|
|
|
|
| Re: Skeptical Huh? |
Hi Roger, I kinda got lost on understanding some of the probability stuff we were discussing and have set it aside for now. But I do need to get back into it for the report. Although my original plans for the report didn't need any probability analysis since my intended target audience is those who wouldn't understand it anyway, I would still like to throw it in there. In the meantime I have been working on my analysis of Stan Deyo's results for the same time period. All I'm really interested there is comparing things like hit ratios and such. Brian Follow Ups: ● Re: Skeptical Huh? - chris in suburbia 04:35:50 - 1/25/2006 (33112) (1) ● Re: Skeptical Huh? - Skywise 13:41:08 - 1/25/2006 (33118) (3) ● 11 predictions - chris in suburbia 04:14:40 - 1/26/2006 (33125) (1) ● Re: 11 predictions - Skywise 14:52:28 - 1/26/2006 (33149) (1) ● Re: 11 predictions - chris in suburbia 16:47:42 - 1/26/2006 (33156) (2) ● Skywise's site - Cathryn 18:38:58 - 1/26/2006 (33160) (0) ● Re: 11 predictions - Skywise 17:14:29 - 1/26/2006 (33159) (1) ● Oh, dear - Cathryn 18:50:13 - 1/26/2006 (33162) (1) ● Re: Oh, dear - Skywise 22:26:56 - 1/26/2006 (33172) (1) ● Re: Oh, dear - Cathryn 16:32:33 - 1/27/2006 (33211) (1) ● Re: Oh, dear - chris in suburbia 17:09:14 - 1/27/2006 (33214) (1) ● Re: Oh, dear - Skywise 17:34:49 - 1/27/2006 (33216) (2) ● animations - chris in suburbia 05:54:30 - 1/28/2006 (33226) (2) ● Re: animations - Skywise 13:03:51 - 1/28/2006 (33244) (0) ● Re: animations - Cathryn 13:03:44 - 1/28/2006 (33243) (0) ● Beam Me Up Scotty - Petra 19:24:46 - 1/27/2006 (33221) (0) ● Re: Skeptical Huh? - Canie 23:19:55 - 1/25/2006 (33121) (0) ● Go For It! - Petra 17:40:49 - 1/25/2006 (33120) (0) |
|
|
|
|
