The ghosts of pruning past, at Hachimangu, Kamakura.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 3/11/2011 09:39:00 AM
Friday, March 11, 2011
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
[jules' pics] 3/09/2011 04:06:00 PM
The fallout from the photo show in Yokohama, CP+, has so far not been too injurious to James' wallet. While the bendy tripod with a choice of magnetic, spiked or suction feet, seemed a bit odd, the gorillapod for SLRs looked lots of fun, and was duly purchased a few days later. Hence this nighttime photo with flags waving in wind at Hachimangu!
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 3/09/2011 04:06:00 PM
Phew
I'm relieved to say that our paper on the CMIP3 ensemble and its mean has finally been accepted. The final version can be found here, though it seems that the website is not working properly (it is finally being reorganised to match reality, the institute "FRSGC" ceased to exist about 5 years ago and the division "d5" about 3 years ago IIRC). It's not hugely changed from the original and the main results are the same, but it has been improved a bit by the peer-review process. I was a bit unimpressed with how that worked this time around, actually. I already talked about the initial rejection, which was made on the basis of three overtly favourable and one hostile review. We managed to talk round the editor by showing that the rejection was based on a simple misunderstanding, at which point he conceded that we should be allowed to submit a revised version. We did that, and for the next round we had three clear acceptances (I think the paper might have only gone back to the most critical of these three, actually). The hostile reviewer, however, having had his initial complaint refuted, decided this time that our paper was too trivial to publish (using a simple argument that was not actually correct and didn't cover our main results anyway), and the editor asked for "major revision" to deal with this criticism. We complained again, on the grounds that three of four reviewers had already found it interesting enough and that any further revision was hardly likely to change the mind of the 4th (we did also show why their argument failed, though I'm not sure if the editor really believed us). And this got us upgraded to a "minor revision", and finally acceptance.
So in the end it all worked out OK, and certainly a lot more smoothly than this lengthy saga, but I can't help but think it was rather more of a struggle than it needed to be. I suspect that the editor probably knows and respects the 4th reviewer rather better than the others, but that's a bit of a guess. Incidentally, the editor is a very clever guy whose work I admire greatly (though we've not met and he probably doesn't know who I am), so perhaps that is partly why I found the process a bit disappointing. Anyway, I can now move on to the next part of the plan...
So in the end it all worked out OK, and certainly a lot more smoothly than this lengthy saga, but I can't help but think it was rather more of a struggle than it needed to be. I suspect that the editor probably knows and respects the 4th reviewer rather better than the others, but that's a bit of a guess. Incidentally, the editor is a very clever guy whose work I admire greatly (though we've not met and he probably doesn't know who I am), so perhaps that is partly why I found the process a bit disappointing. Anyway, I can now move on to the next part of the plan...
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
[jules' pics] 3/08/2011 09:57:00 PM
Yesterday it snowed. James was celebrating being recovered from a cold.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 3/08/2011 09:57:00 PM
More on open access publishing
Some time ago I got a questionnaire from Project SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) and now they have various survey data, presentations, and videos of their symposium on their web site. Go and have a look if you're interested. I don't think there are any big surprises in what they found, but it is clear that the open access movement is gathering momentum.
Of course the EGU journals don't stop at open access but also have a fairly open review system too. I say fairly open, as there is still some behind-the-scenes stuff (which may include substantial revision and re-review) between the initial open discussion phase and the final publication. I'm not sure why this part of things is hidden from view, perhaps they have their reasons. It is interesting to ponder how their procedure contrasts with the various attitudes that have been expressed recently about people publishing reviews that they have received. I see no fundamental ethical problem with that in principle, I haven't been particularly tempted to publish them in full but have certainly discussed reviews received in general terms, and I recall Jim Hansen doing the same in the past in one of his email circulars. So long as the reviewers are not identifiable, I don't see how there can be much of a problem with this.
Of course, that should not be interpreted as excusing someone who asks about the identity of a suspected reviewer while promising confidentiality, and then decides to blab about it all over the internet...
Of course the EGU journals don't stop at open access but also have a fairly open review system too. I say fairly open, as there is still some behind-the-scenes stuff (which may include substantial revision and re-review) between the initial open discussion phase and the final publication. I'm not sure why this part of things is hidden from view, perhaps they have their reasons. It is interesting to ponder how their procedure contrasts with the various attitudes that have been expressed recently about people publishing reviews that they have received. I see no fundamental ethical problem with that in principle, I haven't been particularly tempted to publish them in full but have certainly discussed reviews received in general terms, and I recall Jim Hansen doing the same in the past in one of his email circulars. So long as the reviewers are not identifiable, I don't see how there can be much of a problem with this.
Of course, that should not be interpreted as excusing someone who asks about the identity of a suspected reviewer while promising confidentiality, and then decides to blab about it all over the internet...
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Happiness is a warm saddle
Hardly news to people who already cycle regularly, but it makes a change to see it getting a bit of publicity. Cycling to work makes people happy:
(and yes, I realise it's possible that it is happiness that makes people cycle, or that some other factor is causal both in happiness and cycling...)
"studies comparing the experiences of commuting by bicycle and car report that cyclists find their mode of transport at least as flexible and convenient as those who use cars, with lower stress and greater feelings of freedom, relaxation and excitement"Full report here.
(and yes, I realise it's possible that it is happiness that makes people cycle, or that some other factor is causal both in happiness and cycling...)
Saturday, March 05, 2011
[jules' pics] Niwaki
NNOOTT!....
The Japanese are famous for the careful aesthetics they employ in tree pruning.
--
Posted By Blogger to jules' pics at 3/05/2011 03:15:00 PM
The Japanese are famous for the careful aesthetics they employ in tree pruning.
Unfortunately, in March, much of Japan has money to burn. I have no trouble with the four men who spent three days up the handful of pine trees at a local cemetery using chopsticks to plucking out every third needle, but that act just make the contrast with the inability to control the violence of the chainsaw even more disturbing. A few years ago it was the islands in the ponds at Hachimangu that got this treatment. This year it is historical-y site of what was probably the seat of power in Kamakura (just down the road from our house) that is being...cleaned up. As well as the trees I feel sorry for all the birds, bugs and squirrels so cruelly displaced from home. Since the idea is to spend money I don't see why they don't employ 50 men with scissors instead of 10 with diggers and chainsaws. They could surely more expensively achieve a more pleasing result.
--
Posted By Blogger to jules' pics at 3/05/2011 03:15:00 PM
Friday, March 04, 2011
Pigeons vs sciencebloggers, round two
And now for the follow-up.
The question was, if someone has two children, and tells you that (at least) one of them is a boy born on a Tuesday, what is the probability that the other child is also a boy? And the intended answer, of course, is 13/27. Why? Well, including the birth day (of week) as a variable, at the outset for a two-child family there are 142 = 196 possible and equiprobable pairs such as (B-Mon, G-Wed) where each child has a gender and birthday (of week) and the ordering denotes birth order. The vast majority of these pairs don't have a Tuesday boy and can be ignored. Of those that do, 7 of them look like (B-Tue, G-any) and another 7 are (G-any, B-Tue). Similarly, there are 7 pairs (B-Tue, B-any) and 7 (B-any, B-Tue). But wait! The case (B-Tue, B-Tue) has been counted twice! In fact there are only 13 cases where one child is a Tuesday boy and the other is also a boy. So that makes the probability 13/(13+14) = 13/27 where one child is a Tuesday boy and the other is also a boy.
However, there's a sting in the tail. Let's say you take a bunch of people with two children, and ask them if one of their children is a boy. Pick such a parent at random. We have already seen that in 1/3 of cases where the answer was yes, the other child will also be a boy. Now ask this parent for the day of the week that their son was born on (if they have a choice, they can flip a coin and pick one son at random, preferably out of sight so as not to give the game away). You get the reply..."Tuesday". Or some other day. Maybe they will say Saturday. In this case, hearing the day of the week on which a son was born does *not* change the probability that the other child is also a boy. So anyone who interpreted the original situation as meaning "a parent of two children, at least one of whom is a boy, tells you the day of the week on which their son (or a random son if applicable) was born, and their answer was `Tuesday'" would be completely justified in concluding that the probability of the other child being a boy was still 1/3. This solution was mentioned in More or Less on 11 June, and it was (re)listening to this old podcast (probably no longer available, but here's a related web page) that prompted me to blog it at last. What Tim Harford could have gone on to point out, but didn't (IIRC), is that even the original "two children" problem is typically under-determined in the way that it is presented. If a parent of two children is asked for the gender of one randomly-selected child, then irrespective of their reply, the probability of their other child being a boy (or alternatively, being the same gender as the one they gave) is...50%. So the solution to this problem also depends on how this "one child is a boy" parent is found.
Similar weaknesses can be found in most statements of the Monty Hall problem too. If all that is reported is the observed actions of the game show host on one occasion, then we don't really have enough information to generalise to a rigorous frequency-based calculation. Maybe Monty only opens another door on the occasions that the player originally picked the car, in which case swapping will lose. Maybe Monte opens a random door (and might expose the car)...in which case the player should still swap, and in fact the probabilities are unchanged from the original problem, in fact. Wikipedia discusses several alternative interpretations in some detail.
Contrary to Gary Foshee's statement on this web page, I don't think this sort of ambiguity is particularly controversial, it's just the result of trying to dress up a mathematical problem in natural-sounding (but slightly imprecise) English. When the problem is stated unambiguously, it's not particularly difficult. At least for pigeons.
And to any pigeons still reading, all I can say is: coo.
The question was, if someone has two children, and tells you that (at least) one of them is a boy born on a Tuesday, what is the probability that the other child is also a boy? And the intended answer, of course, is 13/27. Why? Well, including the birth day (of week) as a variable, at the outset for a two-child family there are 142 = 196 possible and equiprobable pairs such as (B-Mon, G-Wed) where each child has a gender and birthday (of week) and the ordering denotes birth order. The vast majority of these pairs don't have a Tuesday boy and can be ignored. Of those that do, 7 of them look like (B-Tue, G-any) and another 7 are (G-any, B-Tue). Similarly, there are 7 pairs (B-Tue, B-any) and 7 (B-any, B-Tue). But wait! The case (B-Tue, B-Tue) has been counted twice! In fact there are only 13 cases where one child is a Tuesday boy and the other is also a boy. So that makes the probability 13/(13+14) = 13/27 where one child is a Tuesday boy and the other is also a boy.
However, there's a sting in the tail. Let's say you take a bunch of people with two children, and ask them if one of their children is a boy. Pick such a parent at random. We have already seen that in 1/3 of cases where the answer was yes, the other child will also be a boy. Now ask this parent for the day of the week that their son was born on (if they have a choice, they can flip a coin and pick one son at random, preferably out of sight so as not to give the game away). You get the reply..."Tuesday". Or some other day. Maybe they will say Saturday. In this case, hearing the day of the week on which a son was born does *not* change the probability that the other child is also a boy. So anyone who interpreted the original situation as meaning "a parent of two children, at least one of whom is a boy, tells you the day of the week on which their son (or a random son if applicable) was born, and their answer was `Tuesday'" would be completely justified in concluding that the probability of the other child being a boy was still 1/3. This solution was mentioned in More or Less on 11 June, and it was (re)listening to this old podcast (probably no longer available, but here's a related web page) that prompted me to blog it at last. What Tim Harford could have gone on to point out, but didn't (IIRC), is that even the original "two children" problem is typically under-determined in the way that it is presented. If a parent of two children is asked for the gender of one randomly-selected child, then irrespective of their reply, the probability of their other child being a boy (or alternatively, being the same gender as the one they gave) is...50%. So the solution to this problem also depends on how this "one child is a boy" parent is found.
Similar weaknesses can be found in most statements of the Monty Hall problem too. If all that is reported is the observed actions of the game show host on one occasion, then we don't really have enough information to generalise to a rigorous frequency-based calculation. Maybe Monty only opens another door on the occasions that the player originally picked the car, in which case swapping will lose. Maybe Monte opens a random door (and might expose the car)...in which case the player should still swap, and in fact the probabilities are unchanged from the original problem, in fact. Wikipedia discusses several alternative interpretations in some detail.
Contrary to Gary Foshee's statement on this web page, I don't think this sort of ambiguity is particularly controversial, it's just the result of trying to dress up a mathematical problem in natural-sounding (but slightly imprecise) English. When the problem is stated unambiguously, it's not particularly difficult. At least for pigeons.
And to any pigeons still reading, all I can say is: coo.
[jules' pics] Thatch
A special post for the taller of my sisters in law, who is dating the last thatcher in Britain.
While there may be debate over who whittled the guards. where and when, the thatched roof of the guards' house at Sugimotodera dates from 2009/2010. It was being redone and all under scafolding when we visited in June 2009. Looks like a beautiful job to my inexpert eye.
Up the hill past the guards' house, the roof of the main building, which houses no end of important cultural thingumajigs, seems to be enduring more interesting times.
--
Posted By Blogger to jules' pics at 3/03/2011 05:12:00 PM
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Send for the sushi police!
Seems like the sushi police are needed in India, where it has recently emerged that an England cricket player spent a week in bed after eating at a Japanese restaurant.
Perhaps the England team could also send for a few brain cells to share between the team - eating raw fish in the middle of India (they were about 200 miles from the nearest coast) in the middle of a competition is about as stupid as using boxing for team bonding just before the Ashes, and they wouldn't do that, would they?
Perhaps the England team could also send for a few brain cells to share between the team - eating raw fish in the middle of India (they were about 200 miles from the nearest coast) in the middle of a competition is about as stupid as using boxing for team bonding just before the Ashes, and they wouldn't do that, would they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)