>Reading List. Motivation and statistical Analysis.
The first lecture I ever attended on Statistics was prefaced with a funny story relating the title of this blog.
Trying to make sense of the continuing problems I have had with the County Estate I used to own In Somerset South West England has sent me on a very interesting Journey the journey has turned into a pilgrimage of some significance for me resulting in an appreciation of the connectedness of everything and the predictability of nothing.
The following list of pages currently open in My Browser is a pause for breath and thought.
And a bookmark in the pages of a very big book.
Conversation with Noam Chomsky and a Swedish Scholar.
The Spirit Level. WIlkinson and the same Swedish Scholar.
My Facebook Wall another Bookmark.
My You Tube channel Lanthides , Uncertainty Principle and Half lifes?
Joseph Philip Guitars Music Neitsche and tribalism.Digital Systems Programming (algoritims)
Procrusteun stuff Michael Perleman and the Invention of Capitalism , He mentioned procrusteun tendencies in an online information he gave posted on You Tube.
The notion of GDP this is what got mne excercised about GDP as a given!
James Burkes Connections programme led me to this search engine Scrabble scores would make a good way to rank and choose policy decisions as equally meaningful as GDP.
The Naturalist thing is a question of and variation of is it life imitating art or Art imitating nature the nature of predictability and relativity.
My waking proposition.
The Efficiency of Decentralised and Devolved Government: A Framework
Alex Christie and J. Kim Swales
Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde
Centre for Public Policy for Regions, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde
Devolution in Kenya.
Whats the opposite of Market no 1 answer Free market Kind of freudian.
opposite of market
Nucloid Nucloid so good they named it twice.
Whats another Nucloid between freinds,
In Computing Justifying Margins?
The Small-World Phenomenon:
An Algorithmic Perspective
Long a matter of folklore, the \small-world phenomenon” | the principle that
we are all linked by short chains of acquaintances | was inaugurated as an area
of experimental study in the social sciences through the pioneering work of Stanley
Milgram in the 1960’s. This work was among the rst to make the phenomenon
quantitative, allowing people to speak of the \six degrees of separation” between any
two people in the United States. Since then, a number of network models have been
proposed as frameworks in which to study the problem analytically. One of the most
re ned of these models was formulated in recent work of Watts and Strogatz; their
framework provided compelling evidence that the small-world phenomenon is pervasive
in a range of networks arising in nature and technology, and a fundamental ingredient
in the evolution of the World Wide Web.
But existing models are insu cient to explain the striking algorithmic component
of Milgram’s original ndings: that individuals using local information are collectively
very e ective at actually constructing short paths between two points in a social net-
work. Although recently proposed network models are rich in short paths, we prove
that no decentralized algorithm, operating with local information only, can construct
short paths in these networks with non-negligible probability. We then de ne an in –
nite family of network models that naturally generalizes the Watts-Strogatz model, and
show that for one of these models, there is a decentralized algorithm capable of nding
short paths with high probability. More generally, we provide a strong characterization
of this family of network models, showing that there is in fact a unique model within
the family for which decentralized algorithms are e ective.
Self fulfilling self serving the motivation or in short follow the money control power who gets the candy its not the party its the after party vip lounge gold access silver access 1st class second class in short divide and rule.
I’ll try to get through the whole thing here this article is a good example of whats wrong we are a sick society our ecology is so riven with division.
A n economic model of moral motivation
a b b ,
Kjell Arne Brekke , Snorre Kverndokk , Karine Nyborg *
Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1116, Blindern,
0317 Oslo, Norway
Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Gaustadalleen ´ 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway
Received 16 March 2001; received in revised form 23 September 2001; accepted 5 December 2001
In this paper, we present an economic model of moral motivation. Consumers prefer
regarding themselves as socially responsible individuals. Voluntary contributions to public
goods are motivated by this preference. The self-image as socially responsible is determined
by a comparison of one’s actual behavior against an endogenous morally ideal behavior.
Public policy inﬂuences voluntary contributions through its effects on relative prices and
budget or time constraints, but also indirectly through the policy’s effect on the morally
ideal contribution. This implies that economic incentives may have adverse effects on
contributions. We present survey data on recycling behavior and voluntary community
work, which is consistent with the model predictions.
2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Voluntary contributions; Economic incentives; Warm glow; Identity theory
The Big Society brought to you from Global franchansee of the year David Cameron and the calm down dear yes we can new torylabourdems. More runways please widen the M25 when your at it lets have another millennium dome and whoi will end up paying the bill for the olympics don’t worry Next Gen man will Explain. Oh and lets have him bail out some banks when we’re at it.
Build it and they will come. Thats my Moto.
Back to this Internet as pissing contest mines bigger than yours have you got a permit for that.
Shareholder derivative litigation: besieging the Board By Ralph C. Ferrara, Kevin T. Abikoff, Laura Leedy Gansler
Philosophy of Values
What is Virtue Epistemology?
ABSTRACT: This paper functions as a brief introduction to virtue epistemology, a topic that has enjoyed a recent gain in popularity among analytic philosophers. Here I maintain that the defining feature of virtue epistemology is its focus on the intellectual virtues and vices rather than the evaluation of belief. What constitutes such a focus? And, what are the intellectual virtues? In the first section, I enumerate five different ways in which virtue epistemologists might focus on the virtues. In the second, I discuss four topics pertaining to the nature of the intellectual virtues themselves: (1) are the virtues natural or acquired?; (2) are they skills?; (3) are they instrumentally, constitutively, or intrinsically valuable?; and (4) what relation do they bear to truth? Throughout the paper, I identify which virtue epistemologists are partial to which views, and in this manner, catalog much of the recent debate. In conclusion, I suggest some topics for future study.
I have no answer to these arguments, but am finally compelled to admit that there is not one of my former beliefs about which a doubt may not properly be raised; and this is not a flippant or ill-considered conclusion, but is based on powerful and well thought-out reasons. So in future I must withhold my assent from these former beliefs just as carefully as I would from obvious falsehoods, if I want to discover any certainty. — Rene Descartes (1)
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28:2; 135–145, 2004
c 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.
A Simple Tool for Qualitatively Testing, Quantitatively
Measuring, and Normatively Justifying Savage’s
Subjective Expected Utility
VERONIKA K ¨OBBERLING
PETER P. WAKKER
Department of Quantitative Economics, University of Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht 6200 MD,
This paper introduces a new preference condition that can be used to justify (or criticize) expected utility. The
approach taken in this paper is an alternative to Savage’s, and is accessible to readers without a mathematical
background. It is based on a method for deriving “comparisons of tradeoffs” from ordinal preferences. Our
condition simpliﬁes previously-published tradeoff conditions, and at the same time provides more general and
more powerful tools to specialists. The condition is more closely related to empirical methods for measuring
utility than its predecessors. It provides a unifying tool for qualitatively testing, quantitatively measuring, and
normatively justifying expected utility.
Keywords: cardinal utility, expected utility, tradeoff consistency, strength of preference
Derivatives reporting by Multi Nationals.
There is a common Thread through all this broad slew of reading this is not suprising from theperspective that all article grow out from the cenrtal questions of Centralisation versus devolution and tyrany and the motives of parameters set for prediction of probabilitys the self fulfiulling prophesie as opposed to Genuine authentic enquiry.