[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The Rep defense that there were 15,000 in 1996 and no one complained is very
> weak. Isn't that evidence that there was a problem and maybe the Republican
> Sec of State should have done something before 2000?
The complaint from the Democrats was that there were 19
Robert Chung wrote:
>
> "Peter Lewycky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How many may have wanted to vote for Buchanan but got Gore instead? I
> > don't have the all the stats at hand but
It was shown for few seconds on one of the channels. Possibly on CNN or
a Canadian TV station. Butterfly forms are in use in the US and not just
in Palm Beach. Warren Christopher called the form illegal.
Jerry Dallal wrote:
>
> Peter Lewycky wrote:
> > The
> > butterf
y. Buchanan's Reform party membership increased
from 1996 to 2000 by 110% in Palm Beach county. Comparing 1996 to 2000,
there's no evidence of widespread error or fraud.
Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:22:25 GMT, Peter Lewycky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
1) The ballot form was made public and widely distributed well in
advance of the election. The print was larger than normal to assist the
elderly. The ballot was a single page. If they had used a conventional
list then it would've been two pages long (possibly with Gore on the
second page). Both
The other problem is that the networks are competitive. Statisticians
and pollsters are more guarded, but the media wants to make a definitive
statement NOW. A lot is at stake for getting the news-breaking story and
headline out first.
"J. Williams" wrote:
>
> It appeared at first it was Gore
I've often been called upon to do a t-test with 5 animals in one group
and 4 animals in the other. The power is abysmally low and rarely do I
get a p less than 0.05. One of the difficulties that medical researcher
have is with the notion of power and concomitant sample size. I make it
a point of c
It happens all the time in medicine. If I can show a p value 0.05 or
less the researchers are delighted. Whenever I can't produce a p of 0.05
or less they start looking for another statistician and will even
withhold a paper from publication.
"Simon, Steve, PhD" wrote:
>
> In a post to EDSTAT-L
Presumably you paid for these copies and are their owner. How can they
legally prevent you from selling them? Are they offering to buy them
back?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Just letting everyone know that at the request of Minitab, These
> products are no longer available for sale. The sale o
You are probably thinking of one of a Sage series. Possibly #22 or #29.
They come with green covers and are exceptionally easy to read and
comprehend.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I recollect a book but not the author or title. It was a thin
> paperback, maybe 125 or 150 pages. It culminated i
Consider generating a normal distribution N(mean, var) and the numbers
will be fractional eg -2.346, -0.998, 0.445, etc. Multiply by 1000 (or
whatever is required) to convert to whole numbers. Then you can add or
subtract (whole numbers) to center the distribution. Variance will be
1000^2*var.
So
9:59 AM 8/4/00 -0400, Bob Hayden wrote:
> >- Forwarded message from Peter Lewycky -
> >
> >I've yet to meet an (adult) respondent who did not know his mother's
> >maiden name and her birthdate. :)
> >
> >- End of forwarded message from Pete
The original question was how to come up with a unique identification
that would be known only to the respondent and would be remembered.
As long as they put in 4 Latin characters followed by 6 Arabic numbers
(that could pass for a date ... I don't check). Maybe they used their
girl friend's name
I've used mother's maiden name (abbreviated if too long or padded if too
short)+ birthdate of mother or respondent.
Donald Burrill wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2000, DavidS9307 wrote:
>
> > I would like to collect data in a school on a survey form where the
> > respondents enter only a code number to id
Consider looking at the Sage series of monographs "Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences". They are easy to read and are
pitched to differing levels of statistical sophistication. #22, #50,
#57, #72, #92 and #93 deal with regression.
Christopher Tong wrote:
>
> Does anyone ha
15 matches
Mail list logo
