

There are many questions to pose. One of these would look at that forward progress, or momentum, cognitive state and try to understand why the foot/leg cannot surmount the forces that keep the foot on the accelerator (ignoring, for the moment, that there can be real problems, ala Toyota's little thing).

First of all, we need some clever phrase to depict the condition. Then, we can look at the physiological and psychological (note the order) issues involve.

Needless to say, that little inertial force, whatever it is called, has been the culprit in countless, and costly, accidents (er, oops).

Remarks:

06/11/2011 -- Was called 'forward progress' as there seems to be type of inertia related to moving one's foot from the gas to the brake. What else, except not wanting one's flow in time interrupted? Another thing is that the walker is in the elements. The driver is protected from rain and sleet and ... (evidently, not from stupidity). Though a worker, not a walker, the recent tragedy tells a whole lot.

09/21/2010 -- Facebook, as metaphor.

02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain. Where is there an auto user group?

01/02/2010 -- More states now have laws prohibiting (or limiting) driving while texting (dwt). Why did it require legal action? Common sense ought to have been enough, yet the appeal of the abstract and computation (sirens abound in the domains) are very strong.

12/21/2009 -- Some recent events point to the problem.

• 1) Picture a busy intersection; 4-way stop; woman sits in car texting; at least, 5 cycles of cars stopping and going pass by and she sits texting; and given the season, the cars behind her didn't honk, probably wondering what was the hold-up.
  
• 2) Picture an area that is multi-purpose and suburban with a winding road; posted speed is about 30 mph; pedestrian waiting to cross as a string of cars go by; count 'em -- a-one, a-two, ...; all pass by with none even noticing the walker; and, needless to say, none stopped to let the walker go across the road.
• 3) Same situation as 2), except lo and behold, the other day some one did stop, causing cars behind to stop, too -- as well, restarting the counter. So, that's several 1000s crossings of that road, with about 1/4 having traffic. Out of those 1/4 of 100s, the stoppers could be counted on a couple of hands.
  

Modified: 06/11/2011

Our basis

Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).

As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.

• Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).
• 7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.
  
• FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.
  

Each blog is to provide a different perspective on a matter so as to fill in a more thorough discussion. That is the hope.

Remarks

08/03/2011 -- The relationship to economics is important.

Modified: 08/03/2011

Our trust

Well, 'our' in this sense is the collection of those dependent upon an economy that works which is, essentially, we, the taxpayers, and, in particular, US taxpayers.

What is 'trust' in this sense? We'll have to go into that further, but, whatever it is, its value is worth much less now than before.

In fact, we've been cast to the proverbial winds by those upon whom we placed the trust (it seems that either of the major political parties is as bad as the other). The mania of the train notwithstanding, things are not looking better except for those whose giant pockets are filled by the mechanisms of finance.

The big oops of the past year, actually two years, are now behind us enough to bear some scrutiny and opinion.

For instance, consider what Krugman (thanks to CalculatedRisk for the notice) wrote yesterday in the NY Times about the AIG fiascos. Squander? Yes, indeed. Comments found at the sites are worth the read.

Along the same note, TechTicker mentions Brad DeLong's blog remarks about the issues (will need to look further at this), such as saying that there is more than zero chance of a Depression (out of bullets).

By the way, and speaking of the political parties, we ought to have some serious constraint on term limits (let's say 8 years, however that would be subject to some debate). We need to refresh the blood, continually. Too, remove the influence of those paid meddlers (lobby-ers), and we would all be better off.

Remarks:

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

Modified: 04/16/2010

The train

There are all sorts of uses for 'train' as a metaphor, the little train that could being one example.

One use denotes the current choice for an individual investor. That is, do we get into, or stay out of, equities, given that the markets are up (as evidenced with a DOW over 10,000)?

Well, in this case, one has to ask, is there such a train? Or, are we where the suckers finally bite just before another crash?

Well, it's hard to say. Some argue that the fundamentals point to the current rally as being a bearish type. That is, not much behind it of a substantial nature. One fact that pops up now and then is that those in the know are selling now whereas back in March they were buying.

This is a typical choice point for Main Street folk as the Wall Street folk show off their gains (some of which are ill-begotten) and make claims for the future.

The story needs to be told is that no one has to board this play train, assuming that it exists. What we have is basically a chimera built upon the sand of casino capitalism. Oh sure, some will continue to benefit; those are the ones who control the game and who are guaranteed their take. Many more will lose.

If we go back to the original principle for using the equity form of capital, we can see that the gaming has been allowed that is unnecessary. There are methods of investing that do not partake of the type of mania that is being sold.

Where this dilemma relates to oops is this, those who come in late, like now, will lose their shirts, most likely. There is no reason to buy in; not doing so will not be anything to rue later.

So, how to describe the issues so that the choices are clear? That is one task.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

03/05/2013 -- Ben reigns, but the savers' faces are bruised from his slapping.

10/25/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. The particular train being touted now, the play train, is only for those in the game, and we see how they are rolling in the dough (and, bonus time is approaching).

Modified: 08/01/2013

Gray areas

The Prizes continue to be given. The Economics winners have an interesting bit of work behind them.

One of these, Mr. Williamson, has expanded upon a couple of ideas in his work: "The first is that a contractual agreement can never be complete; there are always contingencies that haven't been accounted for. The other is that people act opportunistically within the gray area of contracts to make sure they benefit the most, and that can lead to problems".

Oh, really, now? Somehow, common sense has taken leave of us, it seems. Ah, those sirens of abstraction, mathematics (flim-flam), computation, and pseudo-nerdism just seem to have gotten a very good grip on our senses. Tsk, Tsk.

What we could say is, just like with ethics, some rule needs to kick in when the area is gray. Well, as said before, that old 'golden' one was fine; note, 'golden' in this sense is entirely different than in the following usage: golden sacks.

Of course, we could also go into t-issues whose hold on the common sense seems to have wavered through various dynamics.

We'll say it again. The lesson applies to finance where we ought to run the thing with a non-profit focus, that is, anti-opportunism. By the way, I'll even volunteer.

Oh, by the way, what helps with the gray area in a company, besides ethics? Ah, culture. They ought to know that.

Trusted employees

Yes, business can do essentially stupid things very well. They can completely mishandle their workers, in many cases, and then wonder why things may not work as they should. We don't have to point to any company in particular, but those who look to get their knowledge off the shelf or to out-house expertise deserve what they get.

Now, again, no one company or party needs to take exception to this message here, but the stupidity will continue until a few lessons are learned. One of these lessons is a central theme here in these blogs.

That is, the thing called earned value which is 1/2 of a pair.

Believe it or not, those two in the pair of fair, and earned, value relate.

Now consider, earned value is supposed to let you know about progress in a correct and meaningful manner. We have all seen what happens when the disciplines involved let us down (thanks a lot, risk handlers and applied mathematicians).

Another one is control engineering, let's use it as a metaphor for discussing this thing and its issues.

First, let's look ahead and point to an important factor necessary for solution to the problems: the autodidact.

In any company, there are those who get things done even when they are mistreated or unrecognized. Well, local management can do a good job of keeping these people happy; it's those in the ivory towers, and personal jets, who have an entirely erroneous grasp of the situation.

Also, those who know this theme will appreciate this post; unfortunately, those without a clue are so dense as to not understand. Yes, some of the dense are superstar CEOs and what have you. Others seem to just tag along in order to get their names in the paper.

This blog, and its kin, on the other hand, want to address issues of substance, hopefully to help us determine workable solutions.

A recent edition of the IEEE Control Systems Society's periodical had a little quote that applies here: the level of accuracy that can consistently be achieved with any estimation strategy depends on the sensor configuration.

Now, granted that the framework in the paper was controlling an autonomous vehicle using model, and sensor, information plus the appropriate processing. Yet, it seems that this type of control is a paragon for any wide-spread process that is computationally framed and supported. The important thing here is what 'sensor' might mean in this example.

Well, the most important connotation would be the human who is integral to keeping the database updated by evaluating progress using hard-won expertise. And, that, Mr and Ms heads of companies, is not ever going to be off-the-shelf or out-housed. Some of the facility might be offloaded to the subcontractor, as Lean has shown. Yet, a very important part cannot be.

Ah, can this be done? Yes, we will have to adequately handle what are people matters. Who said that is would be easy?

Remarks:

10/19/2009 -- Gray areas are where your people make the difference, bosses. You break the hearts of your best assets and wonder why things don't work.

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

10/15/2009 -- We've just touched the surface here, folks. Of course, we need educated, and certified, folks. Medicine can not work without it. But, does your Dr run your life? The analog here is the company that outhouses and then wants to just sit back and let things happen while rolling in the glory and the dough. So, you know, things happen (or don't), and you get big delays, shoddy products, and the like. Another permutation here is the goal to use just general engineers, which is really trying to identify autodidactic traits. Looking for an electrical guy to act as a mechanical guy would take some additional learning on his part. But, the approach is not just about those with the talent sufficient to cover many fields; rather, it is the expectation that some mathematical, and computational, frameworks can succumb knowledge requirements sufficiently to then remove those viewpoints related to specifics of disciplines. Only a manager could think that, would be one response. We'll continue with the theme.

Modified: 10/19/2009

Who is to know?

As we see with most things, in finances, opinions abound around a spectrum. The trouble is that money is at the core of our existence, with everyone expected to earn their way. Except, some do get from the folks. Most don't.

Besides, mama and papa may have, but bless the child that got its own (paraphrase). Yet, we do expect those who are the, supposed, financial experts to have some notion of fiduciary responsibility.

One bit of controversy deals with non zero and bonds-equity (order here can be used to imply an opinion). The recent mania about the upswing in equities has the media touting that everyone ought to get on the bandwagon.

Always timely, a WSJ op-ed (Don't Get Hit by Crash at Finish Line) gives an appropriate message to the theme.

At a certain age, financial fall outs are more catastrophic than not. Oops is not just strong enough to describe the visceral effect.

Hence, for those who want to play with risk, a sandbox is very much appropriate.

So, in regard to one's money and risk appetite, the individual has the choice but needs to know. Here is the problem: do you really think that the spin, and clamor, of the present financial reporting mechanisms works to the little guys' benefit? Hah! If you answered yes, think again.

Establishing value

What? Yes, think of 'value' as something to describe further. For now, let's just consider a couple of types which have been covered here: fair value and earned value.

Actually, given the preference of the blogger, that order ought to be reversed. The second deals with doing real things; the former tries to pin some value on results, albeit, nowadays, there is more a virtual (meaning, of course, not real - can't fly the stuff, can't eat it, can't do a lot of things, except exalt over others if you have a bunch, okay?) and gaming sense.

So, of late, everyone wonders about the underlying ponzi-ness of the economy that we've built ourselves out of the gab-standard sand (yeah, Ben, unwind your idiotic position -- hiding toxic wastes is not smart). It's a good question to ask.

Note: Fact is, if more than the golden sack'rs could benefit, then things could be a little nicer for everyone. Big Ben, are you listening?

Remarks:

03/17/2015 -- Still appropriate.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines. Even though, from a core and value sense, we do not know. Why? It's partly related to the computational underpinnings.

Modified: 03/17/2015

Win and lose

It's been said that some want privatization of profit and socialization of loss. That is, the gains go into the pockets while the payouts require a handout. We've seen a lot of this the past year.

However, we also see that the current rally makes, for some, an argument that we need to get into the gaming in order to have a future. A recent article out of Silicon Valley (newspaper) had such a message (usual equity/debt issue) essentially saying that stocks were necessary.

Well, that story is not quite right, however we need better support to show why. We'll work on getting that.

But, knowing about Harvard and Yale can help, as they both have lost this past year. And, their earlier success made others follow suite. We'll look for more analysis there.

In the meantime, here is a summary of references in this blog to those paragons of everything.

• Oops and more oops (Sep 08) -- A Remarks to this post mentioned how Harvard's success, and its being highly touted, caused jealous bones to try to duplicate. However, that is human nature. But, you would think that those running organizations, like CALPERS, would have a better foundation. Oh, why would I say that since there is no good foundation?
• Lessons to be learned (Jan 09) -- By this time, Harvard was waking up to the problem and crying poor. Well, they did recognize the issues early. Can't fault them for that?
• Hedge funds (Jan 09) -- By this time, we knew a little more about Madoff's shenanigans. He was still free, though. But, the issue is that any return beyond something reasonable is by necessity the result of things that stink, categorically. Why? Near zero! One would think that the brains of Harvard, et al, could figure out a way to help lead things to other than perdition.

We'll be getting back to this as things unfold.

Note: Of course, how public is all this? But, wasn't this an example of some best-and-brightest making oodles? Didn't one even leave to start some other endeavor? Claw back comes to mind. When will that ever be? Too, though, over the years of the big returns, these organizations were spending a lot besides building their nest egg. So, to see the real lost, it's not the case where we look at only one year; actually, there needs to be some balance across a lot of time. Yet, even though that would reduce some of the notions about the losses this year, the fact remains that you win and you lose. The maturity is to not lose more than what you've gained. That is true growth. But, experimentation ought to be lab-based.

Remarks:

05/17/2011 -- Hedge funds need some of our attention.

02/05/2010 -- See Lehman's guy report (toxic shock) on Harvard losses.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

09/13/2009 -- Need to pause for a bit, to look at Bookstaber's work.

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

Modified: 05/17/2011

Econoblog II

Well, we've done the econoblog, FEDaerated, for awhile. Actually, we're starting the second month.

One thing is clear. In Economics, we have 'dismal' since we have very complicated systems that include humans. In Engineering, on the other hand, it's a little better. Why? Well, for one thing, engineering has nature as a lab, and it can (or try to) bend humans (or make them a collection of idiots - oh, by the way, isn't that the role of the fat cat CEO?) to meet the system, and machine.

In economics, we have people running off, like Ben, with decisions whose ramifications are unknown at this time. Oh, yes, call that undecidable. Get it? Thanks, Vienna school.

And, Engineering needs to wake up to the fact that the computer exacerbates the problems, except that one can look for certain types of stability in numeric processes, even those with PDE equivocations.

So, one finds major projects having problems. Their blaming things on the program management is only half-right.

Perhaps, it turns out, the dismal science may be of use, in a micro sense. After all, even heavily numeric processes require decisions. Message to the managers: these glorified computational resources need major adjustments to assumptions in the beginning, then they need to use heuristics for control during processing, and the after-the-fact analysis is definitely something that requires expert opinion.

One thing that the alluded-to program did wrong? Feed computer model data back in as if it were equivalent to a test in nature, or so it looks from the outside. Tsk, Tsk.

So, managers, if your techies tell you other than the following, they're leading you astray: there is no magic, no overarching theory, and definitely no wizard with the clue.

That is, manager, your techies are as clueless as is yourself.

Having said all that, there are things that lead to success. We all know about this and see it all the time. What was one comment? (quick, quiet, and early)

Quasi-empiricism needs to be added to the focus, to constrain the potential for hubris.

Note: One thing to discuss will be that we're dealing with a 'possible world' situation where these worlds are not disjoint. That is, you have fan-in and fan-out as things unfold along the line of time. And, we get a huge increases in potential due to computational models and their ever-growing-ness. This is an NP situation as we saw with de Kleer's ATMS (1986). But, the necessity for handling these matters can be easily shown, therefore the continuing interests in coping mechanisms.

Remarks:

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

Modified: 11/05/2010

Outhouse'd

Oh, I meant outsourced. But, this means, of course, nothing in particular here except the predilection of life to provide us plenty of oops material usually piled high and deep.

Yes, posts went on before how outsourcing is a lot like leveraging. It's okay to a point, then it goes out of control. Looking for magical endings is one way to characterize that sort of thing.

Well, there are many factors involved which we'll touch upon, in time. For now, just consider that many have run after promises from computer companies about the powers for systems to revolutionize both process and product engineering. Yes, indeed, folks.

On the process side, we'll always have people as the most important thing. Ah, management would love to have it robotic and database driven, though earned value remains as an issue. I have a suggestion here; let's put their glorified roles into automation, since their efforts would never deliver. No, red-faced sputterings and slurring about those under them is the usual.

On the product side, real world experiments cannot, yet, be forgotten in some grand scheme that sees more in modeling, simulating, and visualizing than what is there.

What's the answer? Ah, we'll get there.

When? Well, I'm not racing against the anyone's clock (though, it's to be within PTIME, I hope).

Remarks:

05/30/2013 -- This theme will play within the cosmology of business. Too, Zeno applies in the modern context.

11/02/2010 -- A year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more, on both the process and products side of things.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

09/02/2009 -- Computers make people dumber, yes indeed. That applies to engineering as much as it does to finance. Oh wait, is not that true about management to boot? One rises to levels of beyond ones capability (Peter's principle). Then, everyone under those needs to, then, dumb themselves down.

09/01/2009 -- Is it a limb and what type? It's probably too much to expect that undecidability will get recognized in the business world's fixation on hubris as the proper attitude.

08/31/2009 -- Scott is riding off to the sunset. But, how long will it take for Jim A to regain respect back?

Modified: 05/30/2013

Fair value

Yeah, this concept can get dusted with the fairy's charms like anything financial. As a reminder, we need to keep in mind the change that happened recently (see discussion on 3/13/2009 - there is much more to this to discuss) is showing several results, including billions in payouts to the supposed best-and-brightest, class act that they are. That is, as the Congressman says, the rules of the game were changed in the middle of the game for the clambering horde who wants to continue their ways.

The first touch on this subject here was in the context of measuring progress, which is an issue of earned value. That the engineering use refers to something real does not invalidate the suggested similarity. You see, if we were dealing with other than a fiat situation with money, we would have something that we could get our arms around.

Too, we could have more accountability. That is, the current approach seems to look at who takes the biggest part of the pie as a bonus as it's chief measuring stick. How did this come to be? Banking and finance are really just utility functions. Silly game, indeed.

Now, as we are reminded by the accountants, 'market' and marking can has its issues, to boot. We don't have recourse to a 100% fail-safe system, yet we could stabilize better by removing, or minimizing, the gaming element. Yeah, like adults trying to keep the world safe and livable.

One question: why do we let the media's glorification of these imbeciles rule our daily use of the airwaves?

So, it is time to get serious. See FEDaerated which, as promised, will deal with things economic. We'll still venture upon that theme here, as it's integral to good engineering. The difference? FEDaerated will be more serious in nature.

Remarks:

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, for assessing valuing methods.

09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.

08/11/2009 -- This post was incomplete. We didn't talk markets to which we are to mark. So, we'll need to look at that further. Also, we'll have to go more into intrinsic value.

Modified: 09/09/2009

Poll Completion 7

The Seventh Poll finished 07/28/2009.

For the theme of "Boeing's dilemma" there were 14 votes with multi-vote allowed for the following:

• Confounded beyond reasonable bounds 5 -- 35%
• Was led astray by Scott C 8 -- 57%
• Will magically pull this off 0 -- 0 %
  
• Ought to go back to the drawing board 4 -- 28%
  
• Can only succeed with good people (not subcontractors) 7 -- 50 %
  
• Needs a new CEO 12 -- 85%
  
• The Board was asleep 8 -- 57%
• 787 will fly before the end of 2010 3 -- 21%
  
• The 'dream' liner will meet cost expectations 0 -- 0 %
• The 'dream' liner will meet weight expectations 0 -- 0 %
• The 'dream' liner will meet fuel efficiency expectations 0 -- 0 %

Prior polls: First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth.

...

Econoblog

The new blog (examples - A Reader's Guide to Econoblogs) will start soon with an emphasis on things economic, including basic things like money, the markets, capitalism, people, et al. The current leaning is toward naming the thing FEDaerated (started 8/10/09).

That is, we need to find something other than the gab standard (and Ben's vigilance - see Remarks, yes, Ben was watching out for his own pocket - why sack the savers, Ben?) as the basis for the economy. There are physical analogs (look for heterodox) that have been proposed. What is missing is the rationale and motivation. Well, we can discuss that.

Some of the posts related to money here and at truth engineering might suggests the basis of the approach and opinion. The delivery will be more circumspect and coherent.

But, having Goldman Sachs (Surviving the end of civilization) offered as the ideal grates. Hah! Too, that the stars get to grab excessively needs some scrutiny. Examples, like China, will be very important (Rich China, Poor Peasants).

Then, the current mess from which we haven't taken the right lessons will play a large role. We have to worry about how bad things might be (The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think) or will be (The Economy Has Hit Bottom).

Of course, the FED sacking the savers is another grate. But, Ben gets his say (The Fed's Exit Strategy) and, perhaps, keeps his job (The Fed Can Lead on Financial Supervision).

Remarks:

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

11/05/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

09/08/2009 -- See Econoblog II.

08/02/2009 -- WSJ's headline writer seems to think that this leeching is all the rage. The technique, and its motivation, reeks with a terrible stench.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

07/30/2009 -- Well, I suppose that we couldn't expect Bernanke to work for nothing. But, he's far from the ideal of non-profit handling of our money and economy (though, I'm not calling for his head). Turns out that Ben raced to support the market, probably, in order to keep his own wealth bolstered. Okay, one could argue that he's got his money where his mouth is (gab standard), but it has not been shown that we need the market to the extent of gaming and moral hazards.

So, Ben's not a saver; sack us again, Ben, please. Oh yes, in one sense, he has built wealth. Yet, he's got the majority of his wealth in the game. This needs to be discussed more. Casino (fictitious) capitalism, indeed. Yes, Ben, the savers are the heart of the economy, not the spendthrifts.

Hey, wait, does he even know that the dollar will be permanently trashed with the actions of the past few months?

On another note, the DOW is up. Finance equity is booming. Banks, some, are rolling in the dough. One factor: change in accounting rules. We'll need to look at valuation issues more thoroughly.

03/23/2012

Consequences

The title could mean many things, but we'll look at only one. The 'Cult of me' post looked at imbalances that come about in life. For instance, China and others have a big bucket of bucks while the US worker drowns in a sea of debt. And, the worker has no life-jacket in many cases.

The following chart that comes to us from the Wall Street Journal opens up a line of discussion, probably several, that can continue on the coming econoblog.

But, let's just put a few words. Essentially, it shows that the Lords take, which does not include a whole lot of other income, went from an astounding 28% to over 32%. Yes, we know that the Lords are a way smaller set, orders of magnitude smaller. Yet, they laugh on their way to the bank with a cornucopia.

Needless to say, at the same time, the large set of un-Lords has seen their take diminish except for a few who have scaled the rungs of the meritocracy ladder.

Consequences, indeed. We have to ask, though, of what? How has this come about?

Remarks:

11/27/2011 -- Continuation, somewhat.

09/03/2009 -- Are these guys/gals 'miracle' workers or only stand-ins? Give us a break, please!

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

07/29/2009 -- For the econoblog, leaning toward FEDaerated, for obvious reasons.

07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.

11/27/2011

Lords and Serfs

Like in the old feudal times, we have those who work to exhaustion, do so while they can, and then have what they might have saved stolen. These are the Serfs. Now, on the other side, are those who accumulate massive amounts of stuff, display much of this in ostentatious manners, and then ensure that their intake is sustainable by pilfering in various ways. These are the Lords.

Now, it's not so simple as a two-set affair. As, we have various mixtures. The meritocracy (link here) that we've come to love tries to help some rise out of their Serf-ness. At the same time, most of the rules and actions on the part of a third party (our beloved government (say, the FED and Treasury)) mostly bails out the Lords ('fat cats'). Some say that this is so due to the government being susceptible to the lures of money dangled before the nose (Message to those in the lead. Let us get back to limited terms, gentleman and lady public servants, and this: finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope (no need for the silly games) and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money. Yes, it can be so.).

Yes, business likes to use metaphors that involve beating people, in all senses. For instances, sharks eat people's lunches and more (dead peasant). There are too many examples to go into.

In short, the Lords of business like to beat on the Serfs who have to work for them. Well, one would think that the third party, government, would help balance out the thing (level field). But, look at the recent playings. Who got bailed out? The fat cats. Okay, it may be that the Lords have had the press in their pockets and such.

Thankfully, the internet is opening up the discursive means (econoblogs) to a broader populace. Unfortunately, what we see might indicate why Serfs are sometimes their own worse enemies. But, efforts need to continue in lifting out the potential of the web.

Now, one implication of all this is that the best-and-brightest, apprentices for Lordship supposedly, are those who ought to ascend. Well, some who go up are the dumbest. Too, there are many in the Serf camp who brain-wise can outweigh any of the Lords.

Many Lords are bullies. Of course, Lords can be found on the union side, to boot. It's just that no union person can accumulate like the Lord of business. Even mis-appropriations on the union side pale in contrast to those we've seen doing the perp walk (posing for their mug shot). Many more sail by since any who might have a misgiving about their smell (whosenoseknows) are beaten down or threatened or the powers that be are just not paying attention to the right people.

Lords dazzle.

Oh wait, I'm descending into a game of the idiots. Let's lift ourselves out of the mire. Why does business mostly seem like pigs in the slop?

Where is there the analog of beauty in nature? Tell me, please. I have an idea. And, the future belongs to that side. The mire side is of the dinosaurs, believe me.

Now, why is this? Well, we'll go into that in depth. Expect that there will be an econoblog soon attached to this blog, and its related kin, that will look at the specific matters in a fresh way.

Of course, there may be insights which could help improve various business aspects as the majority of my time has been pondering microeconomic issues. Yet, it's in the macro side where those in charge focus. And, many have their heads in the wrong place? (quasi-empiricism)

Partly, we can blame the sirens of mathematics, science, and technology (underdetermination) for screwing things up.

Recent events show that even engineering can find paths to perdition just as we've seen happen in finance. After all, many of the decisions are very much economic in part.

Now, for success does a serf have to emulate Lords and strive for their ilkness? Interesting question. Madoff provides the answer, in part.

Can Lords pass through the needle's eye? Oops. That a t-issue but nevertheless part of the discussion.

Now, what name might be appropriate for the new blog? Fed-aerated? Any suggestions?

What has happened to all the talk about 'moral-hazards' of only 12 months ago or so? Gosh, when the money flies is not like fairy dust?

Remarks:

07/03/2014 -- The Magna Charta is a wonderful example for us to apply to provider (king)/user (baron) issues.

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

11/27/2011 -- Continuation, somewhat.

09/25/2010 -- Capitalism was defined within a classist's framework. We can improve on that.

01/26/2010 -- This sort of started tongue-in-cheek but moved a little (Lords? What else but the Street of the best and brightest. Serfs? Well, Main Street). Yes, employees as chattel is one lesson. Too, ideological issues have screwed up Adam Smith's little idea. And how. We've been in a mess now for over a year. Big Ben shot his bullets early and showed where his loyalty were (bail out the Big Chimera). Obama did not take on the financial idiots and their slobbering lobbyists early enough. Nationalization sounds more interesting, in retrospect. What was done only increased the gravy train. Big Ben was Man of the Year? He's up for review now. Can we take another four years? Oh, yes, there are traps that we all face in trying to do things; however, some have this Lordly Prince thing going on that needs more scrutiny.

08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/29/2009 -- For the econoblog, leaning toward FEDaerated, for obvious reasons.

07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.

Modified: 07/03/2014

Two trillion

As in bucks. Even the richest person hasn't gotten there yet, that I know of. Okay, they are at fractions of a trillion with their growing billions. But, China has this large of a bucket of bucks (could we use such a bucket?), reports the WSJ.

We need to consider that it's being shared mostly with a few (comparatively) there like anywhere. They have fat cats there (just like here) that got that way by influence, merit, or whatever.

Then, we need to consider the larger set (having lesser accumulations) which does not mean, necessarily, the very poor.

As, the middle people, especially on the lower ends, are stuck in the mire. The fat cats are hogging all the space in the sand box. Why? We've gone over this a few times and will continue to do so. But, it's not a simple issue.

Even Volker and Summers (look, you guys, too many from the Ivy League and with the modern financial indoctrination warp the context - look to the middle of the country, please - and state schools produce worthy peoples, to boot) are arguing about this. Like, ought GS, and those in their milieu, be reigned in, for example. The WSJ also says that CIT probably won't get help; you see, their clients are the smaller business people, perhaps fat cat strivers, but by no means amongst the dinosaurs (yes, used advisedly and will explain) of gigantic proportions.

Okay, back to the two trillion. So, that accumulation was from selling us stuff, via the role that they got under the guise of globalization, a lot of which was crap. Yes. Let me explain below.

But, first, during the same time period, Americans were losing jobs. Those that had them were swimming in deeper and deeper pools of debt. They were being led down the path to perdition while being told that consumerism (Darwin?) drove the economy. How? Well. Buy something now. Of course, use credit. That something would look good but, most likely, would fall apart (planned obsolescence) and need replacement. An eternal cycle that kept the monies flowing to the buckets/pockets of those who are really communistic at the core, that sucked the monies out of those who were on the tread mill here (not that China didn't work their people to death - actually, we exported the labor exploitation scheme to Japan, to boot - and are we ever proud of that, some of us, that is), and covered the oceans with carriers full of junk, more or less.

Ever wonder why the furniture stores, after about 10 years ago or so, didn't have anything USA made. Nope, it was prettied up junk. Of course, one could argue that one who thinks that a dining table ought to be able to last 20-30 years, oh my, is an idiot. Oh yes, buy prettied things, get half (or less) use, then throw it in the growing garbage pile.

Now, of course, that two trillion is mostly over here (is it not?) muddying up the US financial markets. Not that the fat cats care. They earn from the churning that muddies the water, no matter what.

How many in the past few months lost a lot (some everything)? And, were not some of these of a class that never expected such losses (say, the rules changed so that security holders saw their assumed value in hand vanish)? There is a lot more to tell.

Has anything really been done at the core? Nope, we have GS off running. Oodles envying their position. Thankfully, it is a new day, so things may change as needed.

As the comment to the last post mentioned, some of those who are acquiring continue to do so (one is in jail for 150 years, would that have even been seen if the administration had not been changed party-wise - think of if, Made-off still pocketing his gains, ill begottenly).

This is not a rant (well, maybe, a little full of hyperbole), by the way, as this discussion will continue with examples until the picture is clear about what might need to be done. Those in the flow now are too close, too addled trying to handle the complications, and tied too much to the rewards.

We need to step back and 'stop' as said by old WFB, Jr. And, that savings is up might be a good sign of something permanent. The WSJ also showed the star economic bloggers. Do any of those in the dismal science really know?

One could say nope, yet the function of thinking of these things is somewhat necessary. We can't go back to the agrarian. That was never fun, anyway.

But, think of how the current fat cats are not unlike the old lords who made the lives of the serfs miserable. Back then, the cardinality of the lords was small. The misery? Well, was it worse than now? The number of fat cats is larger now; their take is way much more - something like 0.01% of the people sitting on a big part of the wealth.

The fact is that we do not need as much structured finance as some would have those in the lead to believe.

Message to those in the lead. Let us get back to limited terms, gentleman and lady public servants, and this: finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope (no need for the silly games) and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money. Yes, it can be so.

Remarks:

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.

07/21/2009 -- The WSJ was right. Elsewhere, someone remarked that the CIT rescue shows capitalism in action. Well, we'll go into all that in a new blog soon.

Yes, the fat cats go crying and get bailed out. Where is the talk of moral hazards nowadays?

Modified: 08/10/2009

Cult of me

An opinion in the WSJ the other day reminded us that maturity involves seeing ourselves and others in the world and in reality. Some get trapped into their ownness, say some politicians, some stars (film and such, plus sports), some managers (ah, we could start naming) such that they're very good examples of non-sustainability.

That's the key. Right now, we're mortgaging future generations. Actually, that sort of thing has always happened (even now, some poor sell their kids' labor (and more), but one sign of civilization is cherishing, not exploiting, the young ones). It's that now we have the knowledge and resources to not do that or to do it more insightfully (as in, only by necessity - which will be discussed further).

Companies have the same problem though it can be traced back to the managers (includes the Boards, too). The colonization by globalization and outsourcing is an example even though it's couched in terms of economic theory - yes, as in the Pure Theory of International Trade and such.

Fact is, too often theory can be used to cover malfeasance (sort of indicating some talent there, I'll admit). Yet, we expect that those who govern know how to protect the little people. Obama goes to Africa and chides them for raking off the top.

What does he think goes on here? CEO's pad their wallets and those of their friend, the likes of Goldman Sachs (under the guise of high-speed trading - who the heck needs that, you guys?) bleed us to the state of dessication so that they can have their gigantic bonuses, special interest groups are allowed to lead those that make the law around by their noses (and, I'm not talking the discerning function here), and much more.

Okay, more about GS. First of all they have the knowledge and the tools to surgically remove our vitals (in the sense of our beans) just to the point of demise. Then, we're allowed to recover as they can then chase off after others - almost never-ending bunch of victims. We'll discuss this further, as those guys seem to think that they're the epitome of capitalism (oh yes, casino et al). Not that plenty of other people don't envy their state.

People write about the behemoths that we've bailed out (including GS who came home like the prodigal son to be under the extended wing of the American eagle) as they are too big to fail. If you don't say crap, then listen up to the discussion. What we have is a situation where there are sandboxes that we'd like to play in and to share. But, there are 300 lb bullies with their fat cat arses in the way.

You see, the government is supposed to keep those bullies in line. Does that happen? Only now and then. The government thinks that it needs them (as in Wall Street, et al, who get bailed out - the little folks get the shaft). It's a sorry state of affairs, folks.

Remarks:

12/08/2009 -- Consider Paul and current CEOs.

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

07/23/2009 -- James B. Stewart, of the WSJ, says that we ought not 'hate Goldman for making money' of late. Well, he's right, in the sense that we're talking near-zero. So, for all those who lose, someone is raking it in. Of course, one may argue that some of the taxation discussions of late are about taking from the few for the many.

07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.

07/16/2009 -- Oh, yes, GS says its for their clients. Too, WSJ did do some analysis on this recent pot-of-gold of GS as to its sustainability.

The idea is that we could drive finance (liquidity, et al) using a non-profit framework and volunteers. Yes, we'll discuss that further. Are the Grassos, et al essential (not talking function, talking the notion of entitlement to the beans)?

Must it be play the silly game (as if equity and other trading has some superior ability) or be a reasonable person and save?

We're months into meddling and do not know what's next. The whole concept of savers seems to have been trampled by the fat cat hordes after the big money. Too, those servicing the smaller people lose out while the fat cats relax and assume that their moral hazards are not so.

Modified: 03/03/2010

Confoundedness (Poll 7)

Poll completion: 08/02/09

--- original post ---

It's time for another poll. Gosh, the last one was September. This shows that I believed in the process progression as we were told by many statements and was not one of the naysayers.

Boeing seems to be exhibiting confoundedness. So people ought not beat on them; it would be like an ER doctor berating a patient even though whatever is ailing the patient was the result of the person's own choice. No, we need to understand the causes and fix things up.

In short, was Boeing biting off more than one can chew, hoping that subcontractors could magically handle what might be intractable problems, dissing their own employees to run after new partners (the old middle-aged syndrome), and much more?

Much of this has been discussed here, will continue to be discussed here, and can serve as a very interesting lesson of what was wrought with the ending of the 20th century. That is, the 21st century will belong to the workers not to the fat cats (in engineering, it's the negative influences coming out of GE and Welch's legacy that got in the way).

Yes, that comment is a tie back into the economic side of engineering.

Why Boeing allowed themselves to maximize the confounding of factors is anyone's guess. Relaxing along all decision axes is very troublesome in safe environments. To do so when risk is not entirely understood (yes, you guys - Jim M, Scott C, et al - there were people arguing way back about not going whole hog (by what, was the necessity?) after a dream) can have very undesirable consequences.

Lessons learned will abound.

Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no current correlation between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Remarks:

12/31/2013 -- A popular post in both 2012 and 2013. Ah, how many ways to we confound things? Do you not think that queuing up packages, at the last moment, for deliver somehow would not work (as in, expectations being way out of whack?)?

08/13/2011 -- Added completion; see top of post.

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/23/2009 -- There have been several critical articles. Here are a couple, from down under, that illustrate the mood swing.

• Is the 787 Dreamliner fiasco more about toxic corporate cultures than a flawed design?
• The 787 Calamity: Lies and evasions continue

Gosh, wonder if Boeing would like to take back 07/08/07 and start over. Yet, there are five issues ought to be addressed. Remember, the underdetermined state is more common than we would like to admit.
Modified: 12/31/2013

Missed milestone

Gosh, two days ago it was 07/08/09? Was it not two years ago that Boeing rolled out the Potemkin airliner? Talk about 'pulling wool' over our eyes.

When will Boeing step up and be honest about what is going on with this plane? At this point and time, how can we believe what we hear from them? Do the powers that be speak with a forked tongue or do they just not understand? Or, is it just bad culture?

flightblogger has a recap and commentary to which this blog will respond with additional content.

Expect another poll series the next few days: Poll1, ..., Poll6

Remarks:

08/24/2016 -- Boeing is 100, this year.

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Critics can be more of a bane than boon.

07/11/2009 -- Notice the comment about Boeing bashing which ought to be dampened with reason, except stopping a swinging pendulum may be difficult.

Related posts: Here we go again (issues are: Earned value, Parameterized Models, Hype over hypothesis, Misused mathematics, Underdetermination), Out on a limb (the Board and management are way off - can they learn?), Scale up versus extrapolation (basic tenets were ignored in the rush to claim fame - not much wiser than a toddler - which is what computation can do the mind, by the way).

Modified: 08/24/2016

Canadian banks

All the digression into engineering issues cannot be sustained without a break to look at what's going on in the money world.

The USA Today had an article that exclaimed how the Canadian banks (yes, our northern neighbors) did not have the meltdown seen here in the good old US of A. Well, they didn't run off after ridiculous leveraging schemes (reminder, farming out is a type of leveraging). Too, they were suspect of those who wanted us all to think that toxic securities were manna from heaven (reminder, parallel here with hype over hypothesis).

Perhaps, it's that cold air up there that keeps them sane. New York must not freeze enough to rid us of the pests (eternal noise from the best and brightest).

Hey! Isn't Chicago cold, yet we see (Cramming for the exam, Rush job, A new game (risky business), ..., Out on the limb, ...)?

Remarks:

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

Modified: 02/03/2011