Moving up in your own company is a shot, but never forget what you can do in your spare time counts. Getting a master's degree is one "spare time" option, but others are Project Coding (such as Elance.com), getting on a fairly large and active Open Source project, or creating your own applications under your own name and putting them out for prospective employers to see.
If you are really serious about getting into a CS development position, I recommend the Open Source route because it will teach you how to code in a group setting and deal with code reviews, QA, and the whole enterprise process.
Here's the one that aired during the superbowl. That's when thye switched from "E____ N_____'s love Emerald Nuts" to the "E___ M____ E____ R____ A____ L____ D____ N____ U____ T____ S____" format.
Why do so many people watch the Super Bowl for the ads rather than the game? Because the ads are enjoyable/entertaining in some way. Make them funny, and people will watch.
I've actually started buying Emerald Nuts cause they're commercials are hilarious. Anytime me and my housemates see a new one, we try and guess what the acronym will mean this time. My personal favorite to date is the "Engrossed Manacurists Eventually Relay Advice Like 'Do Not Untie That String'"
I'm sure you meant C(oeffecient) O(f) P(erformance) and NOT efficency.
COP is defined as HEAT_RATE_REMOVED_FROM_COLD_RESEVIOR/WORK_RATE_REQ UIRED_TO_RUN_THE_PUMP (also written as Q(dot)[L)/W(dot)[pump]). A simple thermodynamics course in Mechanical Engineering will tell you that THE maximum efficiency an refrigderator (reverse heat-pump, such as an air conditioner) can reach is T(L)/(T(H)-T(L)) where T(L) is the absolute* scale temperature of the low heat resevoir and T(H) is the absolute scale temperature level of the high heat resevoir. This value can exceed unity (1) and generally ranges from 2-5.
Efficiency of the heat pump or refridgerator is defined as USEFUL_WORK_PRODUCED/ENERGY_REQUIRED. For a refridgerator, this is written as Q(L)/W(in). Since Q(L) for a no-loss system is defined as Q(L)==Q(H)-W(in)** Through some equation manipulations shown on page 7-24 of the referenced book(see end of post) it's shown that Q(L)/Q(H) = T(L)/T(H) and that the efficency is defined as 1-T(L)/T(H) and that this value is always less than one as by definition of T(H) > T(L).
Appendices: Source: Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach 3rd ed, Dr. Stephen R. Turns Ph.D., 2003, Published by the Pennsylvania State Universit Department of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering.
A heat pump/refridgerator is defined as a high temp resevior and a low temp resevior sufficently large that any instantanious heat added or subtracted by the system will not significantly affect their temperature. Between these reseviors is a pump that moves heat from the low temp to the high temp by performing work on the system. It receives the energy to perform the work from outside the system. The second law of thermodynamics*** says that because the natural entropy of the system would be an equalized temperature between the reseviors, the energy required to move heat the other direction must be greater than the actual energy moved (thus the efficency can never be greater than 1).
Q(dot)[L] => Rate heat is removed from low temp resevior Q(dot)[H} => Rate heat is added to high temp resevior W(dot)[pump] => Rate work is used by the pump Q(L} => Heat removed low temp resevior Q(H) => Heat added to high temp resevior T(L) => Absolute temperature of the low temp resevior T(H) => Absolute temperature of the high temp resevior W(in) => Work required by the pump
* Absolute scale can be either Kelvin, Rankine, or any other linear proprietary temperature scale where there is no negative temp and that sets its lowest temperature at the temperature at which all molecular movbement stops (absolute zero)
** There is no such thing as a no-loss engine in real life. There will always be friction, drag, and/or head loss (for turbine/pump/fan driven air conditioners) or electrical resistance (for things such as peltier coolers). So the real equations is: Q(L)==Q(H)-W(in)-W(loss) where W(loss) is the total work lost overcoming internal forces such as drag, resitances, etc..) That W(loss) makes the maximum heat removed from the low temp resevior even less, thereby reducing the efficiency.
*** Among other things, it says: "Work can be converted entirely into heat. Heat cannot be converted entirely into work."
-Ab
ps. "Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -Homer Simpson
That is precisely why I didn't vote for Kerry and voted for who I did. I didn't vote for Bush, either (yes Virginia, there were more than 2 candidates running).
IANAL, either, but there is a flaw in your sceme: protectionary laws (for the most part) do not apply to illegal activities. The same way you can't call the cops cause your distributor took your drugs but didn't pay.
I believe under the DMCA (again, not a lawyer) there is clause allowing for checking of owned material. The **AA would just have to get a writ (warrant, subpeona... whatever) to allow them to open the file to check if it contained files owned by them that they believe were being transferred illegally.
5 years ago, I had the same infection, but of the mouth variety. It was misdiagnosed 3 seperate times; first as strep throat, then as mono, then as a "mono-like virus that will need to run it's course."
By the third visit (8 days after the first) I was running a 103 degree fever, hadn't eaten in 3 days. The swelling in my troat and mouth was so bad I couldn't even swallow water (it came out my nose) and breathing was beginning to be affected. My roommate (and fraternity brother and hockey defense partner) made a HUGE deal at the hospital when they told me to go home and get plenty of rest. I was too delerious to do anything myself. Eventually, they called a specialist that agreed to see me in his office immediately (even though it was 7:30pm on a Friday).
Soon as we got there, he had me diagnosed from thhe sound of my voice: Peritonsilus Abcess. He prepped me immediately for emergency surgery. Most painful thing I ever went through. I'll not bore with the details, but he drained a LOT of puss, granuals, and blood from my mouth.
45min later, I could talk and swallow (still somewhaat painfully). He gave me a perscription for Biaxin and Clindamyacin because he said the bacteria that cause this are one of 2 major types and each is unaffected by the other's medicine. Within 36hr I was almost back to normal. Withing 5 days everything had healed.
We calculated 2 different things. You calculated 3 S (1 correct, 2 false). That wasn't the original poster's posstulate. His was 2 S (both false) which implies one of the H's is false as well. As for the factorial part, that isn't used because the order is irrelevant and the individual trials are not dependant on each other. The first guy has a.96 chance of being correct regardless of whether he's H or S.
I was calculating the odds of exactly 2 false S and 1 false H. You calculated the probability of any 2 False answers (S or H, as long as they were false). Remember, the actual spy's probability is reversed (.96 S,.04 H).
Neither is right. The 96% is usually referring to the confidence interval that the machine returns an output within specifications (in this case Truth when the person is telling the truth and Lie when the person is lying).
I'm currently taking a class (Industrial Engineering 423: Statistical Quality Control) where we learn how to set the specification range, confidence intervals, and machine capability. Things like 6sigma and ISO(pick a number).
It's actually quite interesting learning how companies manipulate these statistics and apply them in misleading ways to screw^H^H^H^H^Hfool the public. Things like cp, cpk, and cpm (different ways to measure machine capability) all use different quality characteristics. Companies will use the one that best fits their needs, even if it's not the most apt for the situation.
It is the binomial, but you aren't applying it properly.
A 96% probability says that "We are 96% confident that the Lie detector will get it right." So p=.96 and q (or 1-p) =.04.
To expand:
If the person is honest, there is a.96 chance the machine will return H(onest) and.04 it will return S(py). If the person is a spy, there is a.96 chance it will return S(py) and.04 chance it will return H(onest).
The original poster postulated that if there was 1 spy and 49 honest people, that it would return 48 H's and 2 S's and chances were the 2 S's would be false positives that were really H's. This says that out of the 49 H's, it got 47 right and 2 wrong and of the 1 S it got it wrong. The probability is:
H[.96 *.96 *... (44 more)... *.96 *.04 *.04] * S[.04] Which simplifies to.96^47 *.04^3 or 9.9 per million.
What the original post got confused is what the 96% meant. It means that the machine gets it RIGHT 96% of the time, not that it returns H 96% of the time. Out of 100 tries, it is EXPECTED that 4 will be wrong, but not necessarily. it would not be unfair to believe 0 would be wrong or that 10 would be wrong. We don't know which type of wrong would occur (false positive nor false negative) because we wouldn't know the true state. The easiest way to avoid this is to administer the test twice. The probability of screwing up twice on the same person is.04 *.04 or.0016 or 16 per 10000 attempts.
Keep in mind, that the actual probability is a confidence interval, (usually 90%, 95%, 99%, or 6sigma). Let's say it's 95%. So the 96% claim is actually saying, "We are 95% certain that the machine will give the correct output 96% of the time." This says that of 100 machines, 95 of them will work at the 96% level. The other 5... well, we don't know. They may work better, they may work worse.
All of this is based on the Binomial approximation of the Normal. Vice versa, there is the normal approximation of the binomial. Both are accurate for large enough sample sizes (n>=36). If n36, then correction factors are needed for the bias and the confidence interval increases (which is a bad thing).
not exactly. 96% statistical accuracy means that if you have a population of 49 honest people and 1 spy (or H honest people and S spies for a total population of H+S) that it will pick out the S spies 96% of the time.
to have what you suggested, the test would have a 96% "POWER" (or a 4% beta error for n=50).
Alpha error (Type I error) = Probability(X returns false | X is actually true) => false negative Beta error (Type II error) = Prob(X returns true | X is actually false) => false positive
The actual probability that a 96% accurate polygraph machine would do what you describe (1S + 49 => 2S that are really H) is:
(.96^47)(.04^3) =.00000939 or 9.39 per million
This says that it got 47 people right (47H) and 3 wrong (2H + 1S). THAT is what a 96% accuracy means.
Do I believe the doctor's claim that the machine is that accurate? Hell no. I think the doctor that created the claim has a failed understanding of whata statistics actually mean and is giving a stat for something else entirely.
I would think it could fight cancer buy having the enzyme tag proteins in the cancer cells with the ubiquitin protein, thereby having the body break down the cancer cells, rather than feed them.
Or, how about when you have a business out of the home and it fails for one reason or another. You scrape all your assets (business and personal), sell them off including your home. Move in with friends 200 miles away and live on their back porch in Pittsburgh in january. Eventually get a new job, make some money and move back to your old place (200 miles back) only to find out that Verizon never honored your request to shut off the phone service (which you have a copy of in your old company tax rercords). Not only that, but they let it run for close to 2 years with all the add-ons that the business had. Now amount of showing them the written notice you sent terminating service will get them off your back. They eventually send you to *5* different collections agencies, to each you send back a letter stating that they failed to shut off the service when you asked, that you will not be paying, and you include a photocopy of the shut-off request. 3 of the 5 send letters of acceptance and that they're sorry to have bothered you. The other 2 still send letters each month demanding money and have reported you to the 3 major credit scoring agencies. But you don't care, because even though your business failed, you did the right thing and paid off everyone and suffered rather than declaring bankruptcy and you've not missed 1 loan payment in the last 10 years between the 8 multi-thousand dollar loans you've taken and your credit is pretty damn good. Good enough that the $300 bill Verizon is trying to pin on you barely scratches your credit rating.
This happened to me. 4 years ago. They are *STILL* trying to get that money out of me. I've had an AT&T plan ever since and they've yet *crosses fingers* to screw me too bad.
A young Steven Hawking could walk, talk and support himself. He was also quite an alcoholic to the point of self-destruction. So in the "Grandparent poster's world" he would've lived, worked, and contributed to society like the rest of us. It's old Steven Hawking you should be asking about.
Much better. My intent wasn't to flame you or anything, just constructive criticism. I am a man of poor word usage (grammar errors intentional for effect) myself. I often retort without thinking in the heat of passion. This is a bane of the left (which, FYI, I am not a memember of). My fiance pointed it out to me once saying, "That people who are proudly liberal often look like whack-jobs because the speak on emotion without taking time to actually preparing what they say. They jump around making what they see as points with backing proof, but aren't really there." I called bullshit.
So we sat down and watched for a week straight semi-randomly shows on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and late-night TV watching for interviews. What we found out was that people on the left tended[1] to be more vehement about their positions and often went into very defensive modes when their positions were question, opposing plausible positions were presented, or if the host (or opposing guest) disagreed. They were also much more likely to interrupt the "conservative" person on debate or point-counterpoint shows that had 2 guests. All of this (at least in my mind) made them look less effective in conveying their point.
One exception (even though I will openly admit I cannot stand either) for each side is Bill o'Reilly for the conservative side and Michael Moore for the left. O'Reilly will belittle his guests that vary even remotely from his narrow point of view, often to the point where I think he embarrases himself. Moore (as of late) has really curbed his fire and brimstone style attacks for a more calm and calculated verbal assault based more on logic and reason rather than annoyance and shouting.
The best interview I've ever seen in my life wasa between the two of them when Moore's book on Clinton came out. This was after Bowling For Columbine when Moore was starting to find out he can do more with a calm demeanor than a loud one. They had a great interview of point-counterpoint that involved a lot of well layed out arguments and both of them saying (often I might add) things like, "I can see your point. I still don't agree with it, but I can accept the line of thinking." There was no interrupting by either (something they're both well known for) and no shouting (until the VERY end when it was time to break for comercial and even then, it was mild.).
As for myself, I am a libertarian. Historically, I've leaned slightly more right than left, but recently, that is starting to change because of all this homeland security crap that takes away personal rights and doesn't do a damn thing to deter someone from sailing into NYC Port and launching a rocket at the statue of liberty. Unfortunately, my party has never put forth a worthy candidate to vote for. "W" is a bloomin' retard and Kerry doesn't impress me either. I also refuse to vote for someone with the basic running plataforms of "at least I'm not him", "I fought in an unpopular war, pity votes", and "I want to make us like Canada (healthcare)".
I will be doing a write in for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). You may call it wasting my vote, but I call it voting my conscience. I look at it this way: Whenever you throw your vote the way someone else asks you to, you have made your vote worth 0 and their's worth 2. There is a candidate out there somewhere that has ideals closer to yours than what the media or the 2 major parties tell feed you. Find them and give them your vote. Rather than the "least bad", find the "best good". The more 3rd parties that get votes, the more scared the "big 2" will become and the more they will start paying attention to the people, rather than their own pockets.
At the risk of starting a flame war, you've done nothing but prove all of the grandparent's post's points (however grossly generalistic they may be). His statement was:
For the modern left, "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" only apply to ideas they agree with. Everything else is "hate speech" and thus deserving of complete extermination.
His contention is that individuals on the left speak of tolerance and open-minds only when it's with those that agree with them.
All of your points (Ann Coultier, Members of the Free Republic Board, Racially abusing your wise, censoring your sign(?), to name a few) were followed with absolutely no explination or proof. Just accusations with no substantiation. You seem to be attacking the words and thoughts of those who do not agree with you. I agree that Ann Coultier is a douchebag and that it is in very poor taste for "W" to attack the record of a veteran that actually served, but it's their right to be assholes.
These attempts you make at points are then followed-up with slinging of words like FUD, "Swift-boat", and "Speaking out of their asses". Once again, none of this is followed with any sort of proof or backing. It makes you look less like a well spoken individual with thoughts and ideas worth listening to and more like a person that acts unwisely on emotional ebbs and flows and doesn't really have any substance in their discussion.
As for the religion argument, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam are very different religions. They all spanwed from an anchient belief in the same god and share some of the same scripture, but are vastly different in not only the rites, rituals, and requirements that each place on its members to worship god, but in the cultural aspect that has evolved with each religion individually. This blindness towards the differences is what causes a lack of understanding and insulting, sacreligous, or culturally offensive behavior that leads to hatred and war.
To also quote you, The left wing supports everyone. They don't discriminate. This comes 1 paragraph after you imply that you wouldn't support the Members of the Free Republic and 1 paragraph before you write disparagingly against veterans that speak their mind against Kerry. This is the crux of the grand-parent's point. You CAN'T be for everyone and still have opinions of your own. In fact, even true Libertarians (motto: do whatever the hell you want, as long as it effects only you or other consenting individuals) have to draw the line somewhere, because there are people that are against self-deprication.
The point wasn't that republicans are hate-filled (besides, republican != right. There are left leaning republicans and right wing people who aren't republicans, which is yet another semi-unfair generalization you make), it was that any statement made that was opposed to a left/liberal person's beliefs was automatically labelled as hate speach. If you (not you-specific, but change in audiance to you-general liberals) were truly tolerant and open-minded, you would embrace their words, consider them and either:
1. incorporate the points that you found worthwhile.
2. refute sensibly with counterpoints and proof the fallacies you find
3. respect the differing opinion while agreeing to disagree or working towards a mutual compromise.
Emotional responses with contridicting statements and little or no content such as the parent serve only as fuel to the fire rather than quench the blaze. Tolerance and open-mindedness includes tolerance of assholes and giving them your ear as well. Tolerance is easy to claim, especially when using it against an opponent's view, but is truly a tough thing to be because it requires you to ata least accept that view (but not necessarily follow it).
Even better, what about people like me (who are colorblind) or those with Opsoclonus (Eyes vibrate back and forth rapidly)?
Truly colorblind people lack the fovea. It's the massive cluster of cones near the center of your retina. When you "focus your eyes on something" you are actually setting it so the image of what you are looking at lands on your fovea. I on the other hand, tend to look over people's shoulder's when talking to them or even near 90 degrees away. This is cause I have a much better detail recognition when people aren't directly in front of me. I've trained myself to look at faces and such when on the job because it's more comforting for the other person.
People with Opsoclonus have eyes that vibrate left to right rapidly. They have aa tendancy to need to tilt their head sideways when focusing and have a tough time keeping focused. It can get severe enough that their head starts twitching as well to counter act the process. I had 2 friends in college that had this problem as well.
On either set of people (and colorblind is much more common) this tech would be rather useless.
It's not tech, but WTKS 104.1 Real Radio out of Orlando/Cocoa Beach, Florida is some of the best talk radio I've heard ever. Especially the morning show (which was the midday show until Howard Stern got canned). They're called the "Monsters of the Morning" and it's hysterical. The midday show now isn't bad, but it's no Monsters (Shannon Berg Show). The late afternoon show (Phillips Phile) is pretty funny and the late night show (Drew Garabo Show) is alright, little too leftwing liberal for me, but still pretty funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Moving up in your own company is a shot, but never forget what you can do in your spare time counts. Getting a master's degree is one "spare time" option, but others are Project Coding (such as Elance.com), getting on a fairly large and active Open Source project, or creating your own applications under your own name and putting them out for prospective employers to see.
If you are really serious about getting into a CS development position, I recommend the Open Source route because it will teach you how to code in a group setting and deal with code reviews, QA, and the whole enterprise process.
Here's the one that aired during the superbowl. That's when thye switched from "E____ N_____'s love Emerald Nuts" to the "E___ M____ E____ R____ A____ L____ D____ N____ U____ T____ S____" format.
-Ab
Why do so many people watch the Super Bowl for the ads rather than the game? Because the ads are enjoyable/entertaining in some way. Make them funny, and people will watch.
I've actually started buying Emerald Nuts cause they're commercials are hilarious. Anytime me and my housemates see a new one, we try and guess what the acronym will mean this time. My personal favorite to date is the "Engrossed Manacurists Eventually Relay Advice Like 'Do Not Untie That String'"
-Ab
I'm sure you meant C(oeffecient) O(f) P(erformance) and NOT efficency.
Q UIRED_TO_RUN_THE_PUMP
COP is defined as HEAT_RATE_REMOVED_FROM_COLD_RESEVIOR/WORK_RATE_RE
(also written as Q(dot)[L)/W(dot)[pump]). A simple thermodynamics course in Mechanical Engineering will tell you that THE maximum efficiency an refrigderator (reverse heat-pump, such as an air conditioner) can reach is T(L)/(T(H)-T(L)) where T(L) is the absolute* scale temperature of the low heat resevoir and T(H) is the absolute scale temperature level of the high heat resevoir. This value can exceed unity (1) and generally ranges from 2-5.
Efficiency of the heat pump or refridgerator is defined as USEFUL_WORK_PRODUCED/ENERGY_REQUIRED. For a refridgerator, this is written as Q(L)/W(in). Since Q(L) for a no-loss system is defined as Q(L)==Q(H)-W(in)** Through some equation manipulations shown on page 7-24 of the referenced book(see end of post) it's shown that Q(L)/Q(H) = T(L)/T(H) and that the efficency is defined as 1-T(L)/T(H) and that this value is always less than one as by definition of T(H) > T(L).
Appendices:
Source: Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach 3rd ed, Dr. Stephen R. Turns Ph.D., 2003, Published by the Pennsylvania State Universit Department of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering.
A heat pump/refridgerator is defined as a high temp resevior and a low temp resevior sufficently large that any instantanious heat added or subtracted by the system will not significantly affect their temperature. Between these reseviors is a pump that moves heat from the low temp to the high temp by performing work on the system. It receives the energy to perform the work from outside the system. The second law of thermodynamics*** says that because the natural entropy of the system would be an equalized temperature between the reseviors, the energy required to move heat the other direction must be greater than the actual energy moved (thus the efficency can never be greater than 1).
Q(dot)[L] => Rate heat is removed from low temp resevior
Q(dot)[H} => Rate heat is added to high temp resevior
W(dot)[pump] => Rate work is used by the pump
Q(L} => Heat removed low temp resevior
Q(H) => Heat added to high temp resevior
T(L) => Absolute temperature of the low temp resevior
T(H) => Absolute temperature of the high temp resevior
W(in) => Work required by the pump
* Absolute scale can be either Kelvin, Rankine, or any other linear proprietary temperature scale where there is no negative temp and that sets its lowest temperature at the temperature at which all molecular movbement stops (absolute zero)
** There is no such thing as a no-loss engine in real life. There will always be friction, drag, and/or head loss (for turbine/pump/fan driven air conditioners) or electrical resistance (for things such as peltier coolers). So the real equations is: Q(L)==Q(H)-W(in)-W(loss) where W(loss) is the total work lost overcoming internal forces such as drag, resitances, etc..) That W(loss) makes the maximum heat removed from the low temp resevior even less, thereby reducing the efficiency.
*** Among other things, it says: "Work can be converted entirely into heat. Heat cannot be converted entirely into work."
-Ab
ps. "Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -Homer Simpson
better question: should Welshmen start to be charged with rape when they bugger them?
-Ab
Or raise a herd of antennalope instead.
-Ab
That is precisely why I didn't vote for Kerry and voted for who I did. I didn't vote for Bush, either (yes Virginia, there were more than 2 candidates running).
-Ab
Would be great for speed traps and toll booths. Hack the device to tell the camera that your license plate is your head and viola!
-Ab
IANAL, either, but there is a flaw in your sceme: protectionary laws (for the most part) do not apply to illegal activities. The same way you can't call the cops cause your distributor took your drugs but didn't pay.
... whatever) to allow them to open the file to check if it contained files owned by them that they believe were being transferred illegally.
I believe under the DMCA (again, not a lawyer) there is clause allowing for checking of owned material. The **AA would just have to get a writ (warrant, subpeona
-Ab
Agreed.
5 years ago, I had the same infection, but of the mouth variety. It was misdiagnosed 3 seperate times; first as strep throat, then as mono, then as a "mono-like virus that will need to run it's course."
By the third visit (8 days after the first) I was running a 103 degree fever, hadn't eaten in 3 days. The swelling in my troat and mouth was so bad I couldn't even swallow water (it came out my nose) and breathing was beginning to be affected. My roommate (and fraternity brother and hockey defense partner) made a HUGE deal at the hospital when they told me to go home and get plenty of rest. I was too delerious to do anything myself. Eventually, they called a specialist that agreed to see me in his office immediately (even though it was 7:30pm on a Friday).
Soon as we got there, he had me diagnosed from thhe sound of my voice: Peritonsilus Abcess. He prepped me immediately for emergency surgery. Most painful thing I ever went through. I'll not bore with the details, but he drained a LOT of puss, granuals, and blood from my mouth.
45min later, I could talk and swallow (still somewhaat painfully). He gave me a perscription for Biaxin and Clindamyacin because he said the bacteria that cause this are one of 2 major types and each is unaffected by the other's medicine. Within 36hr I was almost back to normal. Withing 5 days everything had healed.
I can't imagine it in my lungs, though.
-Ab
As a Pennsylvania resident, I resemble that remark. We're sick of yins jaggovs talkin' poop about us, n'at. Yins need taught a lesson.
Now I'm headin' dahntahn to da sowside. Gonna pound sum Ahrns and watch Cow-er and Da Stillers whup sum more arse this weekend.
-Ab
See, the language is fine, it's all yinz non-picksburgher's that need taught how to talk, n'at.
I am
You are
He,she,it is
We are
Yinz are
They are
No problems at all. Just listen to us 'burghers and we'll learn yinz how it's done.
-Ab
Talk about "know your statistics"....
.96 chance of being correct regardless of whether he's H or S.
.04 H).
We calculated 2 different things. You calculated 3 S (1 correct, 2 false). That wasn't the original poster's posstulate. His was 2 S (both false) which implies one of the H's is false as well. As for the factorial part, that isn't used because the order is irrelevant and the individual trials are not dependant on each other. The first guy has a
I was calculating the odds of exactly 2 false S and 1 false H. You calculated the probability of any 2 False answers (S or H, as long as they were false). Remember, the actual spy's probability is reversed (.96 S,
-Ab
Neither is right. The 96% is usually referring to the confidence interval that the machine returns an output within specifications (in this case Truth when the person is telling the truth and Lie when the person is lying).
I'm currently taking a class (Industrial Engineering 423: Statistical Quality Control) where we learn how to set the specification range, confidence intervals, and machine capability. Things like 6sigma and ISO(pick a number).
It's actually quite interesting learning how companies manipulate these statistics and apply them in misleading ways to screw^H^H^H^H^Hfool the public. Things like cp, cpk, and cpm (different ways to measure machine capability) all use different quality characteristics. Companies will use the one that best fits their needs, even if it's not the most apt for the situation.
-Ab
It is the binomial, but you aren't applying it properly.
.04.
.96 chance the machine will return H(onest) and .04 it will return S(py). If the person is a spy, there is a .96 chance it will return S(py) and .04 chance it will return H(onest).
.96 * ... (44 more) ... * .96 * .04 * .04] * S[.04] .96^47 * .04^3 or 9.9 per million.
.04 * .04 or .0016 or 16 per 10000 attempts.
... well, we don't know. They may work better, they may work worse.
A 96% probability says that "We are 96% confident that the Lie detector will get it right." So p=.96 and q (or 1-p) =
To expand:
If the person is honest, there is a
The original poster postulated that if there was 1 spy and 49 honest people, that it would return 48 H's and 2 S's and chances were the 2 S's would be false positives that were really H's. This says that out of the 49 H's, it got 47 right and 2 wrong and of the 1 S it got it wrong. The probability is:
H[.96 *
Which simplifies to
What the original post got confused is what the 96% meant. It means that the machine gets it RIGHT 96% of the time, not that it returns H 96% of the time. Out of 100 tries, it is EXPECTED that 4 will be wrong, but not necessarily. it would not be unfair to believe 0 would be wrong or that 10 would be wrong. We don't know which type of wrong would occur (false positive nor false negative) because we wouldn't know the true state. The easiest way to avoid this is to administer the test twice. The probability of screwing up twice on the same person is
Keep in mind, that the actual probability is a confidence interval, (usually 90%, 95%, 99%, or 6sigma). Let's say it's 95%. So the 96% claim is actually saying, "We are 95% certain that the machine will give the correct output 96% of the time." This says that of 100 machines, 95 of them will work at the 96% level. The other 5
All of this is based on the Binomial approximation of the Normal. Vice versa, there is the normal approximation of the binomial. Both are accurate for large enough sample sizes (n>=36). If n36, then correction factors are needed for the bias and the confidence interval increases (which is a bad thing).
-Ab
not exactly. 96% statistical accuracy means that if you have a population of 49 honest people and 1 spy (or H honest people and S spies for a total population of H+S) that it will pick out the S spies 96% of the time.
.00000939 or 9.39 per million
to have what you suggested, the test would have a 96% "POWER" (or a 4% beta error for n=50).
Alpha error (Type I error) = Probability(X returns false | X is actually true) => false negative
Beta error (Type II error) = Prob(X returns true | X is actually false) => false positive
The actual probability that a 96% accurate polygraph machine would do what you describe (1S + 49 => 2S that are really H) is:
(.96^47)(.04^3) =
This says that it got 47 people right (47H) and 3 wrong (2H + 1S). THAT is what a 96% accuracy means.
Do I believe the doctor's claim that the machine is that accurate? Hell no. I think the doctor that created the claim has a failed understanding of whata statistics actually mean and is giving a stat for something else entirely.
-Ab
Piper did say that quote, but only when nhe was being managed by the man who coined the phrase: Bobby "the Brain" Heenan
-Ab
I would think it could fight cancer buy having the enzyme tag proteins in the cancer cells with the ubiquitin protein, thereby having the body break down the cancer cells, rather than feed them.
Just my guess.
-Ab
Or, how about when you have a business out of the home and it fails for one reason or another. You scrape all your assets (business and personal), sell them off including your home. Move in with friends 200 miles away and live on their back porch in Pittsburgh in january. Eventually get a new job, make some money and move back to your old place (200 miles back) only to find out that Verizon never honored your request to shut off the phone service (which you have a copy of in your old company tax rercords). Not only that, but they let it run for close to 2 years with all the add-ons that the business had. Now amount of showing them the written notice you sent terminating service will get them off your back. They eventually send you to *5* different collections agencies, to each you send back a letter stating that they failed to shut off the service when you asked, that you will not be paying, and you include a photocopy of the shut-off request. 3 of the 5 send letters of acceptance and that they're sorry to have bothered you. The other 2 still send letters each month demanding money and have reported you to the 3 major credit scoring agencies. But you don't care, because even though your business failed, you did the right thing and paid off everyone and suffered rather than declaring bankruptcy and you've not missed 1 loan payment in the last 10 years between the 8 multi-thousand dollar loans you've taken and your credit is pretty damn good. Good enough that the $300 bill Verizon is trying to pin on you barely scratches your credit rating.
;)
This happened to me. 4 years ago. They are *STILL* trying to get that money out of me. I've had an AT&T plan ever since and they've yet *crosses fingers* to screw me too bad.
-Ab
ps. vigilante justice worked in the old west.
A young Steven Hawking could walk, talk and support himself. He was also quite an alcoholic to the point of self-destruction. So in the "Grandparent poster's world" he would've lived, worked, and contributed to society like the rest of us. It's old Steven Hawking you should be asking about.
-Ab
Much better. My intent wasn't to flame you or anything, just constructive criticism. I am a man of poor word usage (grammar errors intentional for effect) myself. I often retort without thinking in the heat of passion. This is a bane of the left (which, FYI, I am not a memember of). My fiance pointed it out to me once saying, "That people who are proudly liberal often look like whack-jobs because the speak on emotion without taking time to actually preparing what they say. They jump around making what they see as points with backing proof, but aren't really there." I called bullshit.
:)
So we sat down and watched for a week straight semi-randomly shows on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and late-night TV watching for interviews. What we found out was that people on the left tended[1] to be more vehement about their positions and often went into very defensive modes when their positions were question, opposing plausible positions were presented, or if the host (or opposing guest) disagreed. They were also much more likely to interrupt the "conservative" person on debate or point-counterpoint shows that had 2 guests. All of this (at least in my mind) made them look less effective in conveying their point.
One exception (even though I will openly admit I cannot stand either) for each side is Bill o'Reilly for the conservative side and Michael Moore for the left. O'Reilly will belittle his guests that vary even remotely from his narrow point of view, often to the point where I think he embarrases himself. Moore (as of late) has really curbed his fire and brimstone style attacks for a more calm and calculated verbal assault based more on logic and reason rather than annoyance and shouting.
The best interview I've ever seen in my life wasa between the two of them when Moore's book on Clinton came out. This was after Bowling For Columbine when Moore was starting to find out he can do more with a calm demeanor than a loud one. They had a great interview of point-counterpoint that involved a lot of well layed out arguments and both of them saying (often I might add) things like, "I can see your point. I still don't agree with it, but I can accept the line of thinking." There was no interrupting by either (something they're both well known for) and no shouting (until the VERY end when it was time to break for comercial and even then, it was mild.).
As for myself, I am a libertarian. Historically, I've leaned slightly more right than left, but recently, that is starting to change because of all this homeland security crap that takes away personal rights and doesn't do a damn thing to deter someone from sailing into NYC Port and launching a rocket at the statue of liberty. Unfortunately, my party has never put forth a worthy candidate to vote for. "W" is a bloomin' retard and Kerry doesn't impress me either. I also refuse to vote for someone with the basic running plataforms of "at least I'm not him", "I fought in an unpopular war, pity votes", and "I want to make us like Canada (healthcare)".
I will be doing a write in for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). You may call it wasting my vote, but I call it voting my conscience. I look at it this way: Whenever you throw your vote the way someone else asks you to, you have made your vote worth 0 and their's worth 2. There is a candidate out there somewhere that has ideals closer to yours than what the media or the 2 major parties tell feed you. Find them and give them your vote. Rather than the "least bad", find the "best good". The more 3rd parties that get votes, the more scared the "big 2" will become and the more they will start paying attention to the people, rather than their own pockets.
ok, now I'll shut up, too.
-Ab
At the risk of starting a flame war, you've done nothing but prove all of the grandparent's post's points (however grossly generalistic they may be). His statement was:
For the modern left, "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" only apply to ideas they agree with. Everything else is "hate speech" and thus deserving of complete extermination.
His contention is that individuals on the left speak of tolerance and open-minds only when it's with those that agree with them.
All of your points (Ann Coultier, Members of the Free Republic Board, Racially abusing your wise, censoring your sign(?), to name a few) were followed with absolutely no explination or proof. Just accusations with no substantiation. You seem to be attacking the words and thoughts of those who do not agree with you. I agree that Ann Coultier is a douchebag and that it is in very poor taste for "W" to attack the record of a veteran that actually served, but it's their right to be assholes.
These attempts you make at points are then followed-up with slinging of words like FUD, "Swift-boat", and "Speaking out of their asses". Once again, none of this is followed with any sort of proof or backing. It makes you look less like a well spoken individual with thoughts and ideas worth listening to and more like a person that acts unwisely on emotional ebbs and flows and doesn't really have any substance in their discussion.
As for the religion argument, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam are very different religions. They all spanwed from an anchient belief in the same god and share some of the same scripture, but are vastly different in not only the rites, rituals, and requirements that each place on its members to worship god, but in the cultural aspect that has evolved with each religion individually. This blindness towards the differences is what causes a lack of understanding and insulting, sacreligous, or culturally offensive behavior that leads to hatred and war.
To also quote you, The left wing supports everyone. They don't discriminate. This comes 1 paragraph after you imply that you wouldn't support the Members of the Free Republic and 1 paragraph before you write disparagingly against veterans that speak their mind against Kerry. This is the crux of the grand-parent's point. You CAN'T be for everyone and still have opinions of your own. In fact, even true Libertarians (motto: do whatever the hell you want, as long as it effects only you or other consenting individuals) have to draw the line somewhere, because there are people that are against self-deprication.
The point wasn't that republicans are hate-filled (besides, republican != right. There are left leaning republicans and right wing people who aren't republicans, which is yet another semi-unfair generalization you make), it was that any statement made that was opposed to a left/liberal person's beliefs was automatically labelled as hate speach. If you (not you-specific, but change in audiance to you-general liberals) were truly tolerant and open-minded, you would embrace their words, consider them and either:
1. incorporate the points that you found worthwhile.
2. refute sensibly with counterpoints and proof the fallacies you find
3. respect the differing opinion while agreeing to disagree or working towards a mutual compromise.
Emotional responses with contridicting statements and little or no content such as the parent serve only as fuel to the fire rather than quench the blaze. Tolerance and open-mindedness includes tolerance of assholes and giving them your ear as well. Tolerance is easy to claim, especially when using it against an opponent's view, but is truly a tough thing to be because it requires you to ata least accept that view (but not necessarily follow it).
Cheers.
-Ab
Even better, what about people like me (who are colorblind) or those with Opsoclonus (Eyes vibrate back and forth rapidly)?
Truly colorblind people lack the fovea. It's the massive cluster of cones near the center of your retina. When you "focus your eyes on something" you are actually setting it so the image of what you are looking at lands on your fovea. I on the other hand, tend to look over people's shoulder's when talking to them or even near 90 degrees away. This is cause I have a much better detail recognition when people aren't directly in front of me. I've trained myself to look at faces and such when on the job because it's more comforting for the other person.
People with Opsoclonus have eyes that vibrate left to right rapidly. They have aa tendancy to need to tilt their head sideways when focusing and have a tough time keeping focused. It can get severe enough that their head starts twitching as well to counter act the process. I had 2 friends in college that had this problem as well.
On either set of people (and colorblind is much more common) this tech would be rather useless.
-Ab
I live in Pennsylvania. You can listen online (wtks.fm) or on XM radio (channel 152)
-Ab
It's not tech, but WTKS 104.1 Real Radio out of Orlando/Cocoa Beach, Florida is some of the best talk radio I've heard ever. Especially the morning show (which was the midday show until Howard Stern got canned). They're called the "Monsters of the Morning" and it's hysterical. The midday show now isn't bad, but it's no Monsters (Shannon Berg Show). The late afternoon show (Phillips Phile) is pretty funny and the late night show (Drew Garabo Show) is alright, little too leftwing liberal for me, but still pretty funny.
The webpage is here.
-Ab