Zicutake [Audio]

USAComment.com
Zicutake USA Comment | Search Articles










Zicutake Formation University:

USAComment.com | Search Articles of Onion.to
Search Articles of Onion.to:

Shorten that long URL into a tiny URL:
Example, enter the url: http://zicutake.usacomment.com = Tinyurl.com/hox5dyn


USAComment.com | TALK

 
Tweets by Zicutake


SEND YOUR HISTORY:

Contact Us

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Gangnam Style 近期最火- 中文歌词



朴载相

PSY(原名朴载相)的祖父是从日本帝国时代开始就非常有钱,现在爷爷是某半导体公司社长。本人毕业于美国伯克利大学音乐系。2001年正式出道,是韩国很著名的R&B实力派歌手,舞也跳得不错,在韩国拥有很高的人气,而且他的歌被韩国民众广为传唱。

朴载相 - 个人资料

朴载相朴载相
本名:朴载相[PARK JAE SANG]
国籍/地区:韩国    
出生年月:1977年12月31日
星座: 射手座     
家庭情况:姐姐 foodstylelist朴在恩,爸爸 企业家朴元浩   
爱好:跳舞、旅行   
擅长:克拉立涅特、打鼓   
所属公司:YG   
同公司艺人:Bigbang 、2NE1、蜘蛛、SE7EN等[1]









今年看了对我影响比较大的戏 ~海苔億萬富翁~
, 特别推荐给所有,有梦想,追梦,想要创造奇迹的朋友。
 戏里的一句话~ 你有没有感觉过自己很妙小~ 把我再次敲醒了!

简介

一个不爱读书的年轻人, 总是抱着想要做生意的梦想, 遇到了种种的挑战,
尝试了各种方法,在他生意有了一些起色时,以为可以松一口气,但是,发现了父亲欠下的
巨款, 才觉得自己是多么的渺小。自己做生意的收入根本没可能还清。

他没有放弃,想的只是如何让自己的生意做得更大! 结果。。。。。。。。。。


 今年28岁(1984年出生)的伊提帕·柯彭温奇(Aitthipat Kulapongvanich),是泰国最知名的海苔品牌“小老板海苔”创办人兼执行长。他不仅与佐克柏同年,两人也同时选在2004年创办手上的明星事 业。2010、2011年,小老板海苔的总营业额都超过10亿泰铢(泰铢与新台币币值接近1:1),2010年至今,成长率更高达30%。不仅是泰国 No.1的海苔品牌,外销20多国,《Cheers》杂志抢先独家专访“小老板”,一探他的海苔亿万传奇之路。现在,他的故事也被拍成电影《海苔亿万富 翁》。

借此影片, 希望大家梦想成真, 继续努力! 创造辉煌!!




Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Authority and ad hominem

Argument from authority ("I'm the expert") goes hand-in-hand with the ad hominem ("you're not"). Each may be rebutted by the other, and the average quality as evidence of arguments from authority are about the same as the average quality as evidence of ad hominem. By necessity, these two kinds of evidence are the dominant forms of evidence that lead each of us as individuals to believe what we believe, since little important of what you believe comes from your own direct observation. Authority's investment costs are one good proxy measure for evaluating the value of such evidence. But contrast the law of the dominant paradigm. Perhaps the latter is superior for judging claims about the objective world, whereas investment costs are superior for judging the intersubjective.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Cattle "Emissions"


Ancestral Health Symposium 2012 is now history. The symposium took place at the Harvard Law School August 9th-11th. Not a bad gig for a forage agronomist! The title of my presentation was The Reality of Ruminants and Liebeg’s Barrel: Examining the New ‘Conventional Wisdom'. All of the presentations were video taped, and will be freely available.
My title slide. Cattle mob grazing a pasture under center pivot irrigation.
Photograph by Dawn Gerrish.
One of the themes of this year’s symposium was sustainability. I don’t see that term in the simplistic way many do, in part because I remember being told by leaders of the sustainable agriculture movement that “animals have no place in sustainable ag!”

The truth is that the production of animal products from perennial forages is the sustainable agricultural system. Many, however, are concerned about the carbon dioxide and methane “emissions” from livestock in general, and cattle in particular. Some folks don’t seem to understand that a cow grazing grass can only emit carbon that was originally in grass, and that the carbon in grass has to have come from the atmosphere. So it’s a cycle not an “enrichment.” But there’s more to it than that!

Under the following assumptions:

Carbon:Nitrogen ratio = 17 and 3.4% N, giving 57.8 % C
3% of body weight daily dry matter (DM) intake; 1,000 lb cow = 30 lb DM per day
70% utilization - 30 lb DM eaten / 0.70 = 42.8 lb DM offered
Equal above and below ground DM distribution
90% of C consumed is “emitted” 

We’d see:

42.8 lb DM above ground, 42.8 lb DM below ground – 85.6 lb DM total
57.8% C in DM – 49.5 lb C total
17.3 lb C consumed
15.6 lb C emitted

Thus, for every pound of carbon “emitted” by a cow on grass, 3.2 pounds of carbon are fixed in plant roots, uneaten plant debris, or the cow herself or her calf. Even if we say that 100% of carbon she ingested is emitted (a biological impossibility!), there’d be 2.9 pounds of carbon fixed for every pound emitted! Beef cattle are carbon negative!

Someone (perhaps Todd Becker?) asked me what happens to methane in the atmosphere. A good question, and one I wasn't completely sure about. So I went looking and found the following at this site:
"In the lower part of the atmosphere, below about 10-12 km (the troposphere), the key cycles are mediated above all by the presence of what are called OH radicals — colloquially known as the atmospheric detergent. All hydrocarbon chemical species that are emitted can be eventually broken down (or oxidized) by these radicals to CO2 and H2O, and methane is no exception. An average molecule of CH4 lasts around eight to nine years before it gets oxidized. This is a long time compared to most atmospheric chemicals but is fast enough so that there can be significant year-to-year variability."

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Proxy measures, sunk costs, and Chesterton's fence

G.K. Chesterton ponders a fence:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Contrast the sunk cost fallacy, according to one account:
When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can’t stop now, otherwise what I’ve invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless. If there is no hope for success in the future from the investment, then the fact that one has already lost a bundle should lead one to the conclusion that the rational thing to do is to withdraw from the project.
The sunk cost fallacy, according to another account:
Picture this: It's the evening of the Lady Gaga concert/Yankees game/yoga bootcamp. You bought the tickets months ago, saving up and looking forward to it. But tonight, it's blizzarding and you've had the worst week and are exhausted. Nothing would make you happier than a hot chocolate and pajamas, not even 16-inch pink hair/watching Jeter/nailing the dhanurasana.
But you should go, anyway, right? Because otherwise you'd be "wasting your money"?

Think again. Economically speaking, you shouldn't go.
Has Chesterton committed the sunk cost fallacy? Consider the concept of proxy measures:
The process of determining the value of a product from observations is necessarily incomplete and costly. For example, a shopper can see that an apple is shiny red. This has some correlation to its tastiness (the quality a typical shopper actually wants from an apple), but it's hardly perfect. The apple's appearance is not a complete indicator -- an apple sometimes has a rotten spot down inside even if the surface is perfectly shiny and red. We call an indirect measure of value -- for example the shininess, redness, or weight of the apple -- a proxy measure. In fact, all measures of value, besides prices in an ideal market, are proxy measures -- real value is subjective and largely tacit.
Cost can usually be measured far more objectively than value. As a result, the most common proxy measures are various kinds of costs. Examples include:
(a) paying for employment in terms of time worked, rather than by quantity produced (piece rates) or other possible measures. Time measures sacrifice, i.e. the cost of opportunities foregone by the employee
(b) most numbers recorded and reported by accountants for assets are costs rather than market prices expected to be recovered by the sale of assets.
(c) non-fiat money and collectibles obtain their value primarily from their scarcity, i.e. their cost of replacement.
Proxy measures are important because we usually can't measure value directly, much less forecast future value with high confidence. And often we know little of the evidence and preferences that went into an investment decision. You may have forgotten or (if the original decision maker was somebody else) never learned the reason. In which case, the original decision-maker may have had more knowledge than you do -- especially if that decision-maker was somebody else, but sometimes even if that decision-maker was you. In which case it can make a great deal of sense to use the sunk cost as a proxy measure of value.

In the first account of sunk cost, there seems to be no uncertainty: by definition we know that our investment is "hopeless." In such a case, valuing our sunk costs is clearly erroneous. But the second, real-world example, is far less clear: "you've had the worst week and are exhausted.." Does this mean you won't enjoy the concert, as you originally envisioned? Or does it mean that in your exhaustion you've forgotten why you wanted to go to the concert? If it's more likely to mean the latter, then my generalization of Chesterton's fence, using the idea of proxy measures, suggests that you should use your sunk costs as a proxy measure of value, and weigh that value against the costs of the blizzard and the benefits of hot chocolate and pajamas, to decide whether you still will be made happier by going to the concert.

If your evidence may be substantially incomplete you shouldn't just ignore sunk costs -- they contain valuable information about decisions you or others made in the past, perhaps after much greater thought or access to evidence than that of which you are currently capable. Even more generally, you should be loss averse -- you should tend to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring seemingly equivalent gains, and you should be divestiture averse (i.e. exhibit endowment effects) -- you should tend to prefer what you already have to what you might trade it for -- in both cases to the extent your ability to measure the value of the two items is incomplete. Since usually in the real world, and to an even greater degree in our ancestors' evolutionary environments, our ability to measure value is and was woefully incomplete, it should come as no surprise that people often value sunk costs, are loss averse, and exhibit endowment effects -- and indeed under such circumstances of incomplete value measurement it hardly constitutes "fallacy" or "bias" to do so.

In short, Chesterton's fence and proxy measures suggest that taking into account sunk costs, or more generally being averse to loss or divestiture, rather than always being a fallacy or irrational bias, may often lead to better decisions: indeed if it is done in just those cases where substantial evidence or shared preferences that motivated the original investment decision have been forgotten or have not been communicated, or otherwise where the quality of evidence that led to that decision may outweigh the quality of evidence that is motivating one to change one's mind.. We generally have far more information about our past than about our future. Decisions that have already been made, by ourselves and others, are an informative part of that past, especially when their original motivations have been forgotten.

References:

Chesterton's Fence

Sunk Cost Fallacy  (1), (2)

Endowment Effects/Divestiture Aversion: 

Loss Aversion:

Cost as a Proxy Measure of Value