More correctly, possibly a future robot or robotic aircraft might one day feed itself with dead flies, according to the article.
An actual working model that's capable of flight looks to be well in the future. However, another(?) group in England is working on a someone similar design that'll eat garden slugs. That seems far more workable...
In 1600, astronomers were engaging in a great debate between the Copernican system (the planets revolved around the sun) and the geocentric system (the planets and sun revolved around Earth). In 1604, Galileo announced his support for the Copernican school of thought, but he lacked the means to reinforce the opinion.
I hope that cleared things up for you.:-)
Re:Is this like a JavaChip
on
A .Net CPU
·
· Score: 1
We've been over this, jerk. The Java chip is practically useless because it supports such a small subset of Java.
Which Java chip? Fittingly there are several, and two support the full J2ME spec, including floating point.
Thanks for emphasizing the step in the process which I pointed out here:
perform experiments designed to see if your prediction is correct
I hope that cleared things up a bit for you, next time before you slam someone as wrong please read past the first sentence of the post.
I read your whole post. The problem was the above doesn't jibe at all with "The scientific method is a process for proving something as definitely untrue or possibly true." For something to be true, it must be observed in the real world. That opposite charges attract is "true", not "possibly true", as established by repeated experiments.
The existance of telepathy could be determined by experimentation in the same manner. Not "possibly true" but "true".
The scientific method is a process for proving something as definitely untrue or possibly true.
Um, no. Part of the scientific method is to perform experiments in which measurable results are observed in the real world in a repeatable fashion.
Why these results occur is often explained by a theory, which apparently is what you refer to above. However, why ESP works would be a strictly secondary issue alongside it's actual existence, if observed. Fairly simple experiments should be able to demonstrate telepathy if it exists - see the famous Duke University experiments for example.
For about ten minutes, every executive wanted one to replace their paper-based Franklin Daytimer, but now it seems that everybody uses their cell phones to do 90% of what they actually used their Palm computers for (address book & schedule reminders), and everybody just brings yellow legal pads to meetings when they want to pretend that they are taking notes and paying attention.
Integrating phone functionality with PalmOS is a priority at PalmOne. Handspring made the (possibly ill-conceived) announcement that it would "only be developing communicators" (PDA+phone devices) shortly before being absorbed by PalmOne. The Treo 650 is widely regarded as being a good device, though I've heard some rumors about poor voice quality.
For me, the holy grail would be decent voice control, a Bluetooth headset, and still no buttons/keypad on the device so it can have more screen area.
It's been about three years since I've seen anybody take notes on a palmtop in a meeting, and if somebody did they would probably be laughed at.
I take notes at meetings using one all the time. Nobody laughs...;-)
No current phone except the Treo has the horsepower (CPU+memory) of a decent PDA. I'm actually ambivalent about adding phone functionality due to the additional battery drain. I guess the alternative is vastly improved battery technology. For me, the beauty of a PDA is having a computer with me constantly - which translates into an infallible memory plus lots of powerful and entertaining capabilities.
Still, AMD market cap (~8B) is dwarfed by Intel's (~150B).
Which does make one wonder how Intel is squandering all that R&D money. The one good investment appears to be the Israeli design team, which did the Pentium-M (essentially a slightly reworked PIII design). Otherwise, every one of Intel's major efforts (with the possible exception of wireless chipsets) has been subpar for the last couple of years.
AMD64 is simply better at the present time, especially when you look at the SMP and multicore story.
The stock performance of the two companies (as opposed to the market cap) certainly reflects those facts!:-)
Re:Electric Car:: Beats Gas Guzzling Hybrids
on
230mph Electric Car
·
· Score: 1
You save a kid's Asthma
What about the one living near the power station? Plus the plant had to generate enough electricity to make up for line losses and battery inefficiency. If there was a big push towards nuclear power production you might have a point, otherwise you're just displacing the pollution.
you help your planet repair an Ozone tear in the fabric of Life,
No. Ozone generated at ground level doesn't ever get to the ozone layer. What it does do is cause all kinds of health problems, and and apparently should be blamed for many deaths. Calling any ozone-producing electric vehicle "zero emissions" is a definite misnomer.
Does anyone know if these motors produce ozone? TIA...
GamePC made a test not long ago, and it performed on par with p4EE and amds FX5x...
It was only truly competitive with the FX when it was overclocked. Granted, it did very well for a low-power chip though. It was also interesting that AGP 8x appears to make very little difference over 4x for the games they tested.
The new 90 nm. Athlon64s overclock quite a bit also, though, and they are 64 bit (64 bit mode is faster, and wasn't tested). The upcoming dual core Athlon64s and Opterons also sound very good. There are also low-power versions which get a lot closer to Dothan power consumption.
All told, though, I'd like to see Intel market Dothan as a desktop solution with faster frontside bus, AGP 8x or PCIe and so on.
but when was there ever a missile attack on any north american target?
Er, given that the device is mounted in an airplane there is no requirement that it shoot down missiles over America.
It would have been quite handy, for instance, when Iraq was launching Scuds in the first Gulf War. Those were nervous times.
It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran...
This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system.
Directed energy weapons are going to be a big part of future military technology. This program is as much R&D as anything else. We are already spending a lot of money on phase 1 of an "asteroid defence[sic] system". They're called "telescopes".
The chip needs no battery or power source. It works much like those that have been implanted in pets over the past decade so they can be identified if they get lost.
First off (for the rare individuals that didn't read the article) this approach DOES involve planting an RFID chip in the shooter. I somehow think this won't fly with most gun owners! (It also doesn't address shooting with the "off" hand.)
Secondly, the above quote incorrectly implies that the "smart gun" won't need a battery. It will need one, both to detect the RFID tag and to mechanically inhibit firing the gun.
It's bad technology. Guns should be as simple as possible, for reliability. Laser sights are bad enough - and not widely used for many reasons, dead batteries among them.
I just love how you Rednecks use the word 'liberal' as a term of offence, like they're all wimps who aren't man enough to be a biggotted right-winger like yourself:)
Actually I'm a Libertarian (er neo-Libertarian I suppose), which should tell you how conflicted I am about endorsing Bush.
A New England Liberal, though, is is a special breed made for spending money and growing government. Nasty, really. =)
His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11.
You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession.
Of course it was the Clinton recession. The stock market crashed before Bush's policies could possibly have had any effect.
At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.
Not true. The current deficits are a lower percentage of GDP than at other points historically.
Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.
I disagree. The elections in Afghanistan were a stunning success. I find it amusing that liberals such as yourself heap scorn on something that did so much to advance traditional liberal values such as freedom and women's rights.
There was already a culture of rabid anti-American hate in both of those countries. It now has a chance of getting better, and I assure you that there are strong pro-American factions in both countries now.
(Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)
Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.
Yeah, it was "only" 3,000 (three times as many as the troops we've lost, eh?). However, it could easily have been 30,000 or more if the terrorists had planned a bit better. Not to be callous, but it was equally bad that a major part of our financial infrastructure was taken out. Together, these events caused $1 trillion in damage to the US economy.
The bigger concern is terrorists of whatever ilk coming up with NBC weapons that would take out millions instead of thousands. I think that makes the war against terrorism justifiable in it's present form.
His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.
He went, he fought (to some extent, how well or bravely is very open to question). He most likely injured himself for at least one of the Purple Hearts. Then, when he returned, he committed the truly inexcusable act of lying about supposed atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. This gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and directly hurt American POWs in prison. That alone should disqualify him from being Commander in Chief.
Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.
Once again, Kerry has paid lip service to something he thinks might get him a few votes. We'll see what happens if he actually gets into a position to do something about it. His wife's company outsources as much as any.
high on taxation
Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.
Of course not. That's why the plan, over time, is to
Whether you like Kerry or not, he has several things going for him:
He's a politician (Bush is just a failed businessman).
Meaning Bush has some sense of reality, unlike Kerry the career politician and money-marrier.
He's capable of thinking for himself, not merely a puppet.
What evidence do you have that Bush is a "puppet"? Further, the idea that the President is solely responsible for his entire policy is a joke...he has experts in various narrow fields to advise him. Being President is a management job, and delegation is key.
He's running against arguably the biggest failure of a president history has seen- look at how much he's screwed up in only 4 years!
Bush has done a good job in several respects. His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11. Two million new jobs this year. No attacks on mainland America since 9/11. Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
Granted Iraq is not an ideal situation right now. However, it is also ridiculous to call it a failure. We had a valid reason to go to war - Saddam's failure to account for his WMDs. We've accomplished far more than we ever did in Vietnam, at the cost of around 1,100 American lives - as opposed to 50,000 lost in Vietnam. (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.) There is a good chance (if Kerry doesn't win) that Iraq will be transformed into a stable democracy, which would be a tremendous achievement. It could be the start of major, positive change in the Middle East. There is also something to be said for the idea of fighting terror over there rather than here in the streets of America.
I think the majority of Americans are smart enough to sort all this out, and we'll see the result tonight - a solid Bush win.
Now, let's consider the downsides of Kerry.
First of all, we have no idea what he'll do if by some mischance he's elected. His positions have changed constantly during the campaign, no one knows what he'd ultimately decide to do. It's easy to claim you have a "better plan" when you don't actually have to produce any results.
His track record is weak on defense, high on taxation - a classic New England liberal. His behavior in the Vietnam era was inexcusable. He is disliked by the military, and morale will suffer terribly if he's elected. He is ultra-rich yet claiming to speak for the common man. (The Kerry's paid around 15% taxes on $5 million income last year, the Bush's paid around 30% on their income.) Kerry will do nothing differently than Bush on the issue of offshoring, they are both globalists. In fact, he is probably more likely to bump the number of H1-B visas, just as Clinton did when President.
I don't believe Bush is perfect, I don't like the USAPA as currently implemented, and I detest Ashcroft. However, Kerry is such a poor excuse for a candidate, and has such a poor public record, that I have no choice but to support Bush. Sometimes in life we have to make tough decisions. Kerry is simply unacceptable as President.
It boggles my mind that the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate. The two party system seems a bad idea about now...
This site was around before electoral-vote.com, and in fact may have inspired it.
Note that it predicts quite a different outcome. Also note that (like Tanenbaum) the owner is partisan - however he also seems to have a sane methodology.
If anything his site shows how pointless polls are, or that the undeceided voter is completly clueless and changes their mind every 5 minutes.
I don't think polls are "pointless", but many people are very clueless about statistics (including, apparently, almost everyone in the media).
The talking heads on the news regularly talk about how a poll has "swung" one way or the other. For instance, this morning a poll came out that showed Bush up by 2% in the popular vote, 48% to 46%. The day before they were tied, I believe at 46% to 46%. Everyone involved talked about this as a real effect even though the margin of error (MoE) in the poll was 3%! Statistical variation completely explains those two results, it is quite possible that voter sentiment didn't change a bit!
Even beyond that, again by the nature of statistics polls are not as reliable as they are portrayed. The above mentioned MoE is only good for a 95% confidence level. In other words, there is a 5% chance that the reported numbers lay outside the MoE! So, it is best to view poll numbers with a very large grain of salt...
Slashdot Mirror
More correctly, possibly a future robot or robotic aircraft might one day feed itself with dead flies, according to the article.
An actual working model that's capable of flight looks to be well in the future. However, another(?) group in England is working on a someone similar design that'll eat garden slugs. That seems far more workable...
I suspect you meant "steganography". :-)
I think you're confusing "revolves" and "rotates". I'll leave who's an airhead to the observer. :-P
From Wikipedia:
I hope that cleared things up for you. :-)
Which Java chip? Fittingly there are several, and two support the full J2ME spec, including floating point.
Hope that helped...
Those things you've read are telling you that .Net will be the default API just as Microsoft begins losing serious marketshare. :-)
Read about it and some other Java chips here.
perform experiments designed to see if your prediction is correct
I hope that cleared things up a bit for you, next time before you slam someone as wrong please read past the first sentence of the post.
I read your whole post. The problem was the above doesn't jibe at all with "The scientific method is a process for proving something as definitely untrue or possibly true." For something to be true, it must be observed in the real world. That opposite charges attract is "true", not "possibly true", as established by repeated experiments.
The existance of telepathy could be determined by experimentation in the same manner. Not "possibly true" but "true".
Um, no. Part of the scientific method is to perform experiments in which measurable results are observed in the real world in a repeatable fashion.
Why these results occur is often explained by a theory, which apparently is what you refer to above. However, why ESP works would be a strictly secondary issue alongside it's actual existence, if observed. Fairly simple experiments should be able to demonstrate telepathy if it exists - see the famous Duke University experiments for example.
I hope that cleared things up a bit for you.
Yes. ::raises hand::
For about ten minutes, every executive wanted one to replace their paper-based Franklin Daytimer, but now it seems that everybody uses their cell phones to do 90% of what they actually used their Palm computers for (address book & schedule reminders), and everybody just brings yellow legal pads to meetings when they want to pretend that they are taking notes and paying attention.
Integrating phone functionality with PalmOS is a priority at PalmOne. Handspring made the (possibly ill-conceived) announcement that it would "only be developing communicators" (PDA+phone devices) shortly before being absorbed by PalmOne. The Treo 650 is widely regarded as being a good device, though I've heard some rumors about poor voice quality.
For me, the holy grail would be decent voice control, a Bluetooth headset, and still no buttons/keypad on the device so it can have more screen area.
It's been about three years since I've seen anybody take notes on a palmtop in a meeting, and if somebody did they would probably be laughed at.
I take notes at meetings using one all the time. Nobody laughs... ;-)
No current phone except the Treo has the horsepower (CPU+memory) of a decent PDA. I'm actually ambivalent about adding phone functionality due to the additional battery drain. I guess the alternative is vastly improved battery technology. For me, the beauty of a PDA is having a computer with me constantly - which translates into an infallible memory plus lots of powerful and entertaining capabilities.
Um, subpar proofreading...sorry!
You should have bought a bunch at less than $4 a share (low of $5 IIRC) around 2/03. :-) Over $21 now.
Well, no...it gives you more GP registers. Applications for x86-64 Linux usually show about a 20% speedup.
Plus the extra memory addressing does have it's uses...you'll see.
Intels Itanium was a real improvement it gave you 64-bit but it also gave one so much more.
Yep...more cost, more die size, more cache, more code bloat, more compiler problems, and more headaches. By all means, enjoy! ;-)
HT doesn't matter that much NOW. What are Intel's marketing examples?
Not only do those things work fine on AMD systems, they are just sorta silly in the first place. ;-)
Which does make one wonder how Intel is squandering all that R&D money. The one good investment appears to be the Israeli design team, which did the Pentium-M (essentially a slightly reworked PIII design). Otherwise, every one of Intel's major efforts (with the possible exception of wireless chipsets) has been subpar for the last couple of years.
AMD64 is simply better at the present time, especially when you look at the SMP and multicore story.
The stock performance of the two companies (as opposed to the market cap) certainly reflects those facts! :-)
What about the one living near the power station? Plus the plant had to generate enough electricity to make up for line losses and battery inefficiency. If there was a big push towards nuclear power production you might have a point, otherwise you're just displacing the pollution.
you help your planet repair an Ozone tear in the fabric of Life,
No. Ozone generated at ground level doesn't ever get to the ozone layer. What it does do is cause all kinds of health problems, and and apparently should be blamed for many deaths. Calling any ozone-producing electric vehicle "zero emissions" is a definite misnomer.
Does anyone know if these motors produce ozone? TIA...
It was only truly competitive with the FX when it was overclocked. Granted, it did very well for a low-power chip though. It was also interesting that AGP 8x appears to make very little difference over 4x for the games they tested.
The new 90 nm. Athlon64s overclock quite a bit also, though, and they are 64 bit (64 bit mode is faster, and wasn't tested). The upcoming dual core Athlon64s and Opterons also sound very good. There are also low-power versions which get a lot closer to Dothan power consumption.
All told, though, I'd like to see Intel market Dothan as a desktop solution with faster frontside bus, AGP 8x or PCIe and so on.
Competition is good! :-)
Er, given that the device is mounted in an airplane there is no requirement that it shoot down missiles over America.
It would have been quite handy, for instance, when Iraq was launching Scuds in the first Gulf War. Those were nervous times.
It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran...
This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system.
Directed energy weapons are going to be a big part of future military technology. This program is as much R&D as anything else. We are already spending a lot of money on phase 1 of an "asteroid defence[sic] system". They're called "telescopes".
First off (for the rare individuals that didn't read the article) this approach DOES involve planting an RFID chip in the shooter. I somehow think this won't fly with most gun owners! (It also doesn't address shooting with the "off" hand.)
Secondly, the above quote incorrectly implies that the "smart gun" won't need a battery. It will need one, both to detect the RFID tag and to mechanically inhibit firing the gun.
It's bad technology. Guns should be as simple as possible, for reliability. Laser sights are bad enough - and not widely used for many reasons, dead batteries among them.
They do look cool in movies though... ;-)
Actually I'm a Libertarian (er neo-Libertarian I suppose), which should tell you how conflicted I am about endorsing Bush.
A New England Liberal, though, is is a special breed made for spending money and growing government. Nasty, really. =)
You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession.
Of course it was the Clinton recession. The stock market crashed before Bush's policies could possibly have had any effect.
At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.
Not true. The current deficits are a lower percentage of GDP than at other points historically.
Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.
I disagree. The elections in Afghanistan were a stunning success. I find it amusing that liberals such as yourself heap scorn on something that did so much to advance traditional liberal values such as freedom and women's rights.
There was already a culture of rabid anti-American hate in both of those countries. It now has a chance of getting better, and I assure you that there are strong pro-American factions in both countries now.
(Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)
Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.
Yeah, it was "only" 3,000 (three times as many as the troops we've lost, eh?). However, it could easily have been 30,000 or more if the terrorists had planned a bit better. Not to be callous, but it was equally bad that a major part of our financial infrastructure was taken out. Together, these events caused $1 trillion in damage to the US economy.
The bigger concern is terrorists of whatever ilk coming up with NBC weapons that would take out millions instead of thousands. I think that makes the war against terrorism justifiable in it's present form.
His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.
He went, he fought (to some extent, how well or bravely is very open to question). He most likely injured himself for at least one of the Purple Hearts. Then, when he returned, he committed the truly inexcusable act of lying about supposed atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. This gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and directly hurt American POWs in prison. That alone should disqualify him from being Commander in Chief.
Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.
Once again, Kerry has paid lip service to something he thinks might get him a few votes. We'll see what happens if he actually gets into a position to do something about it. His wife's company outsources as much as any.
high on taxation
Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.
Of course not. That's why the plan, over time, is to
Meaning Bush has some sense of reality, unlike Kerry the career politician and money-marrier.
What evidence do you have that Bush is a "puppet"? Further, the idea that the President is solely responsible for his entire policy is a joke...he has experts in various narrow fields to advise him. Being President is a management job, and delegation is key.
Bush has done a good job in several respects. His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11. Two million new jobs this year. No attacks on mainland America since 9/11. Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
Granted Iraq is not an ideal situation right now. However, it is also ridiculous to call it a failure. We had a valid reason to go to war - Saddam's failure to account for his WMDs. We've accomplished far more than we ever did in Vietnam, at the cost of around 1,100 American lives - as opposed to 50,000 lost in Vietnam. (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.) There is a good chance (if Kerry doesn't win) that Iraq will be transformed into a stable democracy, which would be a tremendous achievement. It could be the start of major, positive change in the Middle East. There is also something to be said for the idea of fighting terror over there rather than here in the streets of America.
I think the majority of Americans are smart enough to sort all this out, and we'll see the result tonight - a solid Bush win.
Now, let's consider the downsides of Kerry.
First of all, we have no idea what he'll do if by some mischance he's elected. His positions have changed constantly during the campaign, no one knows what he'd ultimately decide to do. It's easy to claim you have a "better plan" when you don't actually have to produce any results.
His track record is weak on defense, high on taxation - a classic New England liberal. His behavior in the Vietnam era was inexcusable. He is disliked by the military, and morale will suffer terribly if he's elected. He is ultra-rich yet claiming to speak for the common man. (The Kerry's paid around 15% taxes on $5 million income last year, the Bush's paid around 30% on their income.) Kerry will do nothing differently than Bush on the issue of offshoring, they are both globalists. In fact, he is probably more likely to bump the number of H1-B visas, just as Clinton did when President.
I don't believe Bush is perfect, I don't like the USAPA as currently implemented, and I detest Ashcroft. However, Kerry is such a poor excuse for a candidate, and has such a poor public record, that I have no choice but to support Bush. Sometimes in life we have to make tough decisions. Kerry is simply unacceptable as President.
It boggles my mind that the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate. The two party system seems a bad idea about now...
In theory, practice is the same as theory. In practice, they are different.
I don't see how, as they all face tremendous embarassment over "Oil for Food" and other involvement with the Hussein government.
Note that it predicts quite a different outcome. Also note that (like Tanenbaum) the owner is partisan - however he also seems to have a sane methodology.
Just FYI... :-)
I don't think polls are "pointless", but many people are very clueless about statistics (including, apparently, almost everyone in the media).
The talking heads on the news regularly talk about how a poll has "swung" one way or the other. For instance, this morning a poll came out that showed Bush up by 2% in the popular vote, 48% to 46%. The day before they were tied, I believe at 46% to 46%. Everyone involved talked about this as a real effect even though the margin of error (MoE) in the poll was 3%! Statistical variation completely explains those two results, it is quite possible that voter sentiment didn't change a bit!
Even beyond that, again by the nature of statistics polls are not as reliable as they are portrayed. The above mentioned MoE is only good for a 95% confidence level. In other words, there is a 5% chance that the reported numbers lay outside the MoE! So, it is best to view poll numbers with a very large grain of salt...