Peter Rubic and the study?

[mkirda]

Samples said Gore would get about 51% of the vote. Well, 49% is pretty close to 51%, right?

Yup. Within that 3% error bar...

And I'm sure that they interviewed more than 384 people during the exit polls. The polls actually got it right- It was the pundits who read the poll results wrong, or called it before they had sufficient sample sizes in.

Besides, didn't he win with like less than 100,000 votes difference?
That is less than 1%. Assuming you have a population of 20,000,000 in Florida, to get accuracy levels to with 1/10th of 1 percent at 99% confidence levels, (which could have called it, even with such a close race), you would need a sample size of 1,536,274. There are not enough pollers on the planet to ask, count, and tabulate that many results in 6-10 hours.

Talking about polling though is quite far off-topic, even if the same rational scientific statistical analysis can be applied. :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

I think you all are forgetting the little issue of the press calling the results of the Florida Presidential election long before the chads had been tallied. Not only were the exit poles wrong ......but the broadcasting of the incorrect results ....Had an effect on the other voters of ten or so states whom were still actively casting ballets. The incorrect testing of fish in PI has also had an effect on the perceptions of MO . What neither of you are taking into account is that such tests only find out the results from the participants {those willing to be part of the test} I dont answer exit poles because Its an evasion of my privacy.....Therefore people that choose not to answer exit poles are not included in the data. Likewise ........it seems that in Peters test ......a portion of the data was derived from fish that were brought in for testing as part of an investigation and possible criminal action. Therefore by nature these samples were more heavily weighted toward fish that are likely collected under suspicion. What we are really testing is the collectors, not the fish . The fish are not responsible for having cyanide present. Your statistics only work when there are no second variable. Otherwise you must collect from the same ratio of collectors as you apply to the fish . And even then your math might not work. Example, If only two collectors collect with cyanide yet they provide fifty percent of all the fish . Unless your data includes fish from these two collectors .....your not going to have a true finding . How many collectors were included in the test is more important then how many fish . :wink:

 

[hdtran]

Completely off topic remark to Mike Kirda & Vitz:

I posted into the "Fuzzy Numbers" thread because I thought that there might be some fire behind all the smoke that was going around. Furthermore, I just could not parse Kalkbreath's posts. Well, after all that, and subsequent posts and threads, I am now in agreement with Peter, Mike, Vitz, (and just about everyone else, it appears). There's a whole lot of smoke, and no fire in K........h. The old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day? Doesn't even work here.

I think anyone with the patience to wade through all these posts (a) deserves a medal (or at the very least, a beer), and (b) some tylenol.

Comment to Kalk: Polls (exit or otherwise) were brought up to try (however forlornly) to come up with an example that you would be willing to understand. I guess I'm just not as good a teacher as I'd like to think I am. That said, see my "Numerical Simulation" thread. If you post there some numbers that you'd like me to try out, I'll run them for you, and tell you how many fish would have tested positive.

Regards to all!

Hy

 

[Kalkbreath]

Completely off topic remark to Mike Kirda & Vitz:

I posted into the "Fuzzy Numbers" thread because I thought that there might be some fire behind all the smoke that was going around. Furthermore, I just could not parse Kalkbreath's posts. Well, after all that, and subsequent posts and threads, I am now in agreement with Peter, Mike, Vitz, (and just about everyone else, it appears). There's a whole lot of smoke, and no fire in K........h. The old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day? Doesn't even work here.

I think anyone with the patience to wade through all these posts (a) deserves a medal (or at the very least, a beer), and (b) some tylenol.

Comment to Kalk: Polls (exit or otherwise) were brought up to try (however forlornly) to come up with an example that you would be willing to understand. I guess I'm just not as good a teacher as I'd like to think I am. That said, see my "Numerical Simulation" thread. If you post there some numbers that you'd like me to try out, I'll run them for you, and tell you how many fish would have tested positive.

Regards to all!

Hy

So you agree that the press calling Gore the winner of Florida was proof that exit poles dont always get it correct?Do you even realize that is what happend? The press anounced that the state had been won by Gore with only 20% of the vote in. Then they tanited the other states still casting votes . ?

 

[Anonymous]

Completely off topic remark to Mike Kirda & Vitz:

I posted into the "Fuzzy Numbers" thread because I thought that there might be some fire behind all the smoke that was going around. Furthermore, I just could not parse Kalkbreath's posts. Well, after all that, and subsequent posts and threads, I am now in agreement with Peter, Mike, Vitz, (and just about everyone else, it appears). There's a whole lot of smoke, and no fire in K........h. The old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day? Doesn't even work here.

I think anyone with the patience to wade through all these posts (a) deserves a medal (or at the very least, a beer), and (b) some tylenol.

Comment to Kalk: Polls (exit or otherwise) were brought up to try (however forlornly) to come up with an example that you would be willing to understand. I guess I'm just not as good a teacher as I'd like to think I am. That said, see my "Numerical Simulation" thread. If you post there some numbers that you'd like me to try out, I'll run them for you, and tell you how many fish would have tested positive.

Regards to all!

Hy

trust me, your teaching is just fine
the problem is w/the student :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Do you even realize that is what happend?

Yeah, of course. I analysed it statistically for you already.

Nice misdirection, BTW.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Do you even realize that is what happend?

Yeah, of course. I analysed it statistically for you already.

Nice misdirection, BTW.

What mis direction? Someone else used exit polling as an example.........The sampling or exit poles in Fla. Got it wrong. And the early release of this pre election data was used to affect the rest of the still voting public. No different then the use of this very limited data with yet to be affirmed conclusions {Peter still has 80% of the data to sort through......and Frank gave out findings too soon as well } These studies were used affect the perceptions of the industry. Not to find out the truth. Why else would there have been such a rush for statements but so little need to finish analyzing the bulk of the data?

 

[mkirda]

Why else would there have been such a rush for statements but so little need to finish analyzing the bulk of the data?

{shaking my head}

Oy ve.

Kalk, you are like a bad horror movie villain. We can answer your question ten times, you still ask the same question again and again and again.
Why can't you bother reading the responses to the previous times we've answered the same question?

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience

Truer words have never been spoken.

(Is the the part where Jamie Lee Curtis screams?)

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

I dont remember you ever stating what happened to the other 41000 fish in the study? Or how Peter decided which fish of the 48000 to NOT include?

 

[mkirda]

I dont remember you ever stating what happened to the other 41000 fish in the study? Or how Peter decided which fish of the 48000 to NOT include?

Peter has broken out the number of samples per year for you previously.
48,000 included food fish as well as marine ornamentals. As to how he decided- He covered that too. He did not list out the 1000 species he considered MO vs. food fish. That would be a little long for this forum.

Sorry you don't remember.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I dont remember you ever stating what happened to the other 41000 fish in the study? Or how Peter decided which fish of the 48000 to NOT include?

Peter has broken out the number of samples per year for you previously.
48,000 included food fish as well as marine ornamentals. As to how he decided- He covered that too. He did not list out the 1000 species he considered MO vs. food fish. That would be a little long for this forum.

Sorry you don't remember.

The study sited 20,555 total fish .....7703 aquarium and 12852 food fish . Over three years ? 1996 to 1999? Did you ever actually read the report?

 

[Kalkbreath]

And why does it read three years ?

 

[mkirda]

deleted

 

[mkirda]

deleted

 

[clarionreef]

There Mike,
The self delete says a lot.
You answered him yet did not subsidize him.
Steve
ps, Now I find myself curious as to what you deleted!

 

[mkirda]

There Mike,
The self delete says a lot.
You answered him yet did not subsidize him.
Steve
ps, Now I find myself curious as to what you deleted!

If you are really, really curious, you can call me.

There are far, far more important things to do than re-hash the same answers to the same questions over and over again.

Otherwise, I'm like Horge...

Para! I want off this ride.

Off to scrub some Valonia off some live rock...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
So is there any other way to get valonia off the rock other then scrub it?
I have customers w/ commercial quantities of it. Have you heard of any natural predators of it? Freshwater dipping? Anything besides scrubbing?
Steve
PS. There...a useful exchange, finally!

 

[hdtran]

Hey, I thought those green bubble things were a good sign! Also, those lovely little brown anemones with the tentacles waving in the current! And they're supposed to be hardy, and low care!

 

[dizzy]

Steve,
Emerald crabs ( Mithrax spp) and Desjardini tangs really are effective natural controls for Valonia. The copperband butterfly is amazing at ridding a tank full of aptasia as well. Broaden your education to include knowledge on keeping marinelife as well as selling it.

 

[clarionreef]

Now Mitch,
My own folks don't consider mithrax that good on larger valonia ...perhaps larger mithrax? Ie the dungeness sized ones?
Mike , why are you scrubbing if the solution is as simple as Mitch suggests it is?
Desjardanis have not been on my Sri Lanka lists lately and I very much want them to be.
Lastly...I know a lot more about marinelife, habits and behavior then I do about business Mitch. By a factor of 10 at least.
Applied science however, ie in little plastic boxes has often vexed me, I must admit.
Steve