It's an excellent book and should be required reading for all of us. The thing that struck me most about it was how all of the scientists involved had the best intentions -- they thought they were saving the world and that the bomb would ensure peace for all time. Then the politicians got involved and the disillusioned scientists lost control of the project. The military and government weren't nearly so idealistic.
The article reminded me of the old story of the experimentall physicist who runs excitedly up to his theorist colleague, exclaiming "Look! I can show that A > B!" The theorist says, "That's easy to explain. [Explanation deleted...]" The experimentalist says, "Did I say A > B? I meant B > A.", to which the theorist replies, "Oh, that's even easier to explain."
The models described seem far too simple to describe something as complicated as society. As a physicist who has dabbled in biology, I know the perils of applying simple models to biological systems. How sensitive are these models to the addition of another type of interaction between people, or another outside influence? For every simple model that shows A>B, I can come up with one that shows B>A, unless the simple model is very well rooted in fhe fundamental physics (or sociology) of the problem. I don't believe that the fundamentals of sociology are well enough established to make these models believable.
For example, consider the Schelling model of segregation discussed in the article. From a physicist's point of view, this is a statisictal simulation of a system of two types of particles on a lattice, with an attractive interaction between particles of the same type. There's no temperature, so the system will phase separate, since that's the lowest energy state. No surprise there. A five minute chat with a physicist could have saved Schelling a lot of computer time. The more interesting question is what happens when you add some randomness in the form of temperature. Then the system will phase separate below a certain temperature, and form a single mixed phase above that temperature. What is the sociological analog of temperature? (Ok, I know that one... If a particle of one type is hot for a particle of another type, then you get particles of mixed type....)
The simulations are cute and I'm sure they're fun to play with, but I wouldn't put much stock in them.
A diskless information backup and retrieval sytstem allows computer users to store and retrieve arbitrary amounts of information using only a computer and a network connection. Each file to be stored is attached to a mail message headed "MAKE $$$$ FAST" and sent to 10 friends. The user can retrieve the file from the net at any time over the next 10 years, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an excellent book and should be required reading for all of us. The thing that struck me most about it was how all of the scientists involved had the best intentions -- they thought they were saving the world and that the bomb would ensure peace for all time. Then the politicians got involved and the disillusioned scientists lost control of the project. The military and government weren't nearly so idealistic.
-- Steve
The article reminded me of the old story of the experimentall physicist who runs excitedly up to his theorist colleague, exclaiming "Look! I can show that A > B!" The theorist says, "That's easy to explain. [Explanation deleted...]" The experimentalist says, "Did I say A > B? I meant B > A.", to which the theorist replies, "Oh, that's even easier to explain."
The models described seem far too simple to describe something as complicated as society. As a physicist who has dabbled in biology, I know the perils of applying simple models to biological systems. How sensitive are these models to the addition of another type of interaction between people, or another outside influence? For every simple model that shows A>B, I can come up with one that shows B>A, unless the simple model is very well rooted in fhe fundamental physics (or sociology) of the problem. I don't believe that the fundamentals of sociology are well enough established to make these models believable.
For example, consider the Schelling model of segregation discussed in the article. From a physicist's point of view, this is a statisictal simulation of a system of two types of particles on a lattice, with an attractive interaction between particles of the same type. There's no temperature, so the system will phase separate, since that's the lowest energy state. No surprise there. A five minute chat with a physicist could have saved Schelling a lot of computer time. The more interesting question is what happens when you add some randomness in the form of temperature. Then the system will phase separate below a certain temperature, and form a single mixed phase above that temperature. What is the sociological analog of temperature? (Ok, I know that one... If a particle of one type is hot for a particle of another type, then you get particles of mixed type....)
The simulations are cute and I'm sure they're fun to play with, but I wouldn't put much stock in them.
-- Steve
Actually, look closely at the structure of the legs, and compare to this picture. It's an enormous virus! And, boy, are we in trouble.
A diskless information backup and retrieval sytstem allows computer users to store and retrieve arbitrary amounts of information using only a computer and a network connection. Each file to be stored is attached to a mail message headed "MAKE $$$$ FAST" and sent to 10 friends. The user can retrieve the file from the net at any time over the next 10 years, at least.