Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Scott Gardner said:

Does anyone know



Draw near, ye of concreted skulls. Lay forth your attentiveness to my
narration of the **** of RAO Past. Or in contemporary slang: duh!


Exhibit 1:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It's not worth it , Mr. Krueger.

Thanks for admitting that you critique what you haven't investigated,
Mr. Samangitak

Any indication of other tests that don't coincide with yours, you
will claim the tests were suspect.

False claim.

You've been there and done that?

Thanks for admitting that you haven't, Mr. Samangitak

So has the audio testing bus that came to me in 3rd grade and junior high.

Thanks for admitting that your ears haven't been tested since junior
high. How many years ago was that?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 2:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The original point was that Oakland College is a second-tier regional college.

Thanks for admitting that you have lost total track of the topic of
the discussion, Mr. Phillips. I've never had any kind of association
with Oakland College. I don't even know if such a place exists in any
place but your jumbled mind.

Compared with MIT, Cal Tech, and C-M, Oakland
College is indeed second-tier, and it does not have a reputation for sending
its engineering graduates to top companies.

But Mr. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you lied to this "real
engineer" by making up this false story that I think that OU is
"first tier".

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 3:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thanks for pointing out that you haven't been paying attention.

It's not a matter of paying attention Weil, its a matter of not
caring. Frankly, I don't read every post on this newsgroup. But thanks
for admitting that you do. My problem is that I have a life --- you
obviously don't.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 4:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

What's the difference between opining and reporting, Mr. Krueger?

Thanks for admitting that you can't tell the difference. I'll bear
that in mind the next time you report anything?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 5:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You'd know this Richman if you posted there more than once a week!

Irrelevant.

Thanks for admitting my claim about your light participation in RAHE
is true.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 6:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I haven't "gagged" at the thought of trying Spectralab, Mr. Krueger.
I was recommending inexpensive FFT-based analysis tools to Carl Valle.

To[sic] bad your recommendation wouldn't work as you made it. Also,
thanks for admitting it.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 7:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I know that any English above the 3rd grade level is difficult for
you. Maybe you can get one of your kids to explain it to you.

Weil, thanks for admitting by means of insult, that not even you
can't make sense of what you wrote.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 8:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It certainly appears that way from a posting of his today as a
follow up. In any event, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Mr. Lyle, thanks for admitting that losing sleep over your own
demonstrated incompetence is not what you do. That's one reason why
you remain incompetent...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 9:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

No, Krüger, it doesn't work like that. Your claim, your proof. Provide an
example of your "evidence" or your claim falls - as it has done over and
over again previously.

Thanks for admitting that for you Mr. Bamborough, "evidence" is a
moving target.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 10:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

As for the question about CU's use of science to evaluate audio
equipment, I don't know since I didn't read Consumer Reports' audio
equipment reviews. But if its past auto reviews are any indication,
I don't think I will be impressed with their audio equipment reviews.

[...]
However, thanks for admitting that in fact you have zero experience
with CU audio equipment reports to base your comments on.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 11:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, you are a lot more and a lot worse than threatening.

Thanks for admitting that I've taken quite a few figurative licks on
you, sockpuppet Yustabe.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 12:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Yet you're still sitting at
the breakfast table in your underwear, eating cereal, and playing on the
computer. Nice visual, loser. LOL!

Hey Mr. Phillips, it's a living. Thanks for admitting how endlessly
rigid, narrow, bigoted and prejudiced you are. I'm sure that you've
impressed the heck out of everybody else here, especially those who
make their living by working with computers.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 13:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It just keeps getting worse and worse for you, Arny. I haven't the
slightest idea why you don't just ignore me completely. I guess you
like getting ****ed up the ass figuratively.

Thanks for admitting that you are obsessed with sodomy, Phillips. Do
you do this with your spouse, or just people you pick up?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


In case you still don't get the point, Google found "about 106" posts
in which Krooger thanks people for "admitting" things they never said.

Do I have to quote a bunch of posts in which Krooger says "Can I quote
you...." ?

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Not quite that simple.

Here is a good discussion.

http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...ya/chapter_5/c
hapter_5.htm

ScottW

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_p9.htm

worked out table:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_bino.htm

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:q55Hb.41731$m83.23824@fed1read01
"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Not quite that simple.

Here is a good discussion.


http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...ya/chapter_5/c
hapter_5.htm

It's certainly a good discussion as far as it goes. IMO my major problem
with this whole paper is summed up in this quote from page 5:

"Anything that can reduce the type 2 error probability will increase
statistical power."

Type 2 error is AKA false positives. Note that the paper says little or
nothing about reducing type 1 error, AKA false negatives. Page 4 of the
paper describes a comparison methodology that is far more prone to false
negatives than ABX.


I'm of the opinion that false negatives and false positives are both errors,
and that one kind of error is as undesirable as the other. ABX was the
result of considerable development along the lines of reducing false
negatives by giving the listener every kind of assistance that we could
think of. PCABX takes the same approach several steps further by insofar as
it is practical, satisfying the "10 Requirements for Sensitive, Reliable
Listening Tests" as listed on the www.pcabx.com home page.

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

Norm Strong

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.

Thats easy enough to determine. Let that one person
take the test a few times. It will quickly become clear
if they are "golden ear" or just lucky.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YBpHb.42107$m83.34259@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired
certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.

Thats easy enough to determine. Let that one person
take the test a few times. It will quickly become clear
if they are "golden ear" or just lucky.

ScottW


....or have their brains numbed by continual testing.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YBpHb.42107$m83.34259@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials a subject must complete successfully to achieve a
desired certainty that the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%,
and there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right
is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as
far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to
do this test before you have an even up chance of correctly
guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will
succeed--by luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.

Thats easy enough to determine. Let that one person
take the test a few times. It will quickly become clear
if they are "golden ear" or just lucky.

ScottW


...or have their brains numbed by continual testing.

Doesn't have to be continual, Brain Trust!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YBpHb.42107$m83.34259@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials a subject must complete successfully to achieve a
desired certainty that the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%,
and there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right
is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as
far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to
do this test before you have an even up chance of correctly
guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will
succeed--by luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.

Thats easy enough to determine. Let that one person
take the test a few times. It will quickly become clear
if they are "golden ear" or just lucky.

ScottW


...or have their brains numbed by continual testing.

Doesn't have to be continual, Brain Trust!



Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired
certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

Yes. I'm ready to dive--but I haven't dived yet. The entire issue is
one of probabilities. No matter how many trials you pass
successfully, there's always a finite probability that it was luck.
The best we can do is reduce that probability to a minimum.

Can you predict the outcome of a coin flip? Suppose you flipped a
coin 10 times and guessed right 8 of them. Does that mean you can
actually can predict coin flips? Now add this complication: You
flipped a coin 10 times and you were WRONG 8 of them. What does this
mean? Think about it.

Norm Strong

Uncle Troll said:

Can you predict the outcome of a coin flip? Suppose you flipped a
coin 10 times and guessed right 8 of them. Does that mean you can
actually can predict coin flips? Now add this complication: You
flipped a coin 10 times and you were WRONG 8 of them. What does this
mean? Think about it.

The meaning I see is that your retirement is turning your brain to
mush.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...




Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I don't suggest you do it.
I would like to see reviewers who get
paid for their opinions, do it.

ScottW

It's Yap Time!

We don't do this for other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I would like to see reviewers who get paid for their opinions, do it.

Now I see where Krooger's missing commas ended up......

BTW, your agenda is completely transparent. Since reviewers would
never submit to the torture rituals on a regular basis, it's perfectly
clear that you harbor a desire to see these audio lovers driven from
their avocation of abetting the E.H.E.E.

You are *such* a 'borg.

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vrEHb.673278$HS4.4771970@attbi_s01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired
certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

Yes. I'm ready to dive--but I haven't dived yet. The entire issue is
one of probabilities. No matter how many trials you pass
successfully, there's always a finite probability that it was luck.
The best we can do is reduce that probability to a minimum.

Can you predict the outcome of a coin flip? Suppose you flipped a
coin 10 times and guessed right 8 of them. Does that mean you can
actually can predict coin flips? Now add this complication: You
flipped a coin 10 times and you were WRONG 8 of them. What does this
mean? Think about it.


It means that I do a bad impersonation of Madam Flora.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ORFHb.42218$m83.31958@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...




Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I don't suggest you do it.
I would like to see reviewers who get
paid for their opinions, do it.



well, as it stands now, you are getting
what they get paid for, 'their opinions'.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ORFHb.42218$m83.31958@fed1read01
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...




Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I don't suggest you do it.
I would like to see reviewers who get
paid for their opinions, do it.

They no doubt don't get paid enough.

I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support it, are
best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction and implants,
and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

Kal

High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support it, are
best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction and implants,
and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy. Do you assume all the
women that rejected you were under the knife in Beverly Hills?

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial
fee to be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear,
all of his stereo system equipment purchases for the year become
business expenses. He can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K
a year from gross income (don't know if this is the current number,
but order-of-magnitude), as capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

True as far as it goes, but there are many unhh work-arounds. In many of
these situations your conscience truly is your guide, and nobody is going to
check up on your return in sufficient detail to pick up on the details
unless the monetary amounts are massive.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support
it, are best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction
and implants, and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy.

Say what? In the social circles I travel, cosmetic surgery is widely
performed and generally accepted. Two members of my extended family have had
significant amounts of plastic surgery, and I even had a little bit myself.
This is the 21st century and people of many different social classes attend
to these matters.

Do you assume all the women that rejected you were under the knife in
Beverly Hills?

It would take a real hopeless nerd to think that only people from Beverly
Hills availed themselves of cosmetic surgery or that Beverly Hills is the
only place to go as you ineligently put it, "Under the knife". Thanks for
volunteering for the *honor* of being one such nerd, sockpuppet wheel.

Arny said


High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support
it, are best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction
and implants, and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

I said


Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy.


Arny said


Say what?

My post was clear.

Arny said

In the social circles I travel,

LOL

Arny said

cosmetic surgery is widely
performed and generally accepted.

Well, I thought my post was clear. Interesting response to what you quoted."
Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy."

Arny said

Two members of my extended family have had
significant amounts of plastic surgery, and I even had a little bit myself.

That's nice.

Arny said


This is the 21st century and people of many different social classes attend
to these matters.

You didn't get what I said at all.

I said


Do you assume all the women that rejected you were under the knife in
Beverly Hills?

Arny said


It would take a real hopeless nerd to think that only people from Beverly
Hills availed themselves of cosmetic surgery or that Beverly Hills is the
only place to go as you ineligently put it, "Under the knife". Thanks for
volunteering for the *honor* of being one such nerd, sockpuppet wheel.


What an extraordinary display of twisted logic. Beverly Hills is well known for
plastic surgeons. I was speaking figuratively just as one does when they refer
to "Washington" or "Hollywood." There was no claim or implication that I
believe plastic surgery is exclusive to Beverly Hills.It would take a real
idiot to think that was my intention. I guess you just didn't want to talk
about all the rejection you have endured.

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile




Kal

On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying.
Of course, you know how to help me convince the IRS. ;-)

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:


On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee
to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses.
He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying.
Of course, you know how to help me convince the IRS. ;-)

Kal








I'd like to be convinced also, in the event that perhaps a psychologist's
perspective might be needed on the intergenerational fascination with and
perpetuation of tubed electronics, vinyl playback and/or Quad electrostatic
loudspeakers. I can supply plenty of audiophile-quality and more mundane
vinyl, but could always benefit from an upgrade in the other 2 equipment
categories.



Bruce J. Richman

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial
fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business
expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross
income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


So much for Arny's $20,000 'investment' in sound cards.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:11:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com...
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial
fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business
expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross
income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


So much for Arny's $20,000 'investment' in sound cards.

Well, he *did* say this:

"True as far as it goes, but there are many unhh work-arounds. In many
of these situations your conscience truly is your guide, and nobody is
going to check up on your return in sufficient detail to pick up on
the details unless the monetary amounts are massive".

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying. Of course, you know how to help me
convince the IRS. ;-)

Its' a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and deduct
$1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and deduct the same
$1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being a business. THe
dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 30 Dec 2003 16:33:37 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying. Of course, you know how to help me
convince the IRS. ;-)

Its' a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and deduct
$1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and deduct the same
$1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being a business. THe
dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

I think that Kal is angling for the $100,000 instead of the $1000.

So, are you ready to pony up?

chuckle

(John Atkinson) wrote:



Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying. Of course, you know how to help me
convince the IRS. ;-)

Its' a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and deduct
$1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and deduct the same
$1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being a business. THe
dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This is a bit of an oversimplification as well. $100k in gross receipts is not
'earnings.' It may well be convincing evidence that the enterprise is a
business and not a hobby but there is no written law that any business has to
make "earnings" to qualify as a business. There are plenty of them that go
bankrupt every day.

AFAIK there are many other audit 'flags' that may cause the IRS to examine your
return. But as noted it is generally true that if you make no real "income"
(gross receipts) from a pursuit it is likely that the pursuit will be
considered a hobby for tax purposes.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:53:09 -0600, dave weil
wrote:
Its' a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and deduct
$1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and deduct the same
$1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being a business. THe
dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

Actually, you can lose money on a 'business' for a year or two before
the IRS decides conclusively that it's a hobby and not a business.
Most startups are not profitable from the get-go.

I think that Kal is angling for the $100,000 instead of the $1000.

Both reality and desire lie somewhere in-between. ;-)

Kal

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
It's a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and
deduct $1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and deduct
the same $1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being a business.
The dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

This is a bit of an oversimplification as well. $100k in gross receipts is
not 'earnings.'

My apologies for confusing you Tom. My statement was meant to be humorous,
hence the smiley.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
m
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
It's a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and
deduct $1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and
deduct the same $1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being
a business. The dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

This is a bit of an oversimplification as well. $100k in gross
receipts is not 'earnings.'

My apologies for confusing you Tom. My statement was meant to be
humorous, hence the smiley.

Tom's still recovering from the OD of accounting he received in business
school. FWIW, I saw the same error.

John. well-written humor that is reality-based should be technically perfect
up until the humorous twist. I take it you either never read Freud or never
believed anything he said?

;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

John. well-written humor that is reality-based should be technically
perfect
up until the humorous twist. I take it you either never read Freud or
never
believed anything he said?


Sometimes an asshole is just an asshole.
of course, he never met Arny, who is
always an asshole.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:23:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
It's a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and
deduct $1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and
deduct the same $1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being
a business. The dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

This is a bit of an oversimplification as well. $100k in gross
receipts is not 'earnings.'

My apologies for confusing you Tom. My statement was meant to be
humorous, hence the smiley.

Tom's still recovering from the OD of accounting he received in business
school. FWIW, I saw the same error.

John. well-written humor that is reality-based should be technically perfect
up until the humorous twist. I take it you either never read Freud or never
believed anything he said?

Unfortunately, both of you are wrong. John never said anything about
"gross receipts". He said "earn". If you earn $100,000 from your
writing, it's about the same thing as earning $100,000 from your
paychecks at work (except that you would be paying your own taxes
directly instead of having them deducted as you go). Sure, it's
"gross" (before taxes) and I guess you could call it "gross receipts",
but that wouldn't invalidate the "reality" portion of his joke. He
used extreme examples to illustrate his point. The IRS wouldn't look
twice at someone who earns $100,000 and takes a $1000 deduction. That
is quite true.

BTW Arnold, you haven't shown much ability to either judge humor *or*
create it.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

John. well-written humor that is reality-based should be technically
perfect
up until the humorous twist. I take it you either never read Freud or
never
believed anything he said?


Sometimes an asshole is just an asshole.

Sockpuppet, you're speaking autobiographically, for sure.

However this demonstration of your anal fascination is consistent with your
obsession with my butt.

John Atkinson said to Nousiane:

humorous

Now you've done it. Nousiane will hunch over his keyboard for at
least an hour, scouring his metronic brain for a programmatic to
"humorous". When he shorts out and keels over, it's on your head.