Here is [yet!] another Bayesian textbook that appeared recently. I read it in the past few days and, despite my obvious biases and prejudices, I liked it very much! It has a lot in common (at least in spirit) with our Bayesian Core, which may explain why I feel so benevolent towards Bayesian ideas and data analysis. Just like ours, the book by Ron Christensen, Wes Johnson, Adam Branscum, and Timothy Hanson is indeed focused on explaining the Bayesian ideas through (real) examples and it covers a lot of regression models, all the way to non-parametrics. It contains a good proportion of WinBugs and R codes. It intermingles methodology and computational chapters in the first part, before moving to the serious business of analysing more and more complex regression models. Exercises appear throughout the text rather than at the end of the chapters. As the volume of their book is more important (over 500 pages), the authors spend more time on analysing various datasets for each chapter and, more importantly, provide a rather unique entry on prior assessment and construction. Especially in the regression chapters. The author index is rather original in that it links the authors with more than one entry to the topics they are connected with (Ron Christensen winning the game with the highest number of entries). Continue reading
Archive for October, 2011
Due to a new law introduced last May by the French government, it has now become almost impossible for foreign non-EU students who graduate from a French business (e.g., HEC or ESSEC) or engineer (e.g., Polytechnique) school, or from a university, to get a job in France after graduation, even with a firm offer from a company. (This post may sound like a strange complaint since, in some countries, a student visa prohibits its holder to get a permanent job without first exiting the country. But this was not the case in France till last May.) Indeed, those non-EU (post)graduates with a job offer need to apply to local administrations who decide whether or not the job fits a need and whether or not it could not be offered to a French national. (As if those local administrations had the proper expertise.) The procedure takes months, during which the (post)graduates cannot work. Months for no reason other than the administrations being understaffed. And in most cases the answer is no. Meaning these (post)graduates then have to leave the country within a month. And cannot apply to a student visa without first leaving the country…
This sudden change of policy has been heavily discussed in the national and international press (chinese version), on blogs, and by student and professional organisations: I cannot but join the flow of protests against this iniquitous, absurd, and counter-productive action, dictated by electoral motives catering to the rightmost (or just plain xenophobic) part of the electorate. It is counter-productive in that most of those students have been trained in elite public schools, meaning their training has been mostly supported by the State (i.e. the French taxpayer), which would only benefit from the input of highly qualified (post)graduates to the French economy. It is absurd in that those non-EU (post)graduates number in the thousands, hence are unlikely to make a dent in the immigration figures used to frighten the electorate. It is counter-productive because it sends the wrong message to potential students abroad and will thus lower the attractivity of French higher education, an attractivity which is already under pressure from competing countries like Canada and Australia (which just went ahead of France in terms of foreign students). It is absurd since the [former Education and currently Budget] Minister, Valérie Pécresse, has publicly written to the Minister of Interior to ask him to abolish a procedure “going the wrong way”. It is counter-productive because these students graduate from schools (HEC, Polytechnique, Essec, Mines, Ensae, &tc.) where there are more job offers than candidates with the proper training. So the typical xenophobic rethoric of “foreigners stealing jobs from nationals” falls completely off the mark there, even though it was instrumental in passing this law… Now, it is quite probable this law will not survive the elections next May, but le mal sera fait (in terms of attractivity)… Note that postdocs are not impacted by the procedure!
A few weeks ago, I finished the fifth volume of George Martin, A Dance with Dragons, I had bought in Lancaster last summer but could not carry with me to the US (and onto the boat!). It reads wonderfully, just like the previous volumes, and so I wonder why it took the author so long to produce it. (He apologizes about this in the preface to the book. But does not [have to] provide reasons.) Esp. when considering that the story constitutes the “other side” of the previous volume, covering characters and regions that were omitted in the fourth book. Even though the pace is sometimes a wee slow (e.g., the coverage of Tyrion’s travel and mishaps and of his every thought!, or of Daenerys’ procrastination and hesitations), again, it is very pleasant to read. I am actually surprised at how easy it is to launch back into the complex geography and geopolitics of Martin’s universe, given the five year gap with my reading the previous volume. The important and consequential action has to wait a while, but things are moving fast by the end of the book, with surprising and permanent changes of dominance and of rulers. It is a good thing that Martin is eliminating some of his characters as it means he cannot go for ever in writing small prints about them! On another level, it is quite interesting to spot so many readers of the first volume (A Game of Thrones), in the metro and in airports, clearly generated by the TV adaptation on HBO…
I just got the “news” that Dennis Ritchie died, although this happened on October 12… The announcement was surprisingly missing from my information channels and certainly got little media coverage, compared with Steve Jobs‘ demise. (I did miss the obituaries in the New York Times and in the Guardian. The Economist has the most appropriate heading, printf(“goodbye, Dennis”); !!!) Still, Dennis Ritchie contributed to computer science to extents comparable to Steve Jobs’, if on a lesser commercial plane: he is a founding father of both the C language and the Unix operating system. I remember spending many days perusing over his reference book, The C programming language, co-written with Brian Kernighan. (I kept trying programming in C until Olivier Cappé kindly pointed out to me that I was merely translating my Pascal vision into C code, missing most of the appeal of the language!) And, of course, I also remember discovering Unix when arriving at Purdue as a logical and much more modern operating system: just tfour years after programming principal components on punched card and in SAS, this was a real shock! I took a few evening classes at Purdue run by the Computer Department and I still carry around the Purdue University UNIX Pocket Guide. Although I hardly ever use it, it is there on the first shelf on top of my desk… As is The C programming language even though I have not opened it in years!
So we (geeks, computer users, Linuxians, R users, …) owe a lot to Dennis Ritchie and it is quite sad both that he passed away by himself and that his enormous contribution was not better acknowledged. Thus, indeed,
for (i=0; i<ULONG_LONG_MAX; i++) printf("thanks a lot, Dennis")