Yes, arranged for pipe organ and small (10 or 12 piece) orchestra. It was a little spookier than usual because we were already in rehearsal when 9/11 happened.
While the speaker towers at a rock concert can give a very visceral musical experience, to me, the most effective whole body musical experience comes from standing close to a pipe organ in the midst of a large chorus. Mozart's Requiem is a good choice.
Shouldn't developers get to charge a restocking fee if Amazon fails to sell some of their product because it set the price too high? It costs something to process returns after all.
That was good to read. One comment is that the authors seem to consider the sample size to be the number of subjects. And, with a sample size of 100, it is rather obvious that you can't show a 3% effect convincingly. But, I think Bem considered the number of trials to be the number of subjects times the number of trials per subject, in which case they have not really addressed his approach. On the other hand, some of the comments on experimental design seem helpful.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be accepted as proposed by Carl Sagan. This makes the decline effect described in the article entirely expected. Novel results will be biased to have high statistical significance since they will be considered to be a statistical anomaly otherwise. This means that discovery results will almost always have too high a significance and subsequent study will find a smaller effect.
Fisher did an excellent job on these sorts of questions. Here is what it boils down to: Significance an outcome of an experiment, not a goal. One does estimate how many trials will be needed to detect a particular effect. But, after making that estimate, one does not call off an experiment early if the the effect turns out to be obvious or extend the experiment to chase a possible weak detection. The experiment gets analyzed and reported. If there is no detection, one can contemplate a different experiment.
Here is the problem with calling off an experiment early: since your finishing criterion has become the apparent strong signal, your significance is no longer an independent outcome. You have manufactured it. Thus, it no longer has meaning. The same can be said for extending the experiment. I've been surprised by the number of senior scientists I've met who do not comprehend this though Fisher certainly did. When they use administrative authority to modify experimental design ex post facto they may induce false results for which their supervisory charges ultimately get the blame.
Shouldn't be dark with a screen device but one-handed might be a challenge even in daylight. Glue a stick to the plug so the ends of the stick line up with the edges of the device? Could guide with thumb and pinky and push with index?
USB has always had a problem with which side is up. The micro USB plug shape is better in some ways than USB-A because the shape is more like a VGA connector but it is too small to see well if you use reading glasses but don't have them on so again it has a which way is up problem for those people. One thing that might help is painting a red dot on one side of the device that needs charging close to the charge port and a dot on the micro USB plug in a manner so that they line up when the plug is properly inserted.
Another issue is less sensitive or less dexterous fingers. For this, I'd suggest setting up a corner on a counter where the device can be trapped and held still with one finger with a guide (perhaps a block of balsa wood from the crafts store or some folded cardboard} at the level of the charging port that allows the plug to be inserted with one finger sliding the plug along the guide. There might be other novel guides that could be built that eliminate the use of the counter. Just gluing some cardboard to the micro USB plug to give more purchase to rheumatic fingers might do the trick.
Indeed, it is very unlikely that 2010 won't be the warmest year on record. This sunspot thing is very weak compared to greenhouse gas driven warming. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
But, nuclear safety is not up to the union but rather the federal government. There is something very worrisome that President Obama said about coal mining: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/08/05/obama-touts-miners-union-praises-clean-coal/ He wants miners to join a union for safety. But, really it is his responsibility to make all mines safe, union or non-union. Actually, there is not a lot of evidence that union mines are much safer than non-union mines. It is hard to tell because there are not that many union mines anymore. But, the President's attitude is a disastrous. And it shows. He's had more coal miners killed this year than in any given year of the last two administrations.
If you are scanning unclassified systems for classified material in order to detect espionage, it probably helps to have most systems clean so that you are not running down a bunch of false leads. This may be an artifact of Air Force methods. Navy and Marines have secure computers even for unclassified work with physical tracking of users which might be a different approach. The Army is where the leak came from allegedly.
The main advantage of a rail gun is that its muzzle velocity is not limited by the sound speed in a hot gas. Guns that use chemical propellant can't have arbitrarily high muzzle speeds because the propellant gas can't be arbitrarily hot. If you want to go faster, you have to switch from a gun to a rocket and carry the propellant with you. A rail gun gets you back to a gun with rocket speeds and ranges but faster. Since the response can be faster than a rocket, it can provide missile defense by the barrage method and be very effective. It could also be used as intercontinental ballistic artillery eventually. Very powerful and destabilizing....
Oops, should have looked lower down: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm The global number is a -0.3 C reduction in climate sensitivity for a doubling of carbon dioxide. In their realization they get a sensitivity of 1.94 C not 1.64 C but applied to the mid-range 3 C sensitivity we'd expect 2.7 C so not a large effect. It will be interesting to know if the effects of drought on clearing land of vegetation have been included.
Also, 3-0.6=2.4 not 1.64 and since the 0.6 is only over land the global reduction may be even less. It is a little hard to see where the strangely precise 1.64 comes from.
It is illegal to use classification to cover up a crime or even a mistake. But you are really supposed to take the issue up with the classifying authority and then their superiors if that does not work. Each branch has an Office of Inspector General which ought to be able to deal with the misuse of classification. Further,. a person with a clearance is sworn not to reveal secrets. But, there have certainly been times when the abuse of classification has been so pervasive that only leaking could serve to rectify the wrongs. Don't know it this is one of those times. Most of what has been reveal so far seems to have been secret for a good reason: protecting sources or methods. Another aspect is that it is pretty hard for someone in the Army to object to the misuse of classification by the State Department. It is not in the chain of command. One could be right of wrong that classification has been abused but have no internal way of addressing the issue and perhaps be frustrated enough to leak.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, arranged for pipe organ and small (10 or 12 piece) orchestra. It was a little spookier than usual because we were already in rehearsal when 9/11 happened.
My son performed the Toccata part this Fall. Many runs to church for him to practice. Definitely worth the effort.
While the speaker towers at a rock concert can give a very visceral musical experience, to me, the most effective whole body musical experience comes from standing close to a pipe organ in the midst of a large chorus. Mozart's Requiem is a good choice.
Shouldn't developers get to charge a restocking fee if Amazon fails to sell some of their product because it set the price too high? It costs something to process returns after all.
Not really. The last time there was a claim of the hottest year was in 2005. Not every year. Maybe the claim was made back then because it was true?
That was good to read. One comment is that the authors seem to consider the sample size to be the number of subjects. And, with a sample size of 100, it is rather obvious that you can't show a 3% effect convincingly. But, I think Bem considered the number of trials to be the number of subjects times the number of trials per subject, in which case they have not really addressed his approach. On the other hand, some of the comments on experimental design seem helpful.
I read this paper more than a month ago after finding it on the firehose http://slashdot.org/submission/1389056/Is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be accepted as proposed by Carl Sagan. This makes the decline effect described in the article entirely expected. Novel results will be biased to have high statistical significance since they will be considered to be a statistical anomaly otherwise. This means that discovery results will almost always have too high a significance and subsequent study will find a smaller effect.
No problem for those who use sock puppets to conduct fake dialogs then.
Fisher did an excellent job on these sorts of questions. Here is what it boils down to: Significance an outcome of an experiment, not a goal. One does estimate how many trials will be needed to detect a particular effect. But, after making that estimate, one does not call off an experiment early if the the effect turns out to be obvious or extend the experiment to chase a possible weak detection. The experiment gets analyzed and reported. If there is no detection, one can contemplate a different experiment.
Here is the problem with calling off an experiment early: since your finishing criterion has become the apparent strong signal, your significance is no longer an independent outcome. You have manufactured it. Thus, it no longer has meaning. The same can be said for extending the experiment. I've been surprised by the number of senior scientists I've met who do not comprehend this though Fisher certainly did. When they use administrative authority to modify experimental design ex post facto they may induce false results for which their supervisory charges ultimately get the blame.
But you couldn't tighten the dogs.
Shouldn't be dark with a screen device but one-handed might be a challenge even in daylight. Glue a stick to the plug so the ends of the stick line up with the edges of the device? Could guide with thumb and pinky and push with index?
USB has always had a problem with which side is up. The micro USB plug shape is better in some ways than USB-A because the shape is more like a VGA connector but it is too small to see well if you use reading glasses but don't have them on so again it has a which way is up problem for those people. One thing that might help is painting a red dot on one side of the device that needs charging close to the charge port and a dot on the micro USB plug in a manner so that they line up when the plug is properly inserted.
Another issue is less sensitive or less dexterous fingers. For this, I'd suggest setting up a corner on a counter where the device can be trapped and held still with one finger with a guide (perhaps a block of balsa wood from the crafts store or some folded cardboard} at the level of the charging port that allows the plug to be inserted with one finger sliding the plug along the guide. There might be other novel guides that could be built that eliminate the use of the counter. Just gluing some cardboard to the micro USB plug to give more purchase to rheumatic fingers might do the trick.
Indeed, it is very unlikely that 2010 won't be the warmest year on record. This sunspot thing is very weak compared to greenhouse gas driven warming. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
But, nuclear safety is not up to the union but rather the federal government. There is something very worrisome that President Obama said about coal mining: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/08/05/obama-touts-miners-union-praises-clean-coal/ He wants miners to join a union for safety. But, really it is his responsibility to make all mines safe, union or non-union. Actually, there is not a lot of evidence that union mines are much safer than non-union mines. It is hard to tell because there are not that many union mines anymore. But, the President's attitude is a disastrous. And it shows. He's had more coal miners killed this year than in any given year of the last two administrations.
If I recall we are at war now. There has only been an armistice, not a peace treaty.
The Onion almost won a Pulitzer Prize.
If you are scanning unclassified systems for classified material in order to detect espionage, it probably helps to have most systems clean so that you are not running down a bunch of false leads. This may be an artifact of Air Force methods. Navy and Marines have secure computers even for unclassified work with physical tracking of users which might be a different approach. The Army is where the leak came from allegedly.
Oil is becoming a smaller part of our energy use. Perhaps it is already starting to run out. Nice little article on Chine running out of coal here: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/does-china-face-a-peak-coal-threat/
The main advantage of a rail gun is that its muzzle velocity is not limited by the sound speed in a hot gas. Guns that use chemical propellant can't have arbitrarily high muzzle speeds because the propellant gas can't be arbitrarily hot. If you want to go faster, you have to switch from a gun to a rocket and carry the propellant with you. A rail gun gets you back to a gun with rocket speeds and ranges but faster. Since the response can be faster than a rocket, it can provide missile defense by the barrage method and be very effective. It could also be used as intercontinental ballistic artillery eventually. Very powerful and destabilizing....
Oops, should have looked lower down: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm The global number is a -0.3 C reduction in climate sensitivity for a doubling of carbon dioxide. In their realization they get a sensitivity of 1.94 C not 1.64 C but applied to the mid-range 3 C sensitivity we'd expect 2.7 C so not a large effect. It will be interesting to know if the effects of drought on clearing land of vegetation have been included.
Also, 3-0.6=2.4 not 1.64 and since the 0.6 is only over land the global reduction may be even less. It is a little hard to see where the strangely precise 1.64 comes from.
It is illegal to use classification to cover up a crime or even a mistake. But you are really supposed to take the issue up with the classifying authority and then their superiors if that does not work. Each branch has an Office of Inspector General which ought to be able to deal with the misuse of classification. Further,. a person with a clearance is sworn not to reveal secrets. But, there have certainly been times when the abuse of classification has been so pervasive that only leaking could serve to rectify the wrongs. Don't know it this is one of those times. Most of what has been reveal so far seems to have been secret for a good reason: protecting sources or methods. Another aspect is that it is pretty hard for someone in the Army to object to the misuse of classification by the State Department. It is not in the chain of command. One could be right of wrong that classification has been abused but have no internal way of addressing the issue and perhaps be frustrated enough to leak.
The WMO claims 2010 will be in the top three warmest years and that this has been the warmest decade on record: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_904_en.html
No, It's Jango Fett speaking for Senator Palpatine aka Darth Sidious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palpatine1.jpg