User talk:Steven J. Koch
Ramalldf 01:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT): Kocher, was there any reason that you decided to use blogger for your openscience blogs and not the OWW blogs? I was just curious because I'm considering starting a science blog that would have journal article reviews and other shit, but I wanted to doublecheck that there wasn't anything wrong with them that I didn't know about that would make me wish that I had used blogger instead (the pages look kind of boring, but if I could modify it with pictures or color preferences or something, I'd prefer to use that instead of blogger) .
- Steve Koch 22:58, 23 October 2009 (EDT): No reason, just a rash decision. I don't like Blogger all that much, so I'd say give OWW a whirl. Cameron Neylon has a famous blog on there "Science in the Open." Bill Flanagan can get you set up with a blog. Plus there're a lot of plans for improving and adding features to OWW, so I think it will only get better. So, given that you're already leaning that way, I'd say definitely go with OWW!
- Anthony Salvagno 23:00, 24 October 2009 (EDT): I have to add that I've found that blogger is really customizable, you just have to know what you are doing. I add images and stuff all the time and I can post from my phone via SMS text. I don't know if OWW has that capability, but it may be worth checking into. Bill will probably add that if you ask him cause he is awesome like that.
- Ramalldf 20:05, 30 October 2009 (EDT):Yeah, I think that I will do that, thanks for the advice!
Andy Maloney 21:33, 19 July 2009 (EDT): So when we submit the abstracts, they say to differentiate between the "point of contact" and the presenter. Is the point of contact you and then I'm the presenter?
- Steve Koch 22:23, 19 July 2009 (EDT): More often than not, I think I've seen PIs as the "corresponding author." This makes a bit of sense, since the PI's contact info is probably going to remain valid for the longest time period. However, when we submit papers for peer-review, I think we should list both the lead and the PI (me) as the corresponding author, since it's more likely you (the student or postdoc) will know the answer to the question. In this case, since it's a conference abstract and only allows for one corresponding author, I think you should list yourself as POC. I'm guessing Susan's opinion would be different, so just be prepared for that. Thanks for looking into this.
It hurts that I wasn't included in this. Anyways. If you want to get into shape for the run for the zoo, maybe I could help. I need to build up some stamina and need to get to working out cardiovascularly. Can we collaborate somehow? Maybe with a competition or direct workout alliance?---Ant (forgot to sign)
- Steve Koch 00:02, 6 April 2009 (EDT): You're kidding, right? I hope so, and in any case, it's not too late to include you. I basically haven't started yet. We didn't think you needed any more of the challenge. I'll put a note on the UWLC2 page.
no, thank YOU
I love the idea of using a wiki. Even if it is used to post photos of eyes and talk about the squiggly dots, which I have yet to notice, but I will make a point of it.--Bradley A. Knockel 10:06, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Have you thought of a reason for that possible weighting factor that you suggested may be missing in my chisquare fit? I looked at the article about Poisson distribution on wikipedia and I found what you may have been thinking. The standard deviation of a Poisson distribution with a mean is . I don't think this has much to do with the uncertainty of a count. If I were to include an uncertainty in count, that uncertainty would have more to do with how fast our apparatus could react to an event, I think. If the equipment can only count reliably as fast as x counts per millisecond, the uncertainty would rise with an increase in count number, as the , but it would also increase with a decrease in bin size (dwell time).
I might analyze how this kind of error would effect data. It might also make a good experiment if there was some way to get the detector to detect things that happen a an adjustable constant rate rather than an average rate.
Where the maybe should have come in my analysis was in that final plot. I used the error in my fits as error bars for the s. No, I did it right, the error bars are estimation of how uncertain the measurement (or calculation) of . No, the error bars are probably wrong, and the correct way to calculate it is the way you mentioned Dr. Gold taught. I should have paid more attention to Dr. Gold's lectures, I doubt I have notes on how he calculated the uncertainty of a chi-square fit.
I will definitely have to analyze how close using the average of the data as gets to the calculated by a chi-square fit, since as both you, Bradley, and the world has pointed out, is the average of a Poisson distro. It looks like the Poisson distribution has another way to fit it not based on chi-square but still based on maximum likelihood, from the looks of the wiki article.
Looks like I have plenty to write about. --Tomas A. Mondragon 18:50, 25 October 2007 (CDT)
Flow cells for electromagnetic steering of microtubules labeled with magnetic microspheres
We have the similar idea now. could you give me the detail of the protocol? thanks!