In article 90k3vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
AFAIK there is general agreement that unbiased humans are better at
identifying the difference between unpunched holes and imperfectly
punched holes than current counting machines -- which after all were
only
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christian Bau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article 90k3vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
AFAIK there is general agreement that unbiased humans are better at
identifying the difference between unpunched holes and imperfectly
punched
Does anyone have the numbers that were current when the networks
jumped the gun on election night? - the early morning problem.
Here is the problem. When I went to bed at 1:15 EST, I had been told
by the talking heads
- that, totaling 5 million, 90% of the Florida vote was in;
- that
Donald Burrill wrote on 12/7/06 11:00 AM:
And you didn't point out to them that a t-test (or any other statistical
test, for that matter) is not applicable to a census?
The t-test (and other inferential tests) may still be applied even to a
census data set.
If we take the view that the
Christian Bau wrote:
In article 90k3vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
AFAIK there is general agreement that unbiased humans are better at
identifying the difference between unpunched holes and imperfectly
punched holes than current counting machines --
From an article in the Washington Post, December 3, 2000:
the sport is water polo, and the favored UCLA team just beat Navy to
read the NCAA final round.
"UCLA's record includes four forfeits stemming from the
ineligibility of Adam Wright, its leading scorer through 17 games.
UCLA declared
I have a process that attempts to calculate the statistical significance
of the result it produces. If I run this process with 100 independent
inputs, I generate 100 probabilities that the result occurred due to
chance. I can then plot a qqplot of 1:100/100 vs. sort(probabilities),
and if the
