Roger & Canie
Posted by michael on February 25, 2001 at 18:15:57:

Hey All:

Roger, didn't mean to offend. Please accept my apologies. I'm just getting a little frustrated with the lack of suggestions for solutions to the issues. I have to agree with Canie, if we hash through these issues, then we might end up with something really usefull, but it takes positive constructive discussion by all.

I like your idea about best fit EQ to help calibrate the rifle, how would you suggest that best EQ be determined? The idea is pretty much along the line of what my Logarithmic proposal was about, figure out the best fit quake for a prediction, which I think is the same thing your talking about. Is your idea to keep formal predictions as is and create a best fit tool to help in the calibration of predictions?

Canie: I will check Martin's EQ as well as Mary's on monday. The software I wrote to generate the status table is at work.

Lets get creative!

Michael


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: sliding scale - martin@n.i.c.e.  03:10:01 - 2/26/2001  (5468)  (2)
        ● Re: sliding scale - Canie  08:58:39 - 2/26/2001  (5474)  (0)
        ● Hits - michael  07:59:41 - 2/26/2001  (5470)  (0)
     ● Re: Roger & Canie - Roger Hunter  22:16:00 - 2/25/2001  (5458)  (1)
        ● Best Fit - michael  22:59:05 - 2/25/2001  (5462)  (1)
           ● Re: Best Fit - Roger Hunter  05:00:24 - 2/26/2001  (5469)  (0)
     ● Re: Roger & Canie - Cathryn  18:24:17 - 2/25/2001  (5443)  (1)
        ● Statistics - michael  18:48:42 - 2/25/2001  (5453)  (0)