The study did not reject the null hypothesis ( that the results are not rigged.)
The strongest pattern observed was that in 2009 Amadi-nejad (sp?) did the best in districts he did the best in 2005. (no surprise). The authors note that to the extent that prediction for 2009 deviated from a model based on 2005, then his deviations were always above the extrapolated line. The thought here is that if the model were perfect then the deivations should be unbiased and thus depending on their distributions nature have about as much mass or events above and below the line-- more or less. But to have them all above the line is, assuming the model predicts well, surprising.
But this assumes the model predicts well.
Other people have noted that with an 85% turnout, common sense suggests this should favor the challenger. that is, angry people are more motivated to turn out. But while perhaps compelling it's not a hard rule. Iceland had a recent election where something like 70% turned out and the incumbent won. Likewise, even obama did not win by a margin anywhere close to the level of excess turnout. So it's quite clear that excessive turnout is not all favoring the challenger. Perhaps an enhanced fraction but by no means all.
It's also worth noting that 3 weeks prior to the election A was leading by double digits in some unscientific polls. In those (non rigorous) polls about 50-60% where undecided to declined to state. so there was a large latent swing vote. But again it's not reasonable to assume that all of the swing vote would go to the challenger. Hence A's early lead of committed voters would give him a suggested advantage. Admittedly the poll is not scientific, probably did not poll women as much, and I'd assume there's intimidation as well for people to respond honestly.
This is not to say that A won. Not at all. It is to say that proving that A lost is a hard sell and should not be based on statistics. What should be learned here is that in order for the winner to govern he has to convince the losers they lost. And you can't do that by denying poll observers to the challenger, having the incumbent's office too tightly coupled to the voting authorities, and then doing some jackass stunt like reporting results before the polls close (assuming that allegation is true-- there's some doubt on that.)
SO now they losers are not convinced they lost. They might be right, they mught be wrong, but the important thing is they are not convinced.
These same reasons are why electronic voting is a bad idea as well I note.
But oh man, it would have been so hilarious to see what happened to Solid Oak's update servers when the ENTIRE NATION of China hit them at once! I predict flames.
"even makes calls back to Solid Oak's servers for updates.'
er... problem solved? Sell the bot net to raise money. A botnet the size of china would be pretty valuable. You could even use it for good--- turn it into a rosetta at home client!
here's the contest: I did the first phrase, you fill in another one and leave the next to someone else:
SHANG A DO (loop) LANG (Jagger/Richards)
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang Shang a doo lang, shang shang a erlang Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
Well you tell me, it's a lambda statement But I don't know what that meant that one plus one can't simply be two?
He said he'd seen me, goin' out with Charlie I only did it, to make him really want me You say you'll get me, but I'll get him too
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang Shang a doo lang, shang shang a erlang Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
But now I think the time is right So let him take me out tonight
I really love him, yes I really love him I really want him, yes I really want him Yes I love him, tell him I love him too Yes I do, yes I do, yes I do, yes I do
In parts of santa fe, dirt (or gravel) roads increase you home value. Sort of perverse but Santa Fe is all about style and aesthetics over function. (and if you've seen it, you can see they have a point. It's very serene.) So home owners fight the city when they try to pave their roads.
The main difference between folding at home and roestta@ home is that folding at home studies molecular dynamics-- the science of how proteins vibrate and move while rosetta actually goes after protein structure itself directly. As a result Rosetta can fold proteins with millions of times less computation.
Rosetta at home is another and arguably much more efficient folding project. It actually predicts protein structures at high resolution, allows docking, and design of proteins. put your cycles there. Also if you like this kind of thing then try out foldit. it a multiplayer game in which you race others either collaboratively or in cometition to fold proteins. The games are chosen so the answers help investigators studying the protein folding process! The idea is to separate what humans do best--large scale long range geometry-- with what computers do best--fine tuning interactions.
to give another example, text's often come with problems. It's unethical to personally use an answer key. And personally I think it's unethical to make it easy to access an answer key. I say this because in the school I went to all the chinese language versions of the books were the teacher's edition with the answer key.
The reason that is important is this. I beleive most students will no cheat if they believe their peers are not cheating. Part of what goes into making that assessment is a students appreciation of how easy it would be for the other students to cheat. If it seems like theirs barrier they relax. If the other kids have the answer keys in their hands they get worried and some will assume the others must be cheating and do so themselves.
thus supressing avenues for easy access to cheating materials is a good thing.
Some posters have said "well why cant the professor tweak his assignments and then look for answers that were off the old sets".
Professors should be able to reuse their prolelm sets without having to try to constantly be worried about how to outfox cheating.
It would have been much easier for the student who wanted to publish his assignment because of their intrinsic value could very well tweak these so they don't correspond to the assignment much more easily. So me thinks this excuse for publishing assignement keys is a ruse.
What you claim, is I think in extreme doubt. The airbus is 100% fly-by-wire. When everything is working correctly The airbus allows a pilot an envelope of operation. But it will not allow a pilot to stray outside that envelope. When sensor data is erroneous the envelope is erroneous.
To give you an understanding of this: at the altitude the airbus is flying their is a 25 knot windw between Stall and super-sonic, both of which are fatal if you happen to be in a thunderstorm. So the pilot has almost no controll. He can hardly turn the plane because that would require more thrust than the engines could provide and maintain the 25 knot range. If the instruments reading the air density, air speed and air pressure malfunction or the computer miscalcualtes the pilot is screwed.
My father, god rest his sole, was a lead designer on boeing flight systems and instrumental on it's philosophy. Interestingly he hated computers and loved world war 2. WWII was when designers got lots of feedback on how to design because they made so many errors and planes were pushed to their limits. They did so many post mortems that they learned the process of error free design.
Laugh if you will, but all those software design processes you were taught and all thoe iso compliance rules were not invented by computer scientists. They were borrowed from the airplane industry. There are methods to engineering that work and they learned these by error.
In any case, it was not until the 757 and 767 that boeing had the cahones to build al plane without fully mechanical controls from the cockpit. and even then they let the pilot over ride the computers. By the way there is not one computer. There are 3, and they vote. if one of them disagrees, the other two vote him off the island. They don't trust computers.
This however is changing. Even during my father's tenure they were envious of the weight savings that Airbus was getting with it's fly by wire approach. TO stay competative boeing has had to go that way too.
That assumption is that for communication, sharing intelligence is more important than sharing genetics.
One thing that all these discussions presume is that we would be able to quickly reach a way to communicate. More likely it would take a decade. But misunderstandings like say a the chimp biting your hand making someone angry would occur many times before that.
On the otherhand if an aliaen did show up on our doorstep then it would be one of two cases:
1) it was the first visit 2) or it was the first open visit after many many other visits.
in the first case the ship that arrived would likely be both of a technology far beyiond our own and at the same time extremely fragile it being at the limits of it's tenuous exitence after a long space journey.
So it might have some nasty weapons but probably nothing we should really fear or that we could not destroy.
Basically the vistitor would be here as our guest and at our mercy.
in the second case, it would be the visitors setting the agenda,
Back when Edison was offering music on wax cyllinders you could buy, I avoided going with George Westinghouse scheme to stream music. I wanted to own it! but now I can't find a player for them.
But I learned my lesson. Now I buy the bands them selves, house them onsite, and have them play for me. But would you not know it? those ingrates have started dieing on me. Again I'm stuck with music containers I can play.
The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.
I was just thinking the same thing. The presence of a used games market demonstrates that there are customers who prefer to buy games at a lower price. The real question is whether they would buy the game at the higher price if there were no used market (that is, they're out for a bargain) or whether the lower price convinced them to buy something they wouldn't buy normally.
If there are enough of the latter, it's worth doing.
that's a really good point. For example, I don't mind paying extra for a toyota or an apple computer in part because I know that when I sell it, I get more back too. I do take that into account when I compare prices of cars and computers. Oddly I think most people do not.
they could announce they were cutting the price of games by 1/2 unless gamestop revenue shares. If they did that then the price of used games would drop by half too and game stop would lose half its revenue!
The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.
Since 1961 time on social networks has increased infinity fold every year. Yet in the last year it's slowed down to just doubling. Guess the party is over.
once you have linux up and running the first thing I do is try dd with the "ignore error" setting. this way I cant get a copy of the bad disk onto a good disk. Now I've separated the recovery from corruption from the problems due to intermittency.
The future is not flying cars or gee wiz, it's about changes in productivity.
Cars did change things drastically. In particular they allowed both suburbs and concentration of commerce centers people could travel to. Trucks could now go to stores as well lessening the importance of trains and hubs. It impacted things you don't think about as well like farming.
so did steam boats. You have the whole development along the missiispi for example. It's worth noting that just before the revoluionary war with "america" in england there were two IPOs offered: one for steam troop transport development and the other for the development of a machine gun. Both IPOs failed due to the South Sea stock company (a ponzi scheme) offering better terms (leading to the first stock market crash later). But if there had been military steam ships in 1776, the queen would be on our money.
progress is about changing scales that create new organizational paradigms. eventually each new growth opportunity saturates and becomes yucky in a new way. look at coal polluted cities. at the start coal was a miracle comapred to wood heat or no heat. Look at the productivity created by assembly lines then think about the pre-union industrial working conditions that shortly followed.
Consider the height to which buildings could be built and how that has also led to crowding. instead of hobo housing for the poor we now have low cost housing in high rises--- and the stagnating socio economics that result from that.
basically progress is: innovation creates new paradigms for growth which then satrurate and become bad in new ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, after all we know how the open source software ended all hacking and virus building right?
My cat keeps crushing my dog at video tennis. The gold fish like bowling.
The study did not reject the null hypothesis ( that the results are not rigged.)
The strongest pattern observed was that in 2009 Amadi-nejad (sp?) did the best in districts he did the best in 2005. (no surprise). The authors note that to the extent that prediction for 2009 deviated from a model based on 2005, then his deviations were always above the extrapolated line. The thought here is that if the model were perfect then the deivations should be unbiased and thus depending on their distributions nature have about as much mass or events above and below the line-- more or less. But to have them all above the line is, assuming the model predicts well, surprising.
But this assumes the model predicts well.
Other people have noted that with an 85% turnout, common sense suggests this should favor the challenger. that is, angry people are more motivated to turn out. But while perhaps compelling it's not a hard rule. Iceland had a recent election where something like 70% turned out and the incumbent won. Likewise, even obama did not win by a margin anywhere close to the level of excess turnout. So it's quite clear that excessive turnout is not all favoring the challenger. Perhaps an enhanced fraction but by no means all.
It's also worth noting that 3 weeks prior to the election A was leading by double digits in some unscientific polls. In those (non rigorous) polls about 50-60% where undecided to declined to state. so there was a large latent swing vote. But again it's not reasonable to assume that all of the swing vote would go to the challenger. Hence A's early lead of committed voters would give him a suggested advantage. Admittedly the poll is not scientific, probably did not poll women as much, and I'd assume there's intimidation as well for people to respond honestly.
This is not to say that A won. Not at all. It is to say that proving that A lost is a hard sell and should not be based on statistics. What should be learned here is that in order for the winner to govern he has to convince the losers they lost. And you can't do that by denying poll observers to the challenger, having the incumbent's office too tightly coupled to the voting authorities, and then doing some jackass stunt like reporting results before the polls close (assuming that allegation is true-- there's some doubt on that.)
SO now they losers are not convinced they lost. They might be right, they mught be wrong, but the important thing is they are not convinced.
These same reasons are why electronic voting is a bad idea as well I note.
Oh China, you never change...
But oh man, it would have been so hilarious to see what happened to Solid Oak's update servers when the ENTIRE NATION of China hit them at once! I predict flames.
Soild oak charcoal..... yummy
"even makes calls back to Solid Oak's servers for updates.'
er... problem solved? Sell the bot net to raise money. A botnet the size of china would be pretty valuable. You could even use it for good--- turn it into a rosetta at home client!
Top of the pop chart on face book...
here's the contest: I did the first phrase, you fill in another one and leave the next to someone else:
SHANG A DO (loop) LANG
(Jagger/Richards)
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
Shang a doo lang, shang shang a erlang
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
Well you tell me, it's a lambda statement
But I don't know what that meant
that one plus one can't simply be two?
He said he'd seen me, goin' out with Charlie
I only did it, to make him really want me
You say you'll get me, but I'll get him too
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
Shang a doo lang, shang shang a erlang
Shang a doo lang, shang a lang erlang
But now I think the time is right
So let him take me out tonight
I really love him, yes I really love him
I really want him, yes I really want him
Yes I love him, tell him I love him too
Yes I do, yes I do, yes I do, yes I do
In parts of santa fe, dirt (or gravel) roads increase you home value. Sort of perverse but Santa Fe is all about style and aesthetics over function. (and if you've seen it, you can see they have a point. It's very serene.) So home owners fight the city when they try to pave their roads.
The main difference between folding at home and roestta@ home is that folding at home studies molecular dynamics-- the science of how proteins vibrate and move while rosetta actually goes after protein structure itself directly. As a result Rosetta can fold proteins with millions of times less computation.
Rosetta at home is another and arguably much more efficient folding project. It actually predicts protein structures at high resolution, allows docking, and design of proteins. put your cycles there. Also if you like this kind of thing then try out foldit. it a multiplayer game in which you race others either collaboratively or in cometition to fold proteins. The games are chosen so the answers help investigators studying the protein folding process! The idea is to separate what humans do best--large scale long range geometry-- with what computers do best--fine tuning interactions.
Picking your nose seems like a good enough reason.
I heartily agree.
to give another example, text's often come with problems. It's unethical to personally use an answer key. And personally I think it's unethical to make it easy to access an answer key. I say this because in the school I went to all the chinese language versions of the books were the teacher's edition with the answer key.
The reason that is important is this. I beleive most students will no cheat if they believe their peers are not cheating. Part of what goes into making that assessment is a students appreciation of how easy it would be for the other students to cheat. If it seems like theirs barrier they relax. If the other kids have the answer keys in their hands they get worried and some will assume the others must be cheating and do so themselves.
thus supressing avenues for easy access to cheating materials is a good thing.
Some posters have said "well why cant the professor tweak his assignments and then look for answers that were off the old sets".
Professors should be able to reuse their prolelm sets without having to try to constantly be worried about how to outfox cheating.
It would have been much easier for the student who wanted to publish his assignment because of their intrinsic value could very well tweak these so they don't correspond to the assignment much more easily. So me thinks this excuse for publishing assignement keys is a ruse.
provide a watered down computing experience?
Wii's are fun.
I'm giving my Bosewave radio new respect and standing a couple steps away from it just in case.
Not really. Boeing also makes military aircraft as well. They know a lot about how to do fly by wire.
What you claim, is I think in extreme doubt. The airbus is 100% fly-by-wire. When everything is working correctly The airbus allows a pilot an envelope of operation. But it will not allow a pilot to stray outside that envelope. When sensor data is erroneous the envelope is erroneous.
To give you an understanding of this: at the altitude the airbus is flying their is a 25 knot windw between Stall and super-sonic, both of which are fatal if you happen to be in a thunderstorm. So the pilot has almost no controll. He can hardly turn the plane because that would require more thrust than the engines could provide and maintain the 25 knot range. If the instruments reading the air density, air speed and air pressure malfunction or the computer miscalcualtes the pilot is screwed.
My father, god rest his sole, was a lead designer on boeing flight systems and instrumental on it's philosophy. Interestingly he hated computers and loved world war 2. WWII was when designers got lots of feedback on how to design because they made so many errors and planes were pushed to their limits. They did so many post mortems that they learned the process of error free design.
Laugh if you will, but all those software design processes you were taught and all thoe iso compliance rules were not invented by computer scientists. They were borrowed from the airplane industry. There are methods to engineering that work and they learned these by error.
In any case, it was not until the 757 and 767 that boeing had the cahones to build al plane without fully mechanical controls from the cockpit. and even then they let the pilot over ride the computers. By the way there is not one computer. There are 3, and they vote. if one of them disagrees, the other two vote him off the island. They don't trust computers.
This however is changing. Even during my father's tenure they were envious of the weight savings that Airbus was getting with it's fly by wire approach. TO stay competative boeing has had to go that way too.
That assumption is that for communication, sharing intelligence is more important than sharing genetics.
One thing that all these discussions presume is that we would be able to quickly reach a way to communicate. More likely it would take a decade. But misunderstandings like say a the chimp biting your hand making someone angry would occur many times before that.
On the otherhand if an aliaen did show up on our doorstep then it would be one of two cases:
1) it was the first visit
2) or it was the first open visit after many many other visits.
in the first case the ship that arrived would likely be both of a technology far beyiond our own and at the same time extremely fragile it being at the limits of it's tenuous exitence after a long space journey.
So it might have some nasty weapons but probably nothing we should really fear or that we could not destroy.
Basically the vistitor would be here as our guest and at our mercy.
in the second case, it would be the visitors setting the agenda,
I'd rather have the sweedish hackers voting for arizona (home of john McCain) than arizona folks. So yes it's safe in that sense.
Back when Edison was offering music on wax cyllinders you could buy, I avoided going with George Westinghouse scheme to stream music. I wanted to own it! but now I can't find a player for them.
But I learned my lesson. Now I buy the bands them selves, house them onsite, and have them play for me. But would you not know it? those ingrates have started dieing on me. Again I'm stuck with music containers I can play.
Damn you RIAA!
I was just thinking the same thing. The presence of a used games market demonstrates that there are customers who prefer to buy games at a lower price. The real question is whether they would buy the game at the higher price if there were no used market (that is, they're out for a bargain) or whether the lower price convinced them to buy something they wouldn't buy normally.
If there are enough of the latter, it's worth doing.
that's a really good point. For example, I don't mind paying extra for a toyota or an apple computer in part because I know that when I sell it, I get more back too. I do take that into account when I compare prices of cars and computers. Oddly I think most people do not.
they could announce they were cutting the price of games by 1/2 unless gamestop revenue shares. If they did that then the price of used games would drop by half too and game stop would lose half its revenue!
The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.
Since 1961 time on social networks has increased infinity fold every year. Yet in the last year it's slowed down to just doubling. Guess the party is over.
once you have linux up and running the first thing I do is try dd with the "ignore error" setting. this way I cant get a copy of the bad disk onto a good disk. Now I've separated the recovery from corruption from the problems due to intermittency.
APL has compilers
APL was faster than C and there has never been a more terse language.
The future is not flying cars or gee wiz, it's about changes in productivity.
Cars did change things drastically. In particular they allowed both suburbs and concentration of commerce centers people could travel to. Trucks could now go to stores as well lessening the importance of trains and hubs. It impacted things you don't think about as well like farming.
so did steam boats. You have the whole development along the missiispi for example. It's worth noting that just before the revoluionary war with "america" in england there were two IPOs offered: one for steam troop transport development and the other for the development of a machine gun. Both IPOs failed due to the South Sea stock company (a ponzi scheme) offering better terms (leading to the first stock market crash later). But if there had been military steam ships in 1776, the queen would be on our money.
progress is about changing scales that create new organizational paradigms. eventually each new growth opportunity saturates and becomes yucky in a new way. look at coal polluted cities. at the start coal was a miracle comapred to wood heat or no heat. Look at the productivity created by assembly lines then think about the pre-union industrial working conditions that shortly followed.
Consider the height to which buildings could be built and how that has also led to crowding. instead of hobo housing for the poor we now have low cost housing in high rises--- and the stagnating socio economics that result from that.
basically progress is: innovation creates new paradigms for growth which then satrurate and become bad in new ways.