Print Story Still married.
Logic & Maths
By gzt (Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:06:47 PM EST) gzt, lunch, baseball, grip (all tags)
I'll buy the drinks, you pay the rent.

I might have to stop listening to an Ipod on the train. It's hard to listen to at a sufficient volume to beat the train noise without damaging the ears. Even at a slightly lesser volume, I find the hearing in my left ear goes a little bad after a few days, but recovers when I stop listening for a while. Well, drat.



There's a friendly challenge on another website for people beginning strength training to get up to the following numbers by the end of the year:
500# deadlift
400# squat
300# bench press
200# press

I've already got the squat and am close on the deadlift, but have quite a bit of work on the bench and the press. I'm shooting for those numbers, but now I have a deadline. Here's where I'm probably at right now:

480# deadlift
440# squat
230# bench press
155# press

Anyway. It'll be hard to get my presses up to muster in that time.

Reading Chekhov because I can't find Boswell. Just finished "Three Years", a story about a loveless marriage.

Heard back from doctor. Everything looks good, so we'll ignore the test unless I have some symptoms. Check back in a few months.

Have mild tendinitis in right arm, only notice it when I push a revolving door. I think it might compromise my grip strength a little, too.

David Bentley Hart, noted windbag, on the perfect game in baseball: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/a-perfect-game

Also: how stoning works in Iran. http://www.slate.com/id/2262540/

And the limits of social science: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html

Hmm, cafeteria seems to have decent vegetarian options today. Will check out NOW.

< Ahhh vacation | on getting it together >
Still married. | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Limits of social science by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:58 PM EST
As explained by "founder and chairman of an applied artificial intelligence software company" seemed irritatingly bad to me. He only talks about experiments, never regression analysis, which is a bit like someone who doesn't know what a hammer is discussing the limits of carpentry.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
did you mis-read the part of domestic violence by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:23:06 PM EST
and criminology using regression analysis extensively ? Or am I misunderstanding your point ?

[ Parent ]
Aha by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:37:51 PM EST
He does mention it briefly and dismissively there.

But it's the principal tool used across the whole of the social sciences, and it can be used to tell you exactly things like whether a Keynesian fiscal spending stimulus works or not in practice. Take the data from different countries in recessions, see how government spending affects outcomes when other factors are controlled for.

But he's writing for City Journal, a publication of the right-wing ultra-free-market Manhattan Institute, who find it nice and convenient to sspread ideas like "you can never prove the benefit of a policy we oppose, but you can see the costs, so let's not do it."
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Can it? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:41:09 PM EST
From what I've seen, it can only be used to for economists to argue about whether or not Keynesian fiscal stimulus works in practice.

The basic flaw as I see it is that you can't really control for all "other factors".  That assumes we know a hell of a lot more about how cultures and societies work than we actually do.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
FUD by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:57:06 PM EST
Mainstream economists argue about how big the effects of Keynesian stimulus are, and how big a stimulus should be. But they don't disagree on the basic strategy.

It's the same FUD strategy as with global warming. The right-wing "think tanks" and bloggers point out genuine disagreements over the exact size of the effect, and use that to imply that there is equal disagreement over the existence of the effect.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
FUD? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:15:55 PM EST
"FUD" = Ad hominem that ignores the issue.  I am neither a right-wing think tank, nor am I a blogger.

It isn't FUD to say that economics can't even pretend to make any sorts of iron-clad predictions as to what an effect of a stimulus effect will be.  They can only every argue with each other about what magnitude it is.

Economics pretends to be like physics, but in truth, they aren't even at a classical greek level of sophistication.  What is proven about stimulus packages is about what was proven about gravity in 100 BC.  Things fall if you drop them.

Yes, in an artificial world that doesn't exist, we can be sure that X stimulus creates Y results.  In the real, actual world, with real, actual uncontrolled variables, you can't get any agreement on whether, say, the Obama stimulus package was worthwhile.  Instead, you get lots of people arguing about whether artificial models with little real-world applicability prove that the Obama stimulus package was, or was not, worthwhile. 

If Economics were a real science, then it could make testable predictions.  Instead, you get constant predictions that fall flat, like all the right-wingers that screamed how a minimum wage increases must increase unemployment who then completely ignored reality when the two weren't tied together in real life.

"Economics" = "Alchemy".  There's a few bits that work, but mostly it's a crock of shit.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
huh by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:17:12 PM EST
How the hell did I get that font!?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
= = autoformatting. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:30:22 PM EST
I think. I will test here: = test =

Yep.

[ Parent ]
Criminal! by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:31:31 PM EST
My C style double equals is being = oppressed! =
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Physics can't do that either by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:44:08 PM EST
The ideal gas law relates pressure p, volume V, temperature T with the equation:

pV = nRT

If I increase p, but don't know how the value of V changes, I can't tell you what T will be.

But you can still tell from that equation that if you want to increase T, and you can control p, your best bet is to increase p. Sure, maybe something will happen to V to reduce T despite your efforts, but it's still higher than it would have been if you did nothing to p.

Similarly in a recession, suppose T is the number of jobs, p is the fiscal stimulus and V is consumer confidence.

We don't know what's going to happen to V, so we can't predict T. But we do know that if we want to increase T, our best bet is to increase p. V might change so much that T still goes down over time, but it won't go down as much as if we'd left p alone.

The difference is that a lot of people with big piles of money and influence don't care about T (because they live on investments not a salaried job) and really don't want to increase p (because they fear taxes and inflation will shrink their big piles of money). So they've paid for City Journal to convince people that since we can't make precise predictions of T, it's all a load of rubbish and we should just leave p alone.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Bad analogy by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 05:05:54 PM EST
The difference is that physicists don't entirely ignore important variables.

Like culture.

Is the effect of fiscal stimulus culturally invariant?

Let me put it in a more obvious manner:

In theory, raising the minimum wage should cause a rise in unemployment as labor costs go up.

We know that in 1970s Japan, jobs were for life, and people were almost never fired.

We know that in 1990s America, people were fired at the drop of a hat.

How does that cultural difference effect the relation between labor cost and employment?

That's the basic trouble with economics.  The equations are more like "pV = nRTAEIUYWFGDG" with all the other variables assumed the be unimportant, usually because there is no actual way to control for those variables.  (One huge elephant in the room variable here is changing technology.)
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Not following the maths here by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 05:52:51 PM EST
How is the equation:
pV = nRTAEIUYWFGDG

Different from:
pV = nRT

Given that V is already unknown? Why not just include the other variables in V?
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Because by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 06:21:06 PM EST
Someone will conclude that they can figure out T once they know V.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Doesn't make sense by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:16:36 AM EST
Those equations are mathematically identical.

Consider Boyle's Law :
pV = k

This relates pressure and volume in the same way as the ideal gas law. It just includes the other variables in k. That relationship doesn't become false just because you can split k into other variables.

Similarly, the ideal gas law only works for an ideal gas. As with any scientific law, it can only make predictions if you keep all the other variables constant. But the relationship between the variables it does describe can be useful even under non-ideal circumstances: heat up a closed vessel and the pressure is very very very likely to be higher than if you hadn't heated it.

You're making a demand for economics that would also be failed by physics: that it can provide precise numerical predictions without controlling other dependent variables.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
You misunderstand by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:15:23 AM EST
I am not saying that ideal gas law has a different equation.  I am saying that economics creates utterly simplistic equations because it ignores variables.  The error of economics is that it pretends it even knows all of the variables.

(For instance, the relationship of employment to minimum wage example I gave.)
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Same thing applies to Physics by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:48:30 PM EST
Boyle's Law ignores the extra variables in the Ideal Gas Law. The Ideal Gas Law ignores a vast number of additional variables that would be needed to predict temperature in a non-ideal, i.e. real-world, situation.

You're using a fallacious argument, because the existence of additional variables doesn't change the relationship between the included variables.

It's also a general argument that could be applied to any science, which you're choosing to apply only to the sciences you don't like.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
The difference by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #41 Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:19:07 PM EST
Physicists don't make policy predictions based on ideal laws. 

Getting back to the example I brought up: people like to scream lots about what minimum wage laws must do, essentially applying "laws" determined in airy, ideal worlds and completely ignoring any other variables.

This is exactly what the original article is complaining about.  Different economists use idealized formulas to prove to diametrically opposed positions are correct.  This is utterly unlike physics, where any competent physicist can tell you how to fill a hot air balloon.

That's the crux that you are ignoring.  Physics has a long track record of predicting events to multiple decimal point precision.  Economics has a long track record of utterly failing to predict anything.  All the math in the world can't erase that track record of dismal failure.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Are you two still arguing about this shit? by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #42 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 06:23:01 AM EST

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
The same thing applies to minimum wage laws by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #44 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:41:47 PM EST
When pressed, mainstream economists generally acknowledge that minimum wage laws reduce the number of jobs to some extent, and benefit low-paid workers to some extent.

The disagreements again are about how big each effect is.

There are further disagreements about whether it's the best way to benefit the working poor: some say tax credits or working benefits are a better method than minimum wages.

But they're not arguing to "prove to diametrically opposed positions are correct". They're arguing over the size of the given effect.

Now this is strictly speaking chemistry rather than physics, but consider the Gulf cleanup. One big issue is whether the detergent used to clean up the oil did more damage than the oil itself.

In this case, we're applying the physical sciences to real world political policy. You'll notice that the same problems come into play. Here too, we can make precise calculations in a simplified model, but not in the vast and complicated real world Gulf of Mexico. Here too, different experts can argue different positions depending on the extent of various effects. Here too, we can't re-run it multiple times and experimentally determine which response was best.

But I'd rather the decision was based on estimates and simplified models than trust the Manhattan Institute's laissez-faire ideology that leaving a problem alone must magically always be best.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Physics by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #45 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 03:07:07 PM EST
The disagreements again are about how big each effect is.

Yes, that's the difference.  Physicists don't disagree about how much lift a hot air balloon will get with a certain mass of air and a certain amount of heat.

I'm not sure any reputable physicists claim to absolutely know how to clean up the oil in the gulf.  The issue with economics is that you'll get arguments over how big the effect is by two sides that absolutely insist that their models absolutely prove their position.  This is the issue with economics.  Economists pretend that the inprecision isn't there and advise accordingly.  This is why it is so easy for politicians to find "reputable" economists to support whatever idiocy they want to foist on the public.

The problem with economics is not that it tries to model things, or even that it suggests political actions.  The problem with economics is that it pretends vastly more precision then it is capable of.  It is essentially at the alchemy level.  It can make some vague suggestions that make sense, but it generally is used to tell people in power what they want to hear.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Well by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #46 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 03:54:56 PM EST
The issue with economics is that you'll get arguments over how big the effect is by two sides that absolutely insist that their models absolutely prove their position. This is the issue with economics.
I read quite a lot of economics blogs, on both left and right, and haven't noticed this at all. I think you're mixing up statements by pundits and bloggers with statements by economists and academics.

My first degree was in Physics and my second in Computer Science, so I'm hardly biased in favour of social sciences.

Coming to economics later though, I noticed there had been a peculiar bias against the social sciences when I was studying Physics. I think that was partly just out-of-date. When my lecturers were young, the social sciences were very subjective and unmathematical, and papers sometimes had obvious statistic evidence. But since the Eighties, led by economics, the social sciences have become vastly more numerical and more rigorous.

These days, the statistics taught on an undergraduate Economics course is far deeper and more rigorous than on hard sciences course. It's partly driven by necessity: the ease of doing experiments in Physics means that you can easily control variables experimentally and don't need to control for them statistically. So you can graduate from a hard sciences course without knowing much about regression analysis.

Also since learning some economics I've uncovered a very strange attitude in my physical-sciences brethren. They claim to believe in logic and evidence. But when they find that the social sciences have been systematically using logic and evidence to look at the real world, and the results don't match what they want to be true, they prefer to throw out the whole idea.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
My degree is Cog Sci by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #47 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 05:06:32 PM EST
Or as it says on the paper: "Pyschology (Cognitive Science)"

I am well acquainted with regression analysis because of the required courses given by the psychology department.

Have you read "The Black Swan"?  It details the issues in a far better manner than I ever could.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Well by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #48 Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:09:01 PM EST
I haven't read "The Black Swan", but I read "Fooled By Randomness". I agree he's probably right on risks in stock markets, but contrary to much opinion, predicting stock movements is a relatively small part of economics. Even there the problem isn't so much ignorance of risk as a vast financial interest in traders ignoring and underplaying risks so they can be rewarded on the upside. It's not that they don't know the risks, it's that it's more lucrative to ignore the risks and pocket the profits. Again, this problem doesn't come from the academics, this time it comes from the companies.

Now moving on, once you've banished economics as a means of making decisions about the economy, and social sciences as a means of making decisions about society, what do you plan to use instead? I understand what the Manhattan Institute conservatives plan to use: the Unfettered Market and the Bible; what about you?
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
I would by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #49 Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:38:03 PM EST
....use heuristics without calling them "science".

You seem to be setting up a binary choice: either Economics or right-wing kook.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:35:57 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by sasquatchan



[ Parent ]
dismissively ? by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:54:19 PM EST
maybe I need to re-read. I thought he more or less said regression analysis is the only non-BS method they have..

(good to know the background on the site, I figured it was something like that based on his intro..)

[ Parent ]
Economics by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:38:46 PM EST
I don't think you have to understand how to use a hammer to notice that the buildings keep falling down.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
grumble grumble by gzt (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:54:44 PM EST
Well, yes and no. I don't agree with everything in there, but a lot of what he's kvetching about would apply to data results obtained from regression as well. The application of social science results to public policy really is a difficult question, and his reasons for why it is so are pretty good. But the business angle, yes, blah.

[ Parent ]
Possibly too UK-centric by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:19:10 PM EST
But the Bent Society blog by a criminology had quite a lot of quackery posts, pointing out that many of the actual policies put in place don't have any evidence base behind them.

Maybe it's different in the US, but the problem here isn't so much that social science research isn't being done, as that it's ignored by the people who set policy. The research doesn't fit what the authorities want to be true: that there are quick fixes, that the drug war can be won, that you can easily differentiate the Deserving Poor from the Undeserving Poor.

The author of the article seems to me to be on the wrong side of the battle of evidence versus wishful thinking. He wants to cast doubt on the idea of evidence from the social sciences, so it can be thrown out and replaced with whatever he wants to be true.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
most of my experience... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:34:52 PM EST
...is with educational policy and data rather than crime.

[ Parent ]
Maybe it's different in the US by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:47:10 PM EST
bwaha-ha-ha-ha!

I'm sorry, everything is funny after my mid afternoon legal marijuana break (it's safer than alcohol, and greener).



[ Parent ]
someone with nothing by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:13:50 PM EST
up to that in a year ? No "supplements" or juice ?

Hmm doubtful anyone could reach that.

Oh, no, not people up from nothing. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:38:34 PM EST
That would be impossible except for rare people like Shane Hamman, who apparently squatted over 500# the first time he touched a barbell (he still holds the IPF world record for the squat and holds all the American records in weightlifting). More like for the intermediate people, people who have been going for a while and are putting up numbers similar to mine (though maybe less on the squat, since 400 is one of the goals).

[ Parent ]
I don't think I can make it by gzt (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:50:47 PM EST
21 weeks for 60-70# on the bench, it doesn't seem likely.

[ Parent ]
It's good to set personal goals by purr (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:16:13 PM EST
I'm totally impressed.

Not sure I want to know anything about the stonings in Iran.  Thanks anyway.


Good luck with the weight training. Keep posting your results.

Vegeterain is good.
Life is good when you are young. Then it sucks when you are old. And then you die. Live it while you got it.
Noise reduction by marvin (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:37:04 PM EST
I generally listen to music on the bus. However, I use some earbuds (JVC marshmallow iirc) that probably block 10 dB of ambient noise.

I'll turn down the default music volume to the point that I can still hear the song, but I'm not exactly getting an audiophile experience. However, I know that I'm doing it right when I put away the earbuds at the end of the bus ride, and everything (especially the bus) suddenly seems really really loud without the earbuds in place.

I'd love to find comfortable earbuds that take out 20 dB or more of ambient.

I use JLabs J2 earbuds... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:44:31 PM EST
...but the trains are loud and I guess my ears are sensitive to music piped directly in.

[ Parent ]
Turn it down and lower your standards by marvin (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:04:13 PM EST
If they block ambient noise and you are still damaging your ears, you are running them too loud. Stop trying to block out the train with the music. If the music is turned down low enough, your ears will be better off than without earbuds, since the train noise isn't good for your ears either.

I mostly listen to music to screen out most of the world, although I can still hear the bus noise, and make out the words in nearby conversations on the bus.

I've heard most of the mp3s in my collection enough times that my mind can fill in the missing pieces to the songs. It's like music limbo - see how low you can go.

[ Parent ]
they don't block THAT much by gzt (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:23:21 PM EST
And I tried very low standards, but, at that point, it wasn't worth the hassle. I may look into earbuds recommended by others that damp things slightly more.

[ Parent ]
In that case by barooo (2.00 / 0) #43 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:22:23 AM EST
get some shures.  The new style "olive" foam earbuds are comfy, and they block about as much as a cheap set of foam earplugs.  E.g., with the plugs in but no music you can barely hear people talking.  And the music is plugged directly into your brain.

They are pricey though.  I used to work for their ad agency and got them at half price. 

man, i need a beefy taco now.
-gzt
[ Parent ]
train noise by LoppEar (4.00 / 1) #16 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:20:22 PM EST
Two and a half years ago I bought the Shure SE110s, their low-end (but still not cheap) sound isolating buds. Let's me keep the volume way down (barely audible on the builtin speakers at that level) but blocks almost all the train noise - El announcements can still be heard during music lulls but that's about it.

Appears they've been replaced by the SE115, which to marvin's point claim to block up to 37db of ambient noise, and which a little birdie tells me are on sale at Amazon for $65 instead of the usual ~$100.

I recommend these without reservation, other than the obliviousness to the outside world you will come to expect. Not safe for riding your bike, and you will learn to look both ways while crossing the street, but for shutting out train & commuter noise they're absolutely wonderful.


that might be the way to go by gzt (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:24:00 PM EST
I'll just have to think about whether it's worth that much for me to listen to music on the train. answer: maybe.

[ Parent ]
ear buds vs ear plugs by LoppEar (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:31:20 PM EST
Should note, obviously all the attenuation I'm happily describing comes from the appropriate fit of the ear bud flanges, not from the volume of the music - somedays I'll wear the headphones but not put any music on, almost as peaceful.

And so the test is whether you can use the same volume on the train as you do in the quiet of home or work. I don't, but I'm willing to jam appropriate earbuds right into my ears as if they were ear plugs.


[ Parent ]
rather, I do by LoppEar (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:32:22 PM EST
no need to adjust the volume.


[ Parent ]
Seconded by ks1178 (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 07:50:46 PM EST
The Shure earbuds are very good.

The best part of the Shures are that they come with (I believe 4) different types (with multiple sizes of each type) of earplugs that you can try out, and see which one works best for you.

The other thingto make surewhen using earbuds, is that you get a proper fit in your ear.

I find that if I tug my earlobe just a bit, I get a tighter fit, that blocks out noise much, much better, than if I just try to stick them in my ear.

To give you an idea, I rarely listen to my iPod at more than 10% volume with my Shures.

Oh, and if you do get them, be sure to keep the reciept and the warranty card. If they do break for some  reason in  the first year, they will replace  them for free. (But I've actually had really good luck with my sures, and the current pair is going on about 3 year strong. When I used to usethe Sony's, and one other brand I can't think of, I used to need a newpare almost every 3 or 4 months).

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by aggressive cyclist (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 05:10:10 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by aggressive cyclist



I didn't notice that.. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 05:24:27 PM EST
...because it said NSFW.

[ Parent ]
Checkov is probably my favorite Russian author by lm (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:16:16 PM EST
He's not as brilliant of a writer as Dostoevsky. But there is something about the way he writes that captures things as they really are.

But, then again, my opinion is based mostly on his short stories rather than his plays.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
I'm reading... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #36 Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:40:15 PM EST
...the collection of 5 novellas Pevear and Volokhonsky translated, if you're interested in finding it yourself. I typically dislike Chekhov because I associate him almost solely with his plays, but very much like his stories. I think part of what I like is just what you mentioned, his way of capturing things as they are, which depends a lot on the narrative which plays lack.

[ Parent ]
Still married. | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback