I'm not a gun person, but if the founding fathers had only had the guns the government deemed that they needed then we wouldn't have one our independence. Probably not true. India was once part of the British empire, but gained independence without a revolutionary war. Likewise for the rest of the empire. It's very possible that Scotland will vote for independence within the next 5 years, and the right of its citizens to peacefully remove their country from the United Kingdom has been recognised by all the major political parties.
Of course, it's impossible to prove, but it is certainly possible that American independence could've happened without armed revolution.
I can almost assure you using a BSD-based OS will allow you to develop and release your product w/o fear Do BSD based distributions only ship BSD licensed code? No GPL software at all? And do BSD based distributions indemnify you against patent claims?
That's 56/1024, or 6.3%. That's pretty good grounds for rejecting the hypothesis.
No it's not. If the true probability is 0.5 then you need to add the probability of getting r=0, 1 or 2. So a deviation the same or more extreme than that observed can be expected 12.6% of the time when the samples are identical.
Parent post said: > This is, arguably, a two-tailed test. We wish to see if the null hypothesis is rejected.
You said: > BINOM(8,10;0.5)=0.04. Small enough to conclude that the listeners could tell the difference with the Apple headphones.
It should be a two-tail test because you don't know beforehand that either is better - the null hypothesis is that they're the same (who knows - there may be some weird properties of the software or hardware that mean 128k "sounds" better). A probability of 0.04 isn't small enough to reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence in a two tail test.
The methodology is poor; there's no randomisation of people, headphones, or mp3 players, no controls, and too few samples.
For a start, one of the given reasons is that many Iraqis thought that the coming handover of authority meant US forces would be leaving Iraq. Hence no reason to attack them anymore. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what Bush has been saying would happen if US troops left. The other reason to be embarrassed is the misplaced optimism that rounding up suspects (including a large number of innocents), bombing towns, and the threat of massive, indiscriminate violence against the people was actually working.
> What about stability issues? I'd think that these machines would have to be a little bit more robust than linux is capable of being at the moment.
Firstly, Linux running on good hardware is about as robust as it gets (unless you develop software for NASA or something). You don't think Linux on an IBM mainframe with gold support would be stable?
Secondly, stability can be provided at several levels. Hardware fails, but a hot running HA backup can recover in a few hundred mS. Software can time-out and retransmit requests. More importantly, all of this can be completely transparent to the layers above, including end users. Resilience is about having multiple levels of failover, and for this Linux is fine. When was the last time Google's cluster failed?
Well, that's because Linux is an operating system, and a mainframe is a big computer. In fact, Linux runs on some mainframes. Maybe you meant a cluster of PCs running Linux can't replace a mainframe? In that case, it depends on the mainframe and application, but quite often a Linux is up to the job.
> They made a bad financial desicion.
You're right, NYSE and IBM know nothing of financial management. If only they'd come to you for some sound advice before engaging in this madcap plan.
Look, Britain isn't some second world country where people disappear and are held indefinitely without trial (hello, Gitmo). Every person tried in a British court, whether a British national or not, is entitled to a full jury trial. The job of the judge is to conduct the legal proceedings and, if guilty, formulate an appropriate sentence. And yes, both prosecution and defence can call expert witnesses to provide sworn testimony.
You are confusing legitimate costs of doing business with deliberate discrimination based on the location of the customer. Charging different amounts for shipping physical goods to different countries is legal. Charging more for the same goods in a physical store, in a country with higher operating costs, is legal. However, having a higher price for English customers than for French customers, just because your English customers are richer, is illegal.
Apple have a single Itunes operation for the whole of Europe, so salary variance between countries is unlikely to be the cause of price differences. What else is there? Cost of bandwidth varying between countries? Well, if Apple can show that the difference in pricing between European countries is wholly due to cost of bandwidth changing depending on the destination country, then they're innocent. However, that seems unlikely; bandwidth is cheap relative to the cost per song, and Apple would be mad to have signed up with an ISP that charges them varying rates depending on the destination of their packets.
This has nothing to do with discouraging businesses from selling games consoles within the EU. The fact is that the EU has a single, regulated market. Price discrimination against customers based on their nationality or location within the EU is illegal. Apple knew this very well (you think they didn't consult their lawyers before opening EU Itunes stores?), and chose to ignore the law. Whatever contracts Apple signed with the RIAA are irrelevant; contracts between companies cannot supercede the law of the land.
As an aside to the Americans who think this is an example of EU socialism bashing a successful American company, consider this: what would your government do if Apple had different stores for each state, or for people of different races, each with varying music and pricing? I doubt you would be so accepting.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, it's impossible to prove, but it is certainly possible that American independence could've happened without armed revolution.
And do BSD based distributions indemnify you against patent claims?
If not, there are still reasons to fear.
No it's not. If the true probability is 0.5 then you need to add the probability of getting r=0, 1 or 2. So a deviation the same or more extreme than that observed can be expected 12.6% of the time when the samples are identical.
Parent post said:
> This is, arguably, a two-tailed test. We wish to see if the null hypothesis is rejected.
You said:
> BINOM(8,10;0.5)=0.04. Small enough to conclude that the listeners could tell the difference with the Apple headphones.
It should be a two-tail test because you don't know beforehand that either is better - the null hypothesis is that they're the same (who knows - there may be some weird properties of the software or hardware that mean 128k "sounds" better). A probability of 0.04 isn't small enough to reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence in a two tail test.
The methodology is poor; there's no randomisation of people, headphones, or mp3 players, no controls, and too few samples.
For a start, one of the given reasons is that many Iraqis thought that the coming handover of authority meant US forces would be leaving Iraq. Hence no reason to attack them anymore. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what Bush has been saying would happen if US troops left. The other reason to be embarrassed is the misplaced optimism that rounding up suspects (including a large number of innocents), bombing towns, and the threat of massive, indiscriminate violence against the people was actually working.
> What about stability issues? I'd think that these machines would have to be a little bit more robust than linux is capable of being at the moment.
Firstly, Linux running on good hardware is about as robust as it gets (unless you develop software for NASA or something). You don't think Linux on an IBM mainframe with gold support would be stable?
Secondly, stability can be provided at several levels. Hardware fails, but a hot running HA backup can recover in a few hundred mS. Software can time-out and retransmit requests. More importantly, all of this can be completely transparent to the layers above, including end users. Resilience is about having multiple levels of failover, and for this Linux is fine. When was the last time Google's cluster failed?
> Linux is not a replacement for Mainframes
Well, that's because Linux is an operating system, and a mainframe is a big computer. In fact, Linux runs on some mainframes. Maybe you meant a cluster of PCs running Linux can't replace a mainframe? In that case, it depends on the mainframe and application, but quite often a Linux is up to the job.
> They made a bad financial desicion.
You're right, NYSE and IBM know nothing of financial management. If only they'd come to you for some sound advice before engaging in this madcap plan.
Look, Britain isn't some second world country where people disappear and are held indefinitely without trial (hello, Gitmo). Every person tried in a British court, whether a British national or not, is entitled to a full jury trial. The job of the judge is to conduct the legal proceedings and, if guilty, formulate an appropriate sentence. And yes, both prosecution and defence can call expert witnesses to provide sworn testimony.
You are confusing legitimate costs of doing business with deliberate discrimination based on the location of the customer. Charging different amounts for shipping physical goods to different countries is legal. Charging more for the same goods in a physical store, in a country with higher operating costs, is legal. However, having a higher price for English customers than for French customers, just because your English customers are richer, is illegal.
Apple have a single Itunes operation for the whole of Europe, so salary variance between countries is unlikely to be the cause of price differences. What else is there? Cost of bandwidth varying between countries? Well, if Apple can show that the difference in pricing between European countries is wholly due to cost of bandwidth changing depending on the destination country, then they're innocent. However, that seems unlikely; bandwidth is cheap relative to the cost per song, and Apple would be mad to have signed up with an ISP that charges them varying rates depending on the destination of their packets.
This has nothing to do with discouraging businesses from selling games consoles within the EU. The fact is that the EU has a single, regulated market. Price discrimination against customers based on their nationality or location within the EU is illegal. Apple knew this very well (you think they didn't consult their lawyers before opening EU Itunes stores?), and chose to ignore the law. Whatever contracts Apple signed with the RIAA are irrelevant; contracts between companies cannot supercede the law of the land.
As an aside to the Americans who think this is an example of EU socialism bashing a successful American company, consider this: what would your government do if Apple had different stores for each state, or for people of different races, each with varying music and pricing? I doubt you would be so accepting.