Comments on: Modeling the Future http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/ A Candid Blog Thu, 24 May 2012 12:28:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Johann http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-582760 Johann Sun, 09 Aug 2009 12:09:44 +0000 http://www.pakspectator.com/?p=14426#comment-582760 Dear Dan, Capitalism Vs Communism.Communism might have lost the argument in Soviet Union but in China with little Pragmatism it has provided the most significant progress any nation in the history of mankind has achieved. Truth is normally always sticky but it sustains the hope of humans to strive. Obedience to our parents come to south asians due to our ingrained culture.It has nothing to with Islam.We obey our parents because that is what our culture is all about.It has nothing to do with love though our parents do love their children and sacrifice for them. Al Gore won Nobel price not because he spoke truth because he peddled an unproven climate change theory which actually will ENSURE THE PRESENT LIVING STANDARDS OF WESTERNERS. That is why Carbon credits is the in thing and he has established 3 companies with active support from GOLMAN SACHS. There is no truth involved here.He is using cyclical global warming (remember Ice age talk some time ago) to fatten himself and ofcourse GOLDMAN SACHS. Recently American Drones killed baitullah Mehsud but it also killed his wife, a small child and others.No TRIAL FOR BAITULLAH and no tears for his wife or his child.The PakistanArmy under Musharaff said he was responsible for Benazir's death.He acknoledged many more greivous murders but not this one.I some how believeD him. Infact i believe he was killed because there was rumour he may meet the UN commission investigating the assasination of Motramma.Why no human rights involved in the killing of Mrs.MehsuD and his son? Why the Presidnet,PM,Pakistan Army who were shouting from roof tops about violation of Pakistan sovereignity suddenly have gone SILENT?iS IT STICKY or is it truth? As you or me or anyone in this blog have no say in American Policy or its implementation, well let this blog spot ,comments serve only stickiness but if it can serve the attainement of TRUTH, THEN IT WILL SERVE SOME PURPOSE TO ORDINARY HUMANS LIKE US. Dear Dan,
Capitalism Vs Communism.Communism might have lost the argument in Soviet Union but in China with little Pragmatism it has provided the most significant progress any nation in the history of mankind has achieved.
Truth is normally always sticky but it sustains the hope of humans to strive.
Obedience to our parents come to south asians due to our ingrained culture.It has nothing to with Islam.We obey our parents because that is what our culture is all about.It has nothing to do with love though our parents do love their children and sacrifice for them.
Al Gore won Nobel price not because he spoke truth because he peddled an unproven climate change theory which actually will ENSURE THE PRESENT LIVING STANDARDS OF WESTERNERS. That is why Carbon credits is the in thing and he has established 3 companies with active support from GOLMAN SACHS. There is no truth involved here.He is using cyclical global warming (remember Ice age talk some time ago) to fatten himself and ofcourse GOLDMAN SACHS.
Recently American Drones killed baitullah Mehsud but it also killed his wife, a small child and others.No TRIAL FOR BAITULLAH and no tears for his wife or his child.The PakistanArmy under Musharaff said he was responsible for Benazir’s death.He acknoledged many more greivous murders but not this one.I some how believeD him. Infact i believe he was killed because there was rumour he may meet the UN commission investigating the assasination of Motramma.Why no human rights involved in the killing of Mrs.MehsuD and his son? Why the Presidnet,PM,Pakistan Army who were shouting from roof tops about violation of Pakistan sovereignity suddenly have gone SILENT?iS IT STICKY or is it truth?
As you or me or anyone in this blog have no say in American Policy or its implementation, well let this blog spot ,comments serve only stickiness but if it can serve the attainement of TRUTH, THEN IT WILL SERVE SOME PURPOSE TO ORDINARY HUMANS LIKE US.

]]> By: Ch Naeem Sidhu http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-568301 Ch Naeem Sidhu Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:15:05 +0000 http://www.pakspectator.com/?p=14426#comment-568301 Well done. Good article. Well done. Good article.

]]> By: Maria Sultan http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-568296 Maria Sultan Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:07:19 +0000 http://www.pakspectator.com/?p=14426#comment-568296 Tow, for your first model, I guess #3 is fine. The second model is sticky (what I mean by sticky is that it is pushed-idea by the leaders, and so it sticks). Its not true and more and more Pakistanis are realizing that truth. Tow, for your first model, I guess #3 is fine.

The second model is sticky (what I mean by sticky is that it is pushed-idea by the leaders, and so it sticks). Its not true and more and more Pakistanis are realizing that truth.

]]> By: Dan Tow http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-568197 Dan Tow Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:11:25 +0000 http://www.pakspectator.com/?p=14426#comment-568197 I can see that comments are taking a while to get rolling, so I'll see if I can stir up a little controversy by proposing a specific example for your comments and discussion: Consider the simple political model: "It is possible for nations and individuals to work with Americans and America in a way that works out well for *both* sides, even while America enjoys some advantage in the relationship in terms of power." Is it true? Is it sticky? (or is it anti-sticky?) Is it useful? Consider an alternative model: "America is responsible for all of our troubles, and is an impossible enemy to overcome." How does this model rank in truth, stickiness, and usefulness? Given these rankings, which model is more pragmatic to act upon? Is there a third model regarding Pakistan's relationship with America that is better than both of these models? I can see that comments are taking a while to get rolling, so I’ll see if I can stir up a little controversy by proposing a specific example for your comments and discussion:

Consider the simple political model:

“It is possible for nations and individuals to work with Americans and America in a way that works out well for *both* sides, even while America enjoys some advantage in the relationship in terms of power.”

Is it true?
Is it sticky? (or is it anti-sticky?)
Is it useful?

Consider an alternative model:

“America is responsible for all of our troubles, and is an impossible enemy to overcome.”

How does this model rank in truth, stickiness, and usefulness? Given these rankings, which model is more pragmatic to act upon? Is there a third model regarding Pakistan’s relationship with America that is better than both of these models?

]]> By: Maria Sultan http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-568083 Maria Sultan Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:07:21 +0000 http://www.pakspectator.com/?p=14426#comment-568083 Exactly, that is what I have believed all along. Worst democracy (as is now here) is better than the tyranny. I can also guess from where you are coming from and that makes sense. Christian Fatalism did lots of damage to the West and as a reaction they now abhor the religion (well most of them dislike or ignore, if not outright abhor). I know from a Christian friend, who is also a pastor, that fatalistic approach produces suicidal depression. Exactly, that is what I have believed all along. Worst democracy (as is now here) is better than the tyranny.

I can also guess from where you are coming from and that makes sense.

Christian Fatalism did lots of damage to the West and as a reaction they now abhor the religion (well most of them dislike or ignore, if not outright abhor).

I know from a Christian friend, who is also a pastor, that fatalistic approach produces suicidal depression.

]]> By: K.Shahzad http://www.pkhope.com/modeling-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-567295 K.Shahzad Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:13:59 +0000 http://www.pakspectator.com/?p=14426#comment-567295 Nicely written indeed. But my opinion is that in scientific projection of future there are four types of possible errors; Factual errors (Knowledge gaps) Measurement errors (crude surveys) Modeling errors ( Simplification of complexities) Communication errors (especially in multidisciplinary cases) Where the knowledge gaps are normally filled with sticky or non-sticky assumptions which could be true and false with more or less equal probability and where some of the scientific facts favor one assumption over another still the cloud of doubts provide the chances for alternative assumptions to exit But unfortunately the masses normally won't pay heed to complex probabilities and game of chances rather the won't find time for it when living in the part of world where earning the bread and butter consume most of their time. Nicely written indeed. But my opinion is that in scientific projection of future there are four types of possible errors;
Factual errors (Knowledge gaps)
Measurement errors (crude surveys)
Modeling errors ( Simplification of complexities)
Communication errors (especially in multidisciplinary cases)

Where the knowledge gaps are normally filled with sticky or non-sticky assumptions which could be true and false with more or less equal probability and where some of the scientific facts favor one assumption over another still the cloud of doubts provide the chances for alternative assumptions to exit

But unfortunately the masses normally won’t pay heed to complex probabilities and game of chances rather the won’t find time for it when living in the part of world where earning the bread and butter consume most of their time.

]]>