And your point? Who wants to watch a gymnast attempt an incredibly difficult (and therefore high-techincal-score) routine only to fall flat on her face? Of course they should do the most challenging thing they think they can succeed at. But no more challenging than that.
I had a friend who made formula sheet like that. (in word with equation boxes) But the professor just asked for the word file and let students in the next class use it. The tests weren't about rote.
Be careful with that, though. Your high grade in the current physics course might cover up an issue leading to a very low grade in a following course.
I've actually found my need for a graphing calculator to be inversely proportional to the difficulty of the course. A trusty scientific calculator is much lighter in the backpack, and far less troublesome should it be lost and should provide all your needs. Matlab on university provided workstations ought to cover the remaining niche that graphing calculators previously filled.
In general, I think the interface on a graphing calculator is too slow to use outside the classroom, when more powerful computer programs would be easily available. And are you really going to take the time to graph things on a test?*
*If you're using it for integrals, or equation manipulation, it's really going to hurt you later on. If you don't learn to do those things faster than it takes to enter them into the CAS, you're going to have a lot of trouble in the future.
Or someone who derives their moral system from a rigorous application of the principles of evolution. In the latter case, holding propagation as the highest morality, one would certainly try to demand the resources of others if one thought he could convince or coerce them into parting with said resources.
You can fold a lot of inexperience into "safety factor." I'd prefer to drive over a bridge designed by a fifth grader if the safety factor was high enough. I wouldn't want to pay for building it, but driving? no problem.
Many of those bear very little resemblance to the scratchy, knit wool masks I remember. Freakin' neoprene?? It's a completely different garment. You might as well declare any headgear worn while skiing to be a ski mask and therefore also a balaclava.
And not only that, but the research showed that it's actually better to train at sea level and sleep at high altitude. (or.. maybe the other way around, I forget. The point was that it's better to split the time)
The problem? Arbitrary rules restricting the use of hyperbaric (and/or hypobaric) chambers.
If you can afford to ski, you can afford to buy something better than a scratchy knit hat with face holes in it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wearing one while skiing, and that includes historical pictures. And besides, the pair of eye holes isn't shaped well for accommodating the kind of ski mask I have seen a lot of. The kind that is polarized and/or tinted. More often called "goggles."
Why? Congress loves spending your money. Because then they can point all of the "jobs" they "created." Most people can only see one side of that equation. They never notice the much better jobs that would've been created without the government spending.
Uh.. That's not how write-in votes work. If you want to write in, that's your vote. You don't get to vote for two people just because one of them is a write-in.
Now.. I agree that we should switch to some kind of ranking system, but that's an argument for another day.
Keep in mind that TIVO is not a one-time cost. They also have a monthly cost for listings.
This monthly cost alone is MORE than what my cable company charges for renting a DVR box (and there is no capital cost or commitment on my part: I can cancel DVR at any time)
In short, if you're buying a TIVO, it's not because you want to save money vs. cable companies' offerings, even factoring out the cable card part. It's because you prefer TIVO's presentation or features. If you just want the least expensive DVR option, you'd get the cable co's offering, which at the moment is actually the cheapest option by all measures.
It's still not.25%, though, since there were three other pairs. It's more like 1%, and even that is presupposing that whatever "random" factors contribute to false positive are at the lab-level, rather than the sample-level.
So.. we can definitely say that for this hypothetical case we're trying to map to the real case of landis' results, the false positive rate is somewhere between 1% and 19%, to be determined by the addition of another undetermined factor: the ratio of {things in the sample that cause false positive} to {things in the lab that cause false positive}
Remember also that the question posed by the article was not, "what are the odds landis was doping." or even, "what are the odds of a particular chain of sample results" (since that is influence by the "chance" landis was doping) but rather, "assuming landis was NOT doping, what are the odds of positive test results at least one pair of samples?"
And of course, it gets worse, because Landis himself could have physiological factors which further reduce the selectivity of the testing regimen. IIRC, that claim was specifically made by his advocates.
Incorrect assessment. It doesn't matter whether any 2 of 8 samples shows a positive result. It matters whether two specific samples show positive results, and it doesn't matter a lick whether any of the other 6 samples show positive results.
Err.. why, then? Is there something that selects those two particular samples as important other than that they happened to be the ones that came up positive?
Also, there is the question of whether the $700 represents a real savings, or simply a transfer of costs from gas to electric. Unless he's stealing power from his neighbors, of course...
If the specificity is 95%, and 8 samples are taken, the likelihood of a false positive in two or more cases is not a quarter of a percent, but closer to about 7%. Probability is hard. Which still leaves a big unknown: what IS the specificity, anyway? was 95% a reasonable assumption?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. It's like there's some kind of Bode plot!
And your point? Who wants to watch a gymnast attempt an incredibly difficult (and therefore high-techincal-score) routine only to fall flat on her face? Of course they should do the most challenging thing they think they can succeed at. But no more challenging than that.
An atheist requires proof to be spiritual. 80-proof or better.
I had a friend who made formula sheet like that. (in word with equation boxes) But the professor just asked for the word file and let students in the next class use it. The tests weren't about rote.
Be careful with that, though. Your high grade in the current physics course might cover up an issue leading to a very low grade in a following course.
I've actually found my need for a graphing calculator to be inversely proportional to the difficulty of the course. A trusty scientific calculator is much lighter in the backpack, and far less troublesome should it be lost and should provide all your needs. Matlab on university provided workstations ought to cover the remaining niche that graphing calculators previously filled.
In general, I think the interface on a graphing calculator is too slow to use outside the classroom, when more powerful computer programs would be easily available. And are you really going to take the time to graph things on a test?*
*If you're using it for integrals, or equation manipulation, it's really going to hurt you later on. If you don't learn to do those things faster than it takes to enter them into the CAS, you're going to have a lot of trouble in the future.
How's your state economy doing? Got a lot of companies moving in?
A nihilist.
Or someone who derives their moral system from a rigorous application of the principles of evolution. In the latter case, holding propagation as the highest morality, one would certainly try to demand the resources of others if one thought he could convince or coerce them into parting with said resources.
I'll take my chances.
You can fold a lot of inexperience into "safety factor." I'd prefer to drive over a bridge designed by a fifth grader if the safety factor was high enough. I wouldn't want to pay for building it, but driving? no problem.
No, you ask him which road the other guy would tell you to go.
Many of those bear very little resemblance to the scratchy, knit wool masks I remember. Freakin' neoprene?? It's a completely different garment. You might as well declare any headgear worn while skiing to be a ski mask and therefore also a balaclava.
And not only that, but the research showed that it's actually better to train at sea level and sleep at high altitude. (or.. maybe the other way around, I forget. The point was that it's better to split the time)
The problem? Arbitrary rules restricting the use of hyperbaric (and/or hypobaric) chambers.
Increasing the viscosity would reduce turbulence...
Because women used to wear skirts to do *everything* and you can't ride a *bicycle* side-saddle.
No, this is the definition of Irony
If you can afford to ski, you can afford to buy something better than a scratchy knit hat with face holes in it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wearing one while skiing, and that includes historical pictures. And besides, the pair of eye holes isn't shaped well for accommodating the kind of ski mask I have seen a lot of. The kind that is polarized and/or tinted. More often called "goggles."
Why? Congress loves spending your money. Because then they can point all of the "jobs" they "created." Most people can only see one side of that equation. They never notice the much better jobs that would've been created without the government spending.
Uh.. That's not how write-in votes work. If you want to write in, that's your vote. You don't get to vote for two people just because one of them is a write-in.
Now.. I agree that we should switch to some kind of ranking system, but that's an argument for another day.
Keep in mind that TIVO is not a one-time cost. They also have a monthly cost for listings.
This monthly cost alone is MORE than what my cable company charges for renting a DVR box (and there is no capital cost or commitment on my part: I can cancel DVR at any time)
In short, if you're buying a TIVO, it's not because you want to save money vs. cable companies' offerings, even factoring out the cable card part. It's because you prefer TIVO's presentation or features. If you just want the least expensive DVR option, you'd get the cable co's offering, which at the moment is actually the cheapest option by all measures.
Are we talking about the same inhabitants whose leader got on with all of his sisters, and pit half-siblings against each other for sport?
The same ones who broke up a marriage over a beauty contest?
The same ones whose punishment for a trade secrets violation involved evisceration?
Well that's.. a little better.. or a lot worse.
It's still not .25%, though, since there were three other pairs. It's more like 1%, and even that is presupposing that whatever "random" factors contribute to false positive are at the lab-level, rather than the sample-level.
So.. we can definitely say that for this hypothetical case we're trying to map to the real case of landis' results, the false positive rate is somewhere between 1% and 19%, to be determined by the addition of another undetermined factor: the ratio of {things in the sample that cause false positive} to {things in the lab that cause false positive}
Remember also that the question posed by the article was not, "what are the odds landis was doping." or even, "what are the odds of a particular chain of sample results" (since that is influence by the "chance" landis was doping) but rather, "assuming landis was NOT doping, what are the odds of positive test results at least one pair of samples?"
And of course, it gets worse, because Landis himself could have physiological factors which further reduce the selectivity of the testing regimen. IIRC, that claim was specifically made by his advocates.
$3.24 worth where I live, which is actually a little less than the price of a gasoline where I live. And the gap is currently closing from both ends.
Can't say any more until we know the full process efficiency of the electric.
Err.. why, then? Is there something that selects those two particular samples as important other than that they happened to be the ones that came up positive?
Also, there is the question of whether the $700 represents a real savings, or simply a transfer of costs from gas to electric. Unless he's stealing power from his neighbors, of course...
If the specificity is 95%, and 8 samples are taken, the likelihood of a false positive in two or more cases is not a quarter of a percent, but closer to about 7%. Probability is hard. Which still leaves a big unknown: what IS the specificity, anyway? was 95% a reasonable assumption?
Those athletes would be fairly easy to spot. Just look in their cabinets for immuno-suppression drugs or check their white cell count.
Transplanted muscle is like any other transplant. Rejection is the critical concern.
If you're going to go with gene-spliced athletes, at the moment, you have to do the gene splicing on the embryo before implantation.