User talk:Brusegadi

I will not be online very often. I will be back as a regular as soon as I have taken care of some things... Brusegadi (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you visit these two talk pages?

Oi amigo. Rember me from the edits on the Antarctica cooling controversy? Would you be so kind to visit Talk:Food vs fuel and Talk:Peaje urbano de Londres and give us your experienced opinion on these discussions. By the way, I already gathered all the sources to contribute in the State of Fear article to give it some NPOV balance, but I have been very busy working on other articles. Those with controversial issues are very time consuming, so less productive to my taste. I hope you can contribute and give us some orientation to these discussions, particularly in Wiki Español, that users are not so experience in following Wiki policy. Your advice on Congestion pricing was great, it really helped to stop the talking and the little edit war. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I had been away for a moment. I will go take a look and see if anything was resolved. Brusegadi (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Back

Good to see you back, I started thinking you might have left for good... My visit to Nicaragua turned out to be very brief, due to time constrains. I have only seen a bit of Managua... But I hope to be back some time this or next year.

take care, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I was a bit tired of some stuff, and then I became busy so I decided to take some time off. I see many new names in climate related articles pushing old and defeated ideas (more like agendas.) Brusegadi (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back from me too William M. Connolley (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Brusegadi (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unmarked Bot

I saw your reverted comment. Since its in a BAG approved trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WuBot it will make a limited number of edits like a bot, but won't be flagged until final approval is given, after reviewing the trial. MBisanz ^talk 08:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to ask someone but this answers my question. Thanks again, Brusegadi (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon ECC edit

As near as I can tell, the anon's edit was a legitimate correction. I found lots of references to P-384 and not so many to P-284. I didn't both actually checking the NIST document, which is a reliable source. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure, and I was going to check the document just now but I will go with your message! Thank you for keeping an eye one the page, Brusegadi (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You comments on OrenO's RfA

My impression is that you typically try to be open minded and fair in your discussions on GW topics, but I was somewhat put off by the following comment:

"Pro-GW" is a label that has been applied to editors in the GW articles who defend wikipedia policy, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

I am unclear as to whether you intended to imply that the "GW Contrarians" somehow don't defend wikipedia policy, or not. Could you please clarify this point?

BTW, I commend you for your support of OrenO in his RfA. Much like yourself I have found him to be reason and open to both side of an argument. --GoRight (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Much like in the real world, the topic of GW has fanatics and rationals on all ends of the spectrum. Given that I tend to take the mainstream position, I have collided with both rationals and fanatics who call themselves 'skeptics.' So, my remark stems from my personal experience in dealing mostly with the irrational skeptics. I think I could have reword it better to make it clear that some contrarians are very much rational while others go out of their way due to their strong fanaticism (again, I have seen it on both sides; but the contrarians tend to be more energetic probably because they perceive that "they are losing.") I hope this clarifies, and thank you for bring it up here and not cloud up Oreno's RfA process. Brusegadi (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is pretty much as I suspected. No offense taken ... although I am not sure which camp you would place me in!  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[[Template:Economic systems (sidebar)

Hi. Just seen this template again and feel the font-size for the links is a little on the small side (for default Firefox font-size settings). Would any problem be caused if I increased it? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm also thinking of renaming the template "Economic systems" and removing the repeated "economy"s in the Related articles section, then renaming that section "Types of economy". Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Give it a try and remember to be bold. Brusegadi (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Hope it looks okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Go right Rfc

Yes, you are right. There should be a headline like that above my comment. I'll do that right away. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Brusegadi (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Heritability

Hi, in response to your post on my talk page, this is what Ned Block says about the increase in heritability with age.

To take a real example, the heritability of IQ increases throughout childhood into adulthood. One study gives heritability figures of under 20 percent in infancy, about 30 percent in childhood, 50 percent in adolescence, and a bit higher in adult life. Studies of older twins in Sweden report an 80 percent heritability figure for adults by age 50 as compared to a 50 percent heritability for children. One possible reason for the rise in heritability is that although the genetic variation remains the same, environmental variation decreases with age. Children have very different environments; some parents don't speak to their children, others are ever verbally probing and jousting. Adults in industrialized countries, by contrast, are to a greater degree immersed in the same culture (e.g., the same TV programs). With more uniform environments, the heritability goes up.[1]

It's not so much about the adult environment affecting "intelligence", it's about how much of the proportion of variation in intelligence is attributable to environment as opposed to genes. Heritability is a measure of the proportion of variation that is attributable to genes. Generally the proportion of variation in IQ that is attributable to the environment is greater in children than in adults, i.e. the heritability of IQ increases with age, this means that the proportion of variation that is attributable to the environment has decreased, without knowing the exact contribution of the environment to the variation or genes to the variation then it is impossible to know whether the higher heritability of IQ in adults is due to an absolutely greater genetic effect on IQ with age, or a decrease in the environmental effect with age. Block postulates that the increase in the heritability of IQ with age is due to adults being more in control of their environments, with a concominant decrease in the relative contribution of environments to the variation in the IQ of adults. This might mean that we would expect the total variation in IQ to be greater in children than in adults, but I've not personally seen any data regarding differences in the scale of total variation between childhood IQ and adult IQ. Ned Block explains this much better than I could, it's well worth reading his essay because he explains the concept of heritability very well. The most important thing about heritability though is that it does not measure the contribution of genes or environment to a character (such as IQ or intelligence). It doesn't tell us how much genes contribute to intelligence or how much environment contributes to intelligence, it tells us what proportion of the variation (ie the differences between the best and worst scores) is attributable to genes and what proportion is attributable to environment. Heritability is itself a very controversial concept, with many, if not most population geneticists very sceptical that it tells us anything important at all.[2] The other thing to take into account about heritability is that it is very context specific, if for example the heritability of IQ is 80% in affluent western populations, this may just be a measure of the environmental homogeneity of these populations, some research suggests that in populations where people are poor, the heritability of IQ is much reduced, possibly indicating a greater environmental heterogeneity within these populations.[3] Hope this is of some help. Cheers. Alun (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded in your talk. Brusegadi (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics of GW

Hey, I think the re-structuring of the article was a good way to solve the problem of singling out Bush in the original sections. Good job. Brusegadi (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's important to avoid blaming the entire US government for the actions of the White House. I also tried to give the WH the benefit of the doubt if it was a department head that was appointed by Bush who did the misdeed, or something similar. In this case I left the paragraph in the "Federal Gov't" section. -Demosfoni (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated violations of WP policy

You have reverted my edits on Global cooling without discussing on the Talk page. You stated in the revert comment "See talk", but you did not leave any explanation on the Talk page. I did leave an explanation of my edits on the Talk page.

The statement in the article that you repeatedly insert has no references, as has been pointed out to you at least three times; this is a violation of WP:Verify, as you are presumably aware.

AlfBit (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did leave an explanation. The first stime I said "See talk" was because an other editor left an explanation, the second time I left such note was because I left an explanation. Finally, it is very tendentious to just remove a statement that does not violate any policy. The first step is to tag it as I explained to you in the talk. The only cases where tagging is not correct is when the statement is obviously wrong or when there are WP:BLP concerns. Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting me. - Pop6 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediterranean Sea

Note my answer to your question at Talk:Mediterranean_Sea. - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess its no longer a problem since it was deleted. Brusegadi (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Be weary of your TW

Did you even read anything on the talk page of state of fear before you just reverted for no apparent reason? (i.e. the issue is being activally debated and you have no right making unilaterial decisions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand some of the words in your message and I have no time to look them up. Sorry about any confusion. Brusegadi (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hola amigo, de nuevo nos encontramos editando en el mismo artículo. Given your contributions on SoF and your experience, I would like to invite to review the proposal I made and give us your opinion in the Talk page to try to end the edit war/stalemate, and move on with more constructive edits. Please drop by whenever you have time. A gente se ve lá! --Mariordo (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Combinations

Hello. Is there a way to find r choose n but the set (n) has i identical elements? Sort of like choosing combination of three letters from the word CANADA. I know how to do it for a given problem, but I wonder if there is something general. Thx Brusegadi (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want non-identical elements, you just have to remove the duplicates from the set and then choose from that, so instead of rCn it's (r-a)Cn where a is the # of elements removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So in the example above, if I want to choose three, I will do 4 choose three, which is 4. But, I can come up with more than that: AAA, AAC, AAN, AAD, CND... The real problem are cases like AAN, which I would count twice if I took out one A and inserted another A. Did I miss something obvious? Brusegadi (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about identical elements in combinations, don't you mean that you would not count AAN twice? Since if you do count AAN multiple times, once for each pair of distinct A's that could be chosen, you end up with the standard combination count ${\binom {6}{3}}=20$. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a formula for exactly what you want, but I can't remember it. I think it's the usual choose formula but with an extra factor in the denominator. I'll try and find it/work it out. --Tango (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the multinomial theorem. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note, that is talking about permutations rather than combinations, so doesn't exactly answer the OP's question. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I also remember seeing a formula somewhere, and it is killing me! I will try to remember during the weekend, since I am preoccupied with work :) Brusegadi (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about the confusion. Given that there are specific numbers of identical elements, the number of combinations can be counted as follows. Suppose there are elements of $k$ types, with the number of elements of each type given by $n_{1},\dots ,n_{k}$, and you want to count combinations of $m$ elements. In the CANADA example we have $k=4$ types of elements, $n_{1}=3$ for the letter A and $n_{2}=n_{3}=n_{4}=1$ for the letters C, N and D.

Each combination of $m$ elements can be identified with a vector of non-negative integers $i_{1},\dots ,i_{k}$ such that $\sum _{j=1}^{k}i_{j}=m$ and $i_{j}\leq n_{j}$ for all $j=1,\dots ,k$. Denoting the number of such combinations by $C(m;n_{1},\dots ,n_{k})$, and by considering the effect of removing all elements of type $k$ we get the recursion

$C(m;n_{1},\dots ,n_{k})=\sum _{i=0}^{\min(n_{k},m)}C(m-i;n_{1},\dots ,n_{k-1})$

with the base cases $C(m;n_{1})=1$ for $m\leq n_{1}$ and $C(m;n_{1})=0$ for $m>n_{1}$.

The recursion formula isn't as simple as one might hope for, but it is relatively easy to implement on a computer. In the CANADA example even computation by hand is feasible:

$C(3;3,1,1,1)=C(3;3,1,1)+C(2;3,1,1)$

$=C(3;3,1)+2C(2;3,1)+C(1;3,1)$

$=C(3;3)+3C(2;3)+3C(1;3)+C(0;3)$

$=1+3*1+3*1+1=8$

The 8 different combinations are AAA, AAC, AAN, AAD, ACN, ACD AND CND. In this particular case, the fact that $n_{2}=n_{3}=n_{4}=1$ makes the first three steps resemble a binomial expansion, and the fourth step follows directly from the base case of the recursion. In fact, this gives a hint about a less general formula that would directly address the original question... but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This problem was bothering me one night because I was convince there was a simple plug and chug out there. But it seems like the summation is as general as it gets. Thanks for generalizing it, by the way. You were very helpful. Good day, Brusegadi (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Ortega

If you are still interested in Ortega as an author, I have in my possession El acero de guerra o el olivo de paz, authored and copyrighted by him. it is in Spanish, but if you have any questions , I'd do my best to answer them. It is of the usual Marxist variety.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aleman

Hi Brucegadi, good to talk to you again. I've been continuing to edit the Nicaraguan politics articles occasionally over the last couple years, but not as often. However, I am still interested, and I definitely see the problem with the Aleman article. I will do what I can to make sure that the sources describing the controversy about his acquittal are restored. I also want to tell you that I am going to do some clean-up on the rest of the section. I don't expect to be changing any of the facts or sources, but will be changing the order of some things so it reads better. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help. I was beginning to get into a gridlock, so the more editors the better, specially one as experienced as your self. Until later, Brusegadi (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Do you have any idea what his problem is with the formatting? Do you know how to fix it, if there is indeed a problem? I have very little vision, so I have trouble with formatting sometimes, but this does not change the fact that the other version had all kinds of problems in that section, and your addition of the New York Times article is worth keeping. I'll probably be busy with real life tomorrow, but I hope to get back to this in the next day or two if necessary. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what his problem is. Sometimes what he cites as a reason for doing something sort of contradicts what he is doing. Even in the sources that he supposedly put up, his language is not supported and they discuss the controversy that he does not want to include. He is very one sided, which is a bit sad given that he seems to know Aleman as a person, so it would not surprise me if he were able to write some good stuff on the early years and find some good bio sources. But all he wants to say is that the man never made mistakes. Brusegadi (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)