Statistically Insignificant

For this problem I used Dynamic programming for the first time. We have a data set with 80 rows and 80 columns with seemingly random integers. The problem is to find the path from the leftmost column to the rightmost column with the smallest sum. I went through the cells from the topleft to the bottomright columnwise. In a new matrix, s, I wrote down the sum for the minimal path to the corresponding point in the original data matrix, m. The first column of s is the same as the first column m. In the second column, I write down the minimum of a group of points that include all the possible ways of getting to that point. so for the point in the ith row and the jth column I have to find the minimum of s[i,j-1] #getting to ij from above s[i-1,j] #getting to ij from the left s[i+1,j] #getting to ij from below and add it to m[i,j] and put that value in s[i,j] So s ends up being the sum of the shortest path to the corresponding point in m. The trick here is that the first two points of the three are computed but the third is not. I need to find the s value for the point before its regular order. This caused my algorithm to be a bit inefficient. It did work and in less than .3 seconds on my computer. Anyway, that is my first real application of Dynamic Programming.

Justice Scalia's discussion of why we don't need the Voting Rights Act's pre-clearance provision. I think he can speak for himself so Ill quote the transcript at length and only make a brief comment at the end. JUSTICE SCALIA: ... This Court doesn't like to get involved in -- in racial questions such as this one. It's something that can be left -- left to Congress. The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term. Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much Official - Subject to Final Review the same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it. That's the -- that's the concern that those of us who -- who have some questions about this statute have. It's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose -- they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future? So he makes a few points 1) He doesn't like laws that are about race. 2) He doesn't think the congress *really* liked it when they voted for it unanimously. 3) He doesn't think ability to vote is a good reason.

Using empty square brackets help populate matrices and lists see: http://rmazing.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/the-magic-empty-bracket/

Why are fires bigger? Why are there fewer fires? Global warming effects? changes in fire fighting? Changes in proportion counted?

This creates a very nice diagram as shown: To be completely accurate the yellow slice should not be there as well as two blue bits. But it is very close. I think this gives the main idea a venn diagram should. fn1: I used to call these Sven diagrams. Dunno where I got that idea.

///PUT YOUR PROCESSING SKETCH HERE!! int cx= 200; int cy= 200; void setup(){ size(800,500); background(#CBCFCA); stroke(1); noFill(); rect(1,1,799,499); stroke(#363636,23); } void draw(){ rect(mouseX,mouseY,cx,cy); noFill(); stroke(mouseX,23); } void mouseClicked(){ cx=mouseX; cy=mouseY; }

But this gives the wrong answer and I can't figure out why. Is there a floating point error in with the inequalities? I am stumped.