Comments for Software Journal http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal (Software Blog at Standard Wisdom) Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:09:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Politics and Algorithms rarely mix, but when they do, they involve food stamps and bin packing by David Abraham http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2012/01/politics-and-algorithms-litus/comment-page-1/#comment-853 David Abraham Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:09:08 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=1553#comment-853 Nice informative blog, thanks for sharing. Nice informative blog, thanks for sharing.

]]> Comment on 3 reasons iPad is better than Netbook (and 10 reasons it is worse) by John http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/05/ipad-versus-netbook/comment-page-1/#comment-823 John Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:01:30 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=1032#comment-823 Did not give the answer, Is a net book better than an I pad or is an I pad better than a net book. Straight answer please Did not give the answer, Is a net book better than an I pad or is an I pad better than a net book. Straight answer please

]]> Comment on Matthew’s Correlation Coefficient – How Well Does It Do? by Chris K http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/12/matthews-correlation-coefficient-how-well-does-it-do/comment-page-1/#comment-780 Chris K Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:52:32 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=1409#comment-780 To select a model (4 or 6 or any other) we need to be clear on objectives. For example, if there is a high safety issue in cases of false negatives, then Recall (also called Sensitivity) is very important. Thus we would favor Model 4. If we care about correctly identifying negatives (example: not predict anyone healthy as sick), then another measure is important, the Specificity. In that case we would favor Model 6 (by a little bit .944 vs 0.917). If we are confused on objectives (which we mostly are :) ) then Model 4 is better, it gains lots of Sensitivity, by losing a bit of Specificity and other measures. Thus, there is no secret formula that will solve the problem - we just need to be clear on what we want. To select a model (4 or 6 or any other) we need to be clear on objectives. For example, if there is a high safety issue in cases of false negatives, then Recall (also called Sensitivity) is very important. Thus we would favor Model 4. If we care about correctly identifying negatives (example: not predict anyone healthy as sick), then another measure is important, the Specificity. In that case we would favor Model 6 (by a little bit .944 vs 0.917). If we are confused on objectives (which we mostly are :) ) then Model 4 is better, it gains lots of Sensitivity, by losing a bit of Specificity and other measures. Thus, there is no secret formula that will solve the problem – we just need to be clear on what we want.

]]> Comment on What will cell phones look like in 2020? by Maverick Antonio http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/01/cell-phones-2020/comment-page-1/#comment-779 Maverick Antonio Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:32:15 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=830#comment-779 Looking forward to seeing an update on this article. I am sure, something has changed recently in this space, or no? Looking forward to seeing an update on this article. I am sure, something has changed recently in this space, or no?

]]> Comment on What will cell phones look like in 2020? by Lainey Mori http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/01/cell-phones-2020/comment-page-1/#comment-711 Lainey Mori Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:53:18 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=830#comment-711 Really Cool. Perhaps cell phones will also be able to bring you some French Fries ;-) ? Really Cool. Perhaps cell phones will also be able to bring you some French Fries ;-) ?

]]> Comment on What will cell phones look like in 2020? by Maverick Patrick http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/01/cell-phones-2020/comment-page-1/#comment-700 Maverick Patrick Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:36:29 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=830#comment-700 Maybe it is time to update this entry? I am sure the state of cellphones has evolved in the past few months, no? Maybe it is time to update this entry? I am sure the state of cellphones has evolved in the past few months, no?

]]> Comment on What will cell phones look like in 2020? by Kingston Mayhew http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/01/cell-phones-2020/comment-page-1/#comment-686 Kingston Mayhew Thu, 01 Dec 2011 05:07:05 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=830#comment-686 Thanks for the post. Interesting to see your take on how the cell phones might emerge in the years to come. Cheers! Kingston. Thanks for the post. Interesting to see your take on how the cell phones might emerge in the years to come. Cheers! Kingston.

]]> Comment on What will cell phones look like in 2020? by Terrence Ostrowski http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/01/cell-phones-2020/comment-page-1/#comment-674 Terrence Ostrowski Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:08:13 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=830#comment-674 Thanks a lot for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.... Thanks a lot for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great….

]]> Comment on Can neutrinos travel faster than speed of light? by Greg Groebner http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/09/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-speed-of-light/comment-page-1/#comment-648 Greg Groebner Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:17:46 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=1336#comment-648 Sorry, I just checked back now. We'll see how much of this fits... Here is a simple solution to this 1/40,000 discrepancy in the news recently of neutrino vs. light, based only on latitude and rotation. I don’t know if it proves or disproves anything. Basically, if there is rotation, then the different axial radius lengths at the different latitudes must be taken into account (and this extra length of movement creates a hypotenuse). Fairly simple and straight-forward, if the crammed typing can be read: - The latitude of the neutrino sending point is near Geneva at 46 14’04.68? N. Thus, the axial radius at this location is 6371 * cos(46 14’04.68?) = 4407 km (Earth at 6371 km average). - The latitude of the neutrino receiving point is Grand Sasso 42 28? 09? N. Thus, the axial radius at this location is 6371 * cos(42 28? 09?) = 4699.5 km - The difference in axial radius between these two is 4699.5 – 4407 = 292.6, which is about 1/16th of the larger number 4699.5 / 292.6 = 16. Thus, a point at Grand Sasso would be faster than a point at Geneva by 1/16th, based on a rotating Earth. - Light speed is 299792.458 km/s - Since the average axial radius at the latitude of the experiements is (4407+4699.5) / 2 = 4553.25 km, then the speed is 4553.25*2*p/24/60/60 = 0.331121684 km/s, and light is faster by 299792.458 / 0.331121684 = 905384.55 times. - The difference in speed of 1/16th calculated above for the different latitudes would likewise account for 1/16th of the 905384.55 times of light speed to rotational speed. Thus, this difference in latitudinal positions would account for 905384.55 / 16 = 56,586. - However, this 1/16th difference in speed due to latitude only considers these two points as stationary, instead of an entity moving between these two points. Trying to think about this logically, it would seem that as the moving entity was half-way to its destination from a shorter axial radius to a longer axial radius, there would be a difference in the axial radius of 1/16 /2 = 1/32nd. But if the Earth itself is moving, then the moving entity’s absolute path would be at a somewhat diagonaled distance. An obvious diagonal is “kitty-corner” at 45 degrees, or sqrt(2) of a triangle with equal sides of 1. Quite surprisingly, if we divide this 56,586 by the diagonaled sqrt(2), we have a result 56,586 / sqrt(2) = 40,012. Obviously, this is almost identical to the 40,000 discrepancy found in the recent neutrino experiment. But this is not really an intuitive answer, so I’ll type some more... - Now, it should be noted that the average latitude of the experiments is about 45 degrees (which is like sqrt(2)). - In fact, the entity needs to travel outward by a total of 1/16th, but also angling southward at a tangent on the globe at the average latitude of the experiment of 44.41361, and by this same factor of the smallish amount of rotation during the path of the neutrinos’ travel. This would be the hypotenuse, and would be longer than this 1/16th factor by 56,586 / sin(45) = 80,856. Finally, we remember that the value of 1/32nd instead of 1/16th should be used because of the average movement over the two distances, and so this result is divided by two as 80,856 / 2 = 40,012. This result is also close to the 40,000 discrepancy in the experiment. (Since it is a tangent, the opposite of cosine is used, and instead use the sine function. In this case, because the latitude is so close to 45, it doesn’t make much difference.) - In short, Light 299792.458 / (Latitudes (4407+4699.5) / 2 *2*p/24/60/60) / (4699.5 / (4699.5 – 4407)) / sin(44.41361) / 2 = 40,428. - In short, Light 299792.458 / (Latitudes (4407+4699.5) / 2 *2*p/24/60/60) / (4699.5 / (4699.5 – 4407)) / cos(45) / 2 = 40.012 Sorry, I just checked back now. We’ll see how much of this fits…
Here is a simple solution to this 1/40,000 discrepancy in the news recently of neutrino vs. light, based only on latitude and rotation. I don’t know if it proves or disproves anything. Basically, if there is rotation, then the different axial radius lengths at the different latitudes must be taken into account (and this extra length of movement creates a hypotenuse). Fairly simple and straight-forward, if the crammed typing can be read:

- The latitude of the neutrino sending point is near Geneva at 46 14’04.68? N. Thus, the axial radius at this location is 6371 * cos(46 14’04.68?) = 4407 km (Earth at 6371 km average).

- The latitude of the neutrino receiving point is Grand Sasso 42 28? 09? N. Thus, the axial radius at this location is 6371 * cos(42 28? 09?) = 4699.5 km

- The difference in axial radius between these two is 4699.5 – 4407 = 292.6, which is about 1/16th of the larger number 4699.5 / 292.6 = 16. Thus, a point at Grand Sasso would be faster than a point at Geneva by 1/16th, based on a rotating Earth.

- Light speed is 299792.458 km/s

- Since the average axial radius at the latitude of the experiements is (4407+4699.5) / 2 = 4553.25 km, then the speed is 4553.25*2*p/24/60/60 = 0.331121684 km/s, and light is faster by 299792.458 / 0.331121684 = 905384.55 times.

- The difference in speed of 1/16th calculated above for the different latitudes would likewise account for 1/16th of the 905384.55 times of light speed to rotational speed. Thus, this difference in latitudinal positions would account for 905384.55 / 16 = 56,586.

- However, this 1/16th difference in speed due to latitude only considers these two points as stationary, instead of an entity moving between these two points. Trying to think about this logically, it would seem that as the moving entity was half-way to its destination from a shorter axial radius to a longer axial radius, there would be a difference in the axial radius of 1/16 /2 = 1/32nd. But if the Earth itself is moving, then the moving entity’s absolute path would be at a somewhat diagonaled distance. An obvious diagonal is “kitty-corner” at 45 degrees, or sqrt(2) of a triangle with equal sides of 1. Quite surprisingly, if we divide this 56,586 by the diagonaled sqrt(2), we have a result 56,586 / sqrt(2) = 40,012. Obviously, this is almost identical to the 40,000 discrepancy found in the recent neutrino experiment. But this is not really an intuitive answer, so I’ll type some more…

- Now, it should be noted that the average latitude of the experiments is about 45 degrees (which is like sqrt(2)).

- In fact, the entity needs to travel outward by a total of 1/16th, but also angling southward at a tangent on the globe at the average latitude of the experiment of 44.41361, and by this same factor of the smallish amount of rotation during the path of the neutrinos’ travel. This would be the hypotenuse, and would be longer than this 1/16th factor by 56,586 / sin(45) = 80,856. Finally, we remember that the value of 1/32nd instead of 1/16th should be used because of the average movement over the two distances, and so this result is divided by two as 80,856 / 2 = 40,012. This result is also close to the 40,000 discrepancy in the experiment. (Since it is a tangent, the opposite of cosine is used, and instead use the sine function. In this case, because the latitude is so close to 45, it doesn’t make much difference.)

- In short, Light 299792.458 / (Latitudes (4407+4699.5) / 2 *2*p/24/60/60) / (4699.5 / (4699.5 – 4407)) / sin(44.41361) / 2 = 40,428.

- In short, Light 299792.458 / (Latitudes (4407+4699.5) / 2 *2*p/24/60/60) / (4699.5 / (4699.5 – 4407)) / cos(45) / 2 = 40.012

]]> Comment on Can neutrinos travel faster than speed of light? by Amrinder http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2011/09/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-speed-of-light/comment-page-1/#comment-584 Amrinder Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:46:41 +0000 http://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/?p=1336#comment-584 Interesting. Could you please expand a bit more on this - what discrepancy disappears? Interesting. Could you please expand a bit more on this – what discrepancy disappears?

]]>