How much do you read?

0013

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

At the university?

No sir, I teach youngsters ages 15 - 18 but the school system here in Belgium is different from the American or British school systems so I'm not sure what the correct English term for it is. :)

Ok, I understand. Well, we are far collegues. I teach Political Science at the University but I'm also interested in Physics, although I don't have the Math skills to understand everything. But I get what you mean. In that sense, I don't know your feelings towards predicting voter turnout in different countries...

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I am a reader for sure. I am usually wrapped in a book, or am taking a short break. I am currently reading the amazing Millennium trilogy by Stieg Larsson. I am a big fan of classic literature, Bond (Fleming), I adore Conan Doyle's Holmes stories, and spy fiction from Le Carré to Vince Flynn. I am big on graphic novels as well, mostly Batman (the best of the best).

0013

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

I am a reader for sure. I am usually wrapped in a book, or am taking a short break. I am currently reading the amazing Millenium trilogy by Stieg Larsson. I am a big fan of classic literature, Bond (Fleming), I adore Conan Doyle's Holmes stories, and spy fiction from Le Carré to Vince Flynn. I am big on graphic novels as well, mostly Batman (the best of the best).

I have planned to read all of Conan Doyle's Holmes (I've only read The Hound of the Baskervilles), but that will be when I finish Karla's Trilogy.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

0013 wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

I am a reader for sure. I am usually wrapped in a book, or am taking a short break. I am currently reading the amazing Millenium trilogy by Stieg Larsson. I am a big fan of classic literature, Bond (Fleming), I adore Conan Doyle's Holmes stories, and spy fiction from Le Carré to Vince Flynn. I am big on graphic novels as well, mostly Batman (the best of the best).

I have planned to read all of Conan Doyle's Holmes (I've only read The Hound of the Baskervilles), but that will be when I finish Karla's Trilogy.

It'll be time well spent, my friend!

emilbertillo

I read a lot about everything, but not as much as I write. I have books about literature (both prose and poetry), philosophy, science, non-fiction, and graphic novels (Western and manga). I just recently finished my 4-year following of James Patterson's Maximum Ride series (which disappointed me big time), Allan Gurganus' White People, The Subtle Knife, and Tuesdays with Morrie. I'm currently reading Batman: Hush because I stopped my previous Batman collection after the events of Bruce Wayne: Fugitive, and never followed it since then because of Marvel.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

emilbertillo wrote:

I read a lot about everything, but not as much as I write. I have books about literature (both prose and poetry), philosophy, science, non-fiction, and graphic novels (Western and manga). I just recently finished my 4-year following of James Patterson's Maximum Ride series (which disappointed me big time), Allan Gurganus' White People, The Subtle Knife, and Tuesdays with Morrie. I'm currently reading Batman: Hush because I stopped my previous Batman collection after the events of Bruce Wayne: Fugitive, and never followed it since then because of Marvel.

I would love to hear your thoughts on Hush (and Batman in general) here:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/3440/last-graphic-novel-comic-book-manga-you-read/p1

emilbertillo

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

emilbertillo wrote:

I read a lot about everything, but not as much as I write. I have books about literature (both prose and poetry), philosophy, science, non-fiction, and graphic novels (Western and manga). I just recently finished my 4-year following of James Patterson's Maximum Ride series (which disappointed me big time), Allan Gurganus' White People, The Subtle Knife, and Tuesdays with Morrie. I'm currently reading Batman: Hush because I stopped my previous Batman collection after the events of Bruce Wayne: Fugitive, and never followed it since then because of Marvel.

I would love to hear your thoughts on Hush (and Batman in general) here:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/3440/last-graphic-novel-comic-book-manga-you-read/p1

I'll report once I'm done, sir.

DarthDimi

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

At the university?

No sir, I teach youngsters ages 15 - 18 but the school system here in Belgium is different from the American or British school systems so I'm not sure what the correct English term for it is. :)

Ok, I understand. Well, we are far collegues. I teach Political Science at the University but I'm also interested in Physics, although I don't have the Math skills to understand everything. But I get what you mean. In that sense, I don't know your feelings towards predicting voter turnout in different countries...

Ha! Good question and to be fair, I haven't given it any thought yet. I guess my immediate answer at this point would be that voting isn't exact science and that predicting the voter turnout doesn't follow the scientific method to which I almost unconditionally cling. Would have to think it over some more though. ;-)

0013

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

At the university?

No sir, I teach youngsters ages 15 - 18 but the school system here in Belgium is different from the American or British school systems so I'm not sure what the correct English term for it is. :)

Ok, I understand. Well, we are far collegues. I teach Political Science at the University but I'm also interested in Physics, although I don't have the Math skills to understand everything. But I get what you mean. In that sense, I don't know your feelings towards predicting voter turnout in different countries...

Ha! Good question and to be fair, I haven't given it any thought yet. I guess my immediate answer at this point would be that voting isn't exact science and that predicting the voter turnout doesn't follow the scientific method to which I almost unconditionally cling. Would have to think it over some more though. ;-)

Haha, and what if I told you that in my dissertation I ajusted a model that explained around 79% of the variance of voter turnout? Just to show you that politics can be study scientifically.

DarthDimi

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

At the university?

No sir, I teach youngsters ages 15 - 18 but the school system here in Belgium is different from the American or British school systems so I'm not sure what the correct English term for it is. :)

Ok, I understand. Well, we are far collegues. I teach Political Science at the University but I'm also interested in Physics, although I don't have the Math skills to understand everything. But I get what you mean. In that sense, I don't know your feelings towards predicting voter turnout in different countries...

Ha! Good question and to be fair, I haven't given it any thought yet. I guess my immediate answer at this point would be that voting isn't exact science and that predicting the voter turnout doesn't follow the scientific method to which I almost unconditionally cling. Would have to think it over some more though. ;-)

Haha, and what if I told you that in my dissertation I ajusted a model that explained around 79% of the variance of voter turnout? Just to show you that politics can be study scientifically.

Awesome! I'm impressed. I apply science nearly all the time. Even in bed... errr... I didn't say nothin'. =P~

0013

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

At the university?

No sir, I teach youngsters ages 15 - 18 but the school system here in Belgium is different from the American or British school systems so I'm not sure what the correct English term for it is. :)

Ok, I understand. Well, we are far collegues. I teach Political Science at the University but I'm also interested in Physics, although I don't have the Math skills to understand everything. But I get what you mean. In that sense, I don't know your feelings towards predicting voter turnout in different countries...

Ha! Good question and to be fair, I haven't given it any thought yet. I guess my immediate answer at this point would be that voting isn't exact science and that predicting the voter turnout doesn't follow the scientific method to which I almost unconditionally cling. Would have to think it over some more though. ;-)

Haha, and what if I told you that in my dissertation I ajusted a model that explained around 79% of the variance of voter turnout? Just to show you that politics can be study scientifically.

Awesome! I'm impressed. I apply science nearly all the time. Even in bed... errr... I didn't say nothin'. =P~

Thank you, I really wasn't trying to flatter myself (well... maybe a little haha). But what I wanted to show you is that there are a lot of Political and Social Scientists indeed trying to apply the scientific method into our field. How succesful have we been is another discussion. But regarthless of that, there are many amazing research projects and very interesting findings.

DarthDimi

To be fair though - but I must pay attention not to hijack this thread for science talk - the human element involved in voting almost entirely excludes the possibility of 'laws' (in the physical sense) and doesn't seem prone to falsification, which I very much cling to as the ultimate test for any hypothesis, thesis or theory. That said, when the scientific method leads to results which can then be statistically verified (not falsified, mind), I would definitely consider that a triumph in matters which involve people. ;-)

SaintMark

DarthDimi wrote:

To be fair though - but I must pay attention not to hijack this thread for science talk - the human element involved in voting almost entirely excludes the possibility of 'laws' (in the physical sense) and doesn't seem prone to falsification, which I very much cling to as the ultimate test for any hypothesis, thesis or theory. That said, when the scientific method leads to results which can then be statistically verified (not falsified, mind), I would definitely consider that a triumph in matters which involve people. ;-)

A person by the name of Nat Silver has written a book about correctly predicting outcomes of elections, he got it right in 2008 and this year as well. It also had a review in the "volkskrant" last saturday.

0013

DarthDimi wrote:

To be fair though - but I must pay attention not to hijack this thread for science talk - the human element involved in voting almost entirely excludes the possibility of 'laws' (in the physical sense) and doesn't seem prone to falsification, which I very much cling to as the ultimate test for any hypothesis, thesis or theory. That said, when the scientific method leads to results which can then be statistically verified (not falsified, mind), I would definitely consider that a triumph in matters which involve people. ;-)

So you are "popperian"! In the Social Sciences we haven't (and perhaps can't) formulate laws, just statistical or probabilitic causations or associations between variables, as you well put it. And back to the reading subject, what accesible book would you recommend me on string theory?

SaintMark wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

To be fair though - but I must pay attention not to hijack this thread for science talk - the human element involved in voting almost entirely excludes the possibility of 'laws' (in the physical sense) and doesn't seem prone to falsification, which I very much cling to as the ultimate test for any hypothesis, thesis or theory. That said, when the scientific method leads to results which can then be statistically verified (not falsified, mind), I would definitely consider that a triumph in matters which involve people. ;-)

A person by the name of Nat Silver has written a book about correctly predicting outcomes of elections, he got it right in 2008 and this year as well. It also had a review in the "volkskrant" last saturday.

Yes, I saw it. Very interesting! I'm want to see how he establishes his model because his accuracy is amazing.

DarthDimi

@0013, I'm into Popper, indeed sir, I am. ;-)

Popularising string theory and making it sound quite normal, is Michio Kaku's terrific book 'Hyperspace'.

http://www.amazon.com/Hyperspace-Scientific-Odyssey-Parallel-Universes/dp/0385477058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353540176&sr=8-1&keywords=hyperspace

I've read it twice now and if I keep in good health, I might consider reading it a third time at one point. ;-)

0013

Thank you! And what about Greene's?

DarthDimi

0013 wrote:

Thank you! And what about Greene's?

I own two books of his, one about the Theory of Relativity and one about the universe. Neither dives too deep into the concept of String Theory.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

@0013 and @Dimi, I applaud you two gents for your reading material. Just reading "string theory" in your posts almost sends me into a deep slumber. ;))

0013

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

Thank you! And what about Greene's?

I own two books of his, one about the Theory of Relativity and one about the universe. Neither dives too deep into the concept of String Theory.

Copy that, Kaku's is now on my Wish List!

0013

And what are you currently reading, @DarthDimi and @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7? (And everybody else that wants to participate.)

DarthDimi

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

Thank you! And what about Greene's?

I own two books of his, one about the Theory of Relativity and one about the universe. Neither dives too deep into the concept of String Theory.

Copy that, Kaku's is now on my Wish List!

He's well known for popularising science without making it vulgar or too simplistic even for the layman. In that regard I always recommend my knowledge hungry students that they give the man's books a try.

In my spare time, I try to do some science reading. Right now I'm devouring a 600 page college text book on astronomy. I've got a quarter of it behind me already and man, I'm excited. I find physics and chemistry very stimulating but I'm an even bigger enthusiast of hard Sci-Fi. Asimov and Clarke are my two favourite writers and their concepts and ideas are big enough to include serious astronomy. It's mostly in order to get a better grip on the worlds and events they feature in many of their books that I have intensified my reading on astronomy. That, and the fact that as a teacher I feel it is important for me too to keep learning through reading and subsequently to keep learning through teaching. :-)

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

@0013 and @Dimi, I applaud you two gents for your reading material. Just reading "string theory" in your posts almost sends me into a deep slumber. ;))

Why good sir, you oughtn't fall asleep; rather, you should turn excited all the way. String theory isn't even 30 years old yet and already it has proven itself worthy of our time. To understand the building blocks of the universe is to understand the universe itself and us in it. Atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons are a stage one usually passes in school. Quarks may be discussed in school as well, although not by everyone I think. String theory now offers what appears to be a sufficiently satisfying understanding of what constitutes those quarks. As we travel deeper and deeper into the inner universe of all matter, some of the most exciting and shocking ideas arise.

But I'm a bit of a science geek in some ways I dare say. ;-)

0013

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

0013 wrote:

Thank you! And what about Greene's?

I own two books of his, one about the Theory of Relativity and one about the universe. Neither dives too deep into the concept of String Theory.

Copy that, Kaku's is now on my Wish List!

He's well known for popularising science without making it vulgar or too simplistic even for the layman. In that regard I always recommend my knowledge hungry students that they give the man's books a try.

In my spare time, I try to do some science reading. Right now I'm devouring a 600 page college text book on astronomy. I've got a quarter of it behind me already and man, I'm excited. I find physics and chemistry very stimulating but I'm an even bigger enthusiast of hard Sci-Fi. Asimov and Clarke are my two favourite writers and their concepts and ideas are big enough to include serious astronomy. It's mostly in order to get a better grip on the worlds and events they feature in many of their books that I have intensified my reading on astronomy. That, and the fact that as a teacher I feel it is important for me too to keep learning through reading and subsequently to keep learning through teaching. :-)

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

@0013 and @Dimi, I applaud you two gents for your reading material. Just reading "string theory" in your posts almost sends me into a deep slumber. ;))

Why good sir, you oughtn't fall asleep; rather, you should turn excited all the way. String theory isn't even 30 years old yet and already it has proven itself worthy of our time. To understand the building blocks of the universe is to understand the universe itself and us in it. Atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons are a stage one usually passes in school. Quarks may be discussed in school as well, although not by everyone I think. String theory now offers what appears to be a sufficiently satisfying understanding of what constitutes those quarks. As we travel deeper and deeper into the inner universe of all matter, some of the most exciting and shocking ideas arise.

But I'm a bit of a science geek in some ways I dare say. ;-)

The thing that fascinates me the must about contemporary Physics is how you search answers for the huge, the Universe, by studying the tiniest, the subparticles.

DarthDimi

That, in itself, is one of the great philosophical delights of modern physics I dare say. Though it's not entirely true that the large cosmos of the stars is perfectly reflected in the subatomic cosmos, what the latter can teach us about the former is nonetheless impressive. Both seem infinite in their own 'direction' as well. The universe is infinite in the sense of the 'large', whereas the subatomic world seems infinite in the sense of the small. While it was once thought that the atom was the smallest part of matter, it now seems more and more correct to assume that there will always be a smaller particle/wave to constitute a larger one. The knowledge that spurts out of this terrifies some and excites others. My mind strikes a balance between both to be fair, but I'm far from indifferent or uninterested. In fact, in this day and age and in view of all those challenges will shall soon be facing on a global scale, I consider it all but a crime to remain indifferent towards these new scientific principles. For unless we explore them with everything we've got and try to put them to some sort of practical use, I fear for the existence of our kind in a not too large time frame.

And with that disturbing thought, I will now go to bed. ;-)

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

0013 wrote:

And what are you currently reading, @DarthDimi and @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7? (And everybody else that wants to participate.)

I am 50 pages from finishing The Girl Who Played with Fire, the second Millennium book of three by Stieg Larsson. Great stuff, highly recommended. Let's just hope that Dan, Rooney, and Finchy are able to film it and the last book, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest because I envision Dan and Rooney as Blomkvist and Lisbeth, respectively. It'd be a shame to cross those wires with a new cast or no films at all. I am debating whether to take a break after and dig into Fleming or continue right on with the last.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I need an opinion here. I finished The Girl Who Played with Fire over my somewhat frivolous Thanksgiving happenings, and now I am stuck. Should I go on to the third and final novel in the series, or take a break, let it sink in, and go back to Fleming? Now, I am going by order for the Bond novels, and DAF would be next, which doesn't hitch my interest. After that is FRWL on the timeline, and I am enticed to skip DAF and go straight to FRWL. Would this be a bad decision if this is indeed the road I take?

0013

If I were you, I'll finish the Millennium trilogy (which I haven't read by the way) and then return to master Fleming in proper order. It's true that DAF is not that good, but by reading it you'll realize how good it is FRWL. Besides it's an easy read.

Samuel001

Some events in Diamonds Are Forever are mentioned in From Russia With Love, so it's a must to read the canon in order.

0013

Samuel001 wrote:

Some events in Diamonds Are Forever are mentioned in From Russia With Love, so it's a must to read the canon in order.

That's true. There's a real continuity in the novels.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

0013 wrote:

If I were you, I'll finish the Millennium trilogy (which I haven't read by the way) and then return to master Fleming in proper order. It's true that DAF is not that good, but by reading it you'll realize how good it is FRWL. Besides it's an easy read.

Samuel001 wrote:

Some events in Diamonds Are Forever are mentioned in From Russia With Love, so it's a must to read the canon in order.

Okay, the last Millennium novel it is. And thanks for the advice, gents. :)

OHMSS69

Not as much as I used to. During the eighties I was into PMA but have gotten away from that. Back in 2000 I went thru a Sci Fi phase. Now I prefer certain fiction writers when I do read.
John Grisham
Ken Follett