台式川味牛肉面

名字个拗口，不知是台式还是川味，原来只是牛肉面上泼些辣椒酱 -.-!

太精辟了

一个明星，忽然成为热议话题，那一定是因为他出事儿了。
一国政治，一直成为热议话题，那一定是因为它持续出事儿着。

in reference to:

"“我告诉你说啊，你爱写啥写啥，我不管着，不过你给我记住一点，别写政治” “知道知道，您是一朝被蛇咬 十年怕井绳的路数” “你少给我不当回事儿，你看看这都什么时代了，谁还用井绳，你看着像井绳的那些个，都是蛇。”"
- http://qixiaoguai2009.blogbus.com/logs/54045002.html (view on Google Sidewiki)

windows 7 favorite link grey out

电脑突发症状：Favorite那个星星变成灰色的了，然后在左边的navigation栏里面原来会自动扩张开的几个小文件夹都不见了。点Favorite之后nav栏依然是空的，虽然右边可以显示正常的文件夹。于是原来可以直接点存的文件夹，现在需要先点Favorite然后再点文件夹，多了一次点击很不方便。

解决方案：

1. 打开注册表（这个地球人都知道了吧：开始->regedit->回车）。
2. 找到hkey_classes_root/lnkfile，这里首字母是L的小写不是123的1。
3. 在相应目录下添加一个string的key，名字就叫IsShortcut。
4. 注销重新登录，或者重启。

PS：Google搜这个解决方案还挺麻烦的，答案是在这个网页找到的： http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/147638-favorite-links-empty.html。我至少做了10个refinement才搞清楚到底要搜什么，而且结果还是从搜到的一篇帖子连过去的……

囧：原来UP是based on true story啊

看图，著名钉子户Edith Macefield的房子。Yelp上说地址是：1748 NW 46th St & 15th Ave Seattle, WA 98107，可惜我在Google Map的street view上没有找到。

屏蔽门：这个世道太乱了

中国移动屏蔽google和百度，这个世道太乱了——美名其曰：扫黄。

Update：号称是误杀……乱啊……

in reference to:

"多名网友向网易科技反映，他们使用中国移动号码的手机无法访问百度及谷歌的手机WAP网站。"
- http://media.ifeng.com/news/newmedia/web/200912/1205_4266_1462947.shtml (view on Google Sidewiki)

少儿不宜：西安街上的一家店

声明：和某公司木有关系……

Tip: google calendar显示农历

一直觉得没有农历很不方便，最近才发现这个选项已经存在很久了，这年头不做宣传的功能不好找啊……给大家普及一下：

登陆google calendar，选择setting，在那个general的tab下面找一个叫做alternative calendar的下拉菜单，选择中国日历，简体或者繁体，保存。然后你的日历就会变成这个样子：

可悲

利益熏天，少林寺即将消失……

in reference to:

"遥想当年，我炎黄子孙被叫做东亚病夫。可那时，概览我中华上下，也委实积贫积弱。 再看此时，我中华武术被称为花拳绣腿。但当下，纵观我武坛内外，还的确乏善可陈。"
- http://qixiaoguai2009.blogbus.com/logs/52838815.html (view on Google Sidewiki)

Simpson's Paradox on WSJ

Interesting article. Copied Andrew's comments here:

Simpson's Paradox not always such a paradox

By Andrew Gelman on December 3, 2009 9:10 AM | 3 Comments

I'm on an email list of media experts for the American Statistical Association: from time to time a reporter contacts the ASA, and their questions are forwarded to us. Last week we got a question from Cari Tuna about the following pattern she had noticed:

Measured by unemployment, the answer appears to be no, or at least not yet. The jobless rate was 10.2% in October, compared with a peak of 10.8% in November and December of 1982.

But viewed another way, the current recession looks worse, not better. The unemployment rate among college graduates is higher than during the 1980s recession. Ditto for workers with some college, high-school graduates and high-school dropouts.

So how can the overall unemployment rate be lower today but higher among each group?

Several of us sent in answers. Call us media chasers or educators of the populace; whatever. Luckily I wasn't the only one to respond: I sent in a pretty lame example that I'd recalled from an old statistics textbook; whereas Xiao-Li Meng, Jeff Witmer, and others sent in more up-to-date items that Ms. Tuna had the good sense to use in her article.

There's something about this whole story that bothers me, though, and that is the implication that the within-group comparisons are real and the aggregate is misleading. As Tuna puts it:

The Simpson's Paradox in unemployment rates by education level is but the latest example. At a glance, the unemployment rate suggests that U.S. workers are faring better in this recession than during the recession of the early 1980s. But workers at each education level are worse off . . .

This discussion follows several examples where, as the experts put it, "The aggregate number really is meaningless. . . . You can't just look at the overall rate. . . ."

Here's the problem. Education categories now do not represent the same slices of the population that they did in 1976. A larger proportion of the population are college graduates (as is noted in the linked news article), and thus the comparison of college grads (or any other education category) from 1982 to the college grads today is not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. Being a college grad today is less exclusive than it was back then.

In this sense, the unemployment example is different in a key way from the other Simpson's paradox examples in the news article. In those other examples, the within-group comparison is clean, while the aggregate comparison is misleading. In the unemployment example, it's the aggregate that has a cleaner interpretation, while the within-group comparisons are a bit of a mess.

As a statistician and statistical educator, I think we have to be very careful about implying that the complicated analysis is always better. In this example, the complicated analysis can mislead! It's still good to know about Simpson's paradox, to understand how the within-group and aggregate comparisons can differ--but I think it's highly misleading in this case to imply that the aggregate comparison is wrong in some way. It's more of a problem of groups changing their meaning over time.

in reference to:

"When Combined Data Reveal the Flaw of Averages In a Statistical Anomaly Dubbed Simpson's Paradox, Aggregated Numbers Obscure Trends in Job Market, Medicine and Baseball"
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970744553071829.html (view on Google Sidewiki)