text:
Will Streaming Overtake File-Sharing & Downloads?
Elliot Van Buskirk at Evolver.fm points to the latest numbers released by the NPD Group, which suggest that streaming music is growing faster than music downloading in the United States. The interesting part of their findings is that they back up the contention that the streaming is a double-edged sword.
On one hand, it pushes fans to stream music instead of file sharing it. A good thing. Yet, on the other, it also suffices the appetite of fans that would've otherwise bought legal downloads. Put differently, the record industry won't pull fans away from the Pirate Bay without deterring them from iTunes too.
This is the dilemma. Creating a music experience that's better than piracy also means that it would have to be better than buying it too. Since, at least at this point, streaming doesn't pay more than downloads; the incentives for the record industry to promote the development of a robust streaming sector aren't there.
It's like the early days of iTunes. Labels understood that they needed to endorse a reliable method for fans to obtain single downloads, but they also needed to maintain their relationship with big-box retailers—the bread and butter of music sales. They had to give fans what they wanted without seriously damaging store traffic. Now, they're running into the problem of sustaining digital downloads as a business model while still promoting the growth of the emergent ecology of music services online, because they can't afford to cannibalize the digital album market.
It makes you wonder. Is the record industry readily embracing services that lead fans to convert from file sharing to legal means? Of course, they are. It's why we have some of the amazing services that we have available. However, it doesn't seem like the sites are at their full potential. If the services were, they'd be both better than downloading for free and going into a store and buying it, let alone, the cold experience of getting music on iTunes. Fix the file sharing problem, through rapid innovation, and you break the current business model, without getting a new one. That seems to be where things are at now. We know how to fix the record industry, on some level, it's just that doing so would actually break it… again.
Image Credit: Toothpaste For Dinner.
Synchblog on 11/12/2010 in Major Labels | Permalink | Comments (3)
Jaclyn Ranere says:
We also need the streaming services to be better at marketing themselves. I started thinking about streaming overtaking downloads in relation to the holiday season – and wrote about it here: http://www.dailyrindblog.com/?p=1617
twitter.com/conradbuck says:
Reality is streaming will of course grow faster than download simply due to being a new way to access content.
Secondly, does the the consumer really care about streaming? We all just want content faster and more easily accessible across all devices (without having to copy files), regardless of the delivery method. The sooner services leverage this instead of simply chanting "streaming" then perhaps the uptake will expand. Apple did it with iTunes and iPods. Before Apple took over as the dominant digital music distributor everyone was up in arms about DRM on MP3s. Does anyone complain anymore if they have iTunes and a Apple device? No, because Apple don't make it an issue, its seamlessly built into the experience. Of course DRM is still there.
No business gains customers simply by saying "hey we have a cloud," the same goes for streaming.
The only way streaming content will really take off is if
a. mobile networks improve not only their coverage but connectivity, sustainability of connections, and download speeds
b. cost of data goes down and is not charged as a "premium" or "luxury"
c. content across all devices actually happens. There is still way to much restricted access even on paid content (or multi device sharing is too complicated) i.e. rentals on Apple TV, can't then watch on iPhone or laptop
d. streaming and download work together – download is retained for higher quality files (HD, extra's, album and track apps) with streaming for fast anywhere access.
The only challenge I see with streaming is that the entire streaming business model really does stamp on the cost of owning content and the premium content owners charged for actually owning a physical file of the content. Revenue from streaming music is not sustainable and yes, I know every artist can apparently make money elsewhere, however in the grand scheme of things every industry has to have predictable quarter after quarter income rather than sporadic "crowd sourced" payroll sources. If we could all make money off of side products then why do we still pay money for newspapers and magazines that are full of advertising? Why do we still pay money for books when authors can give paid lectures? why do we pay for films at cinemas when we actually spend more on popcorn?
Chiwuzie Sunday says:
…Because I believe music fans are much more smarter than that. Charging for access to 'the same songs' you can access almost anywhere on the internet is just not cool.
But I do believe that streaming could work if it is coupled with downloads.


Looks like we got some rain after all. And some lightning.
We woke up this morning with the power company asking if they could get into the north pasture to fix the pole that had broken off at the ground. (They had started to go into the pasture on their own, but Judah wasn't OK with that, so they came to us for safe passage.) After a bit of sheep and dog shuffling, we let the guys in with the big trucks to replace our light pole.
They show up with all the equipment you could want - huge auger, chain saws, cherry pickers, and who knows what else. They'll have this fixed in a jiffy.
The guys did a great job, and even left the brushy branches behind for the sheep to enjoy. Thank you very munch!


These deviled eggs are given a local flair with the addition of flaky smoked fish.
Prepare eggs (hard boil, cool and peel) and slice in half lengthwise. Remove yolks and place in medium bowl. Place whites on a large serving platter.
In bowl with yolks, add mayonnaise, mustard, salt, pepper and chile powder. Mash together well until desired consistency.
Depending on how you like your filling, you may want to add more of either seasonings or mayonnaise/ mustard.
Pipe the filling into the egg whites and sprinkle with smoked salt. Top with a good sized piece of smoked mullet and serve!


text:
NCAAMNCAAM
BracketologyBracketology
Dick VitaleDick Vitale
Ivy League Digital NetworkILDN
Tiernan: Seed-by-seed NCAA Tournament matchups
4883dPeter Tiernan
Man Utd's Chong, Real's Rodrygo among emerging talents at ICC
21hNick Miller
23hNick Wagoner
23hTim McManus
Seed-by-seed matchups in NCAA Tournament
Peter Tiernan
A top seed has never lost to a No. 16 seed in the history of the men's NCAA Tournament. But what about the other seed matchups?
ROUND 1 | ROUND 2 | SWEET 16
ELITE EIGHT | FINAL FOUR | CHAMPIONSHIP
1 vs. 16 | 84-0, 1.000
There's only one slam dunk in the men's tournament: Top seeds have never lost to 16-seeds in the opening round. An upset's bound to happen one of these years, but it never will be worth predicting.
Near misses: Purdue 73, Western Carolina 71 (1996). Michigan State 75, Murray State 71 OT (1990). Oklahoma 72, East Tennessee State 71 (1989). Georgetown 50, Princeton 49 (1989). (Tiger partisans still insist Alonzo Mourning's last-second block was a foul.)
Once every five years or so, a 15-seed manages to knock off a 2-seed. The last victim was Iowa State … five tourneys ago. The time might be right for another upset, but don't pencil it into your bracket.
Upset watch: All the 15-seed Cinderellas came into the tourney winning nine of their last 10 games and at least three in a row. They all have regular-season records no higher than .800, indicating that they've played their share of tough teams. And they all got balanced scoring from the back- and frontcourt, averaging between 37 percent and 58 percent of their scoring from guards. No. 15 seeds satisfying these three attributes are 4-8 against their No. 2 seed opponents. The rest of the No. 15 seeds are 0-72.
Recent upsets: Hampton over Iowa State, 2001. Coppin State over South Carolina in 1997. Santa Clara over Arizona, 1993. Richmond over Syracuse, 1991.
3 vs. 14 | 70-14, 0.833
Two out of every three tourneys are bad news for 3-seeds. Kansas can vouch for that. No. 3 seeds are three-and-a-half times more prone to first-round upsets than 2-seeds. Heck, they're less likely to win one game in the tourney than the top seeds are to win two. With all due respect to Bucknell, however, it still doesn't make any sense to pick 3-seeds to lose. Too many have won championships to eliminate them early.
Upset watch: No. 14 seeds most likely to spring upsets are high-scoring squads, averaging more than 77 points a game. They're 11-22 (.333) while their lower scoring counterparts are just 3-48 (.058). The telltale sign of a 3-seed victim is a tight margin of victory. No. 3 seeds that beat opponents by an average of less than 12 points are five times more prone to upsets (12 losses in 45 tries for a 26.7 percent upset rate) than 3-seeds that win by a comfortable margin (only 2 losses in 39 tries for a 5.1% upset rate).
Recent upsets: Bucknell over Kansas, 2005. Weber State over North Carolina, 1999. Richmond over South Carolina, 1998.
No. 4 seeds perform almost as solidly as No. 3 seeds -- and far better than 5-seeds. With nearly 80 percent of 4s advancing to round two and less than one per tourney getting upset, it's too risky to pick a 13-seed in round one.
Upset watch: The biggest indicator of a 13-seed Cinderella is frontcourt scoring. No. 13 seeds that get between 53 and 63 percent of their points from forwards and centers -- like Vermont last year -- are 10-13 (.434). That's almost four times better than more guard-oriented squads (7-54, .115). Ironically, 4-seeds are more apt to be victimized when they can't neutralize 13-seed frontcourts with solid backcourt scoring punch; 4s that get less than half their scoring from guards are upset 28 percent of the time (14 of 50 games); those with better backcourt scoring have only been upset three times in 34 matchups.
Recent upsets: Vermont over Syracuse, 2005. Tulsa over Dayton, 2003. UNC Wilmington over USC, 2002.
The 5 vs. 12 matchup marks the point in round one when it no longer pays to give higher seeds a free pass in your bracket. Over the last five years, 5-seeds are just 11-9 against their lower-seeded opponent. And when you consider that 12-seeds are over .500 in round two, it isn't wise to dismiss them without first considering the factors that contribute to their opening round success.
Upset watch: The two factors that matter most in identifying 12-seed spoilers are team experience and frontcourt scoring. Twelfth-seeded teams that have been to the tourney the previous year are 13-11 (.542) against 5-seeds; all others are 14-46 (.200). More significantly, 12-seeds that get 55 to 75 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers are 18-12 (.667); the rest are 8-44 (.154) -- more than four times worse.
Recent upsets: UW-Milwaukee over Alabama, 2005. Manhattan over Florida, 2004. Pacific over Providence, 2004.
The odds are better that a 6-seed will advance to round two than a 5-seed, but that doesn't mean you automatically should ink them into your bracket. Sure, 6-seeds are 14-6 in the last five tourneys, and they're notorious 3-seed killers in round two. Still, tourney pool success usually comes from accurately identifying the 11- and 12-seed surprises.
Upset watch: Offensive punch and victory margin are the two keys to success for 11-seeds. Teams that score more than 75 points a game and beat their opponents by at least six points on average are 16-15 (.516). All other 11-seeds are three times worse at 9-44 (.170). Sixth-seeded upset victims tend to be high scoring and riding false momentum; 6-seeds that average more than 75 points a game and have won at least seven of their last 10 games are just 12-14 (.462) in round one; the rest are 47-11 (.810).
Recent upsets: Alabama-Birmingham over LSU, 2005. Central Michigan over Creighton, 2003. Southern Illinois over Texas Tech, 2002. Wyoming over Gonzaga, 2002.
As close as these seeds are, it's surprising that 7-seeds have been so dominant in the matchup. While No. 7 seeds win more than 60 percent of the time, 10-seeds still win one or two games per tourney. The trick is to figure out the right ones to advance, as picking wrong one can make this a very damaging matchup. Anyone who picked Creighton over West Virginia last year can attest to that.
Upset watch: Surprisingly, inexperience tends to level the playing field in the 7 vs. 10 matchup. Tenth-seeded teams that have gone to the Dance less than three years in a row with coaches who've made fewer than five tourney trips are 21-20 (.512); all other 10-seeds are 12-31 (.279). The most victimized 7-seeds lack offensive punch and backcourt scoring. Squads that score fewer than 76 points a game and get less than half their points from guards are just 7-16 (.304); the rest of the seven seeds are 44-17 (.721).
Recent upsets: North Carolina State over Charlotte, 2005. Nevada over Michigan State, 2004. Auburn over St. Joseph's, 2003. Arizona State over Memphis, 2003.
8 vs. 9 | 38-46, 0.452
The 8 vs. 9 matchup is the closest thing to a "pick-'em" contest in the opening round. In fact, it's the only matchup in which the lower-seeded team prevails more often. At first blush, it would seem that favoring nine seeds is the way to go, but their abysmal 3-43 record against top seeds in round two is a pretty significant deterrent. Of course, nobody's going to predict either of these seeds to knock off a top seed … so the value of correctly predicting this matchup is usually restricted to four points in the first round.
Toss-up tips: The key performance indicator for this matchup is team experience and victory margin. 8-seeds that have been to the tourney the previous year are 26-21 (.553); those that haven't are 12-25 (.324). On the other hand, 9-seeds with fewer than three straight tourney trips that beat their opponents by an average of less than seven points are 10-16 (.385); the rest are 36-22 (.621).
Round two is made up of four gateway matchups to the Sweet 16. The 1 vs. 8 and 9 vs. 16 bracket is easily the most predictable. Top seeds advance an astounding 86 percent of the time. No. 8 and 9 seeds pull off upsets a little more often than every other tourney, but not so often that it's worth picking them in your bracket. If you want to test this theory, you're much better off picking an eight rather than a 9-seed upset.
1 vs. 8 | 29-9, 0.763
Unlike 9-seeds, 8-seeds do offer up a measure of resistance against top seeds in round two. In eight of the last 21 tourneys, at least one 8-seed has made it to the Sweet 16 (two made it in 2000 -- North Carolina and Wisconsin). What are the characteristics of these eighth-seeded giant killers? They're experienced, having gone to the tourney the previous year, and they're battle-tested, with an average victory margin less than six points. No. 8 seeds satisfying these conditions are 7-8 (.467); all the rest are 2-21 (.087). The most likely 1-seed victims are inexperienced and offensively challenged. Top seeds that didn't go to the Dance the year before and that score fewer than 78 points a game are just 12-7 (.632), while their counterparts are 18-2 (.900).
Recent upsets: Alabama over Stanford, 2004. UCLA over Cincinnati, 2002. North Carolina over Stanford, 2000. Wisconsin over Arizona, 2000.
Can you say "lambs to slaughter"? When you consider that there are fewer 9-seeds advancing to the Sweet 16 than 15-seeds upsetting 2-seeds in round one, you're talking about an extreme pushover performance. It would be beyond foolish to advance a 9-seed in your bracket, but if you happen to get in a debate over which 9-seed is most likely to knock off a top seed, pick a high-scoring inexperienced team that beats its opponents by a comfortable margin. No. 9 seeds that didn't go to the tourney the year before, score more than 73 points and win by more than seven points a game are 3-10; the rest are a big, fat 0-33.
Recent upsets: Alabama-Birmingham over Kentucky, 2004. Boston College over North Carolina, 1994. UTEP over Kansas, 1992.
If you look no further than round two, this is the most difficult of the Sweet 16 gateway brackets to predict. But the pressure is relieved by the fact that anyone coming out of this bracket plays the top seed in round three, and consistently takes it on the chin (losing 80% of the time). Still, getting this bracket right helps you gain early-round points that might make the difference in a tight office pool. The problem is, no other bracket has 3-seeds so evenly matched. The No. 4, 5 and 12 seeds all have records above .500 (and below .600) in round two.
While 4-seeds have held the advantage in this matchup since 1985, 5-seeds have actually won five of the last six games. Bench play and scoring offense are the two keys to determine who will prevail. 4-seeds that get at least 18 percent of their scoring from the bench are 20-9 (.690); those that rely more on starters are 5-11 (.312). No. 4 seeds that score more than 77 points a game are 17-9 (.654), while less prolific squads are 8-11 (.421). The same rule is a key indicator of 5-seed success. Those teams that average more than 77 points per game are 12-8 (.600); the rest are 8-17 (.320).
Recent matchups: Louisville (4) over Georgia Tech (5), 2005. Villanova (5) over Florida (4), 2005. Syracuse (5) over Maryland (4), 2004. Illinois (5) over Cincinnati (4), 2004.
This matchup is closer than the disparity in seed positions indicates. The most reliable 4-seeds come from the Big Six conferences and have coaches with at least four years of tourney experience. They're 10-4 (.714), while other 4-seeds are 2-8 (.200). The most surprising 12-seeds also come from the Big Six or are mid-majors with less than nine wins in their last ten games. They're 9-4 (.692); other 12-seeds are 1-8 (.111).
Recent upsets: UW-Milwaukee over Boston College, 2005. Butler over Louisville, 2003.
Unlike 4-seeds, five seeds have little trouble in their Cinderella mismatch against 13-seeds. There's little reason to pick against them, particularly if their backcourt shoulders more than 38 percent of the scoring load. Guard-dominant 5-seeds have never lost in this matchup (9-0), while more frontcourt-oriented 5-seeds have struggled (1-2, .333).
Upsets: Oklahoma over Charlotte, 1999. Richmond over Georgia Tech, 1988.
12 vs. 13 | 4-1, 0.800
The longshot seeds in this bracket have squared off against each other more often than any other longshot pairing (9 vs. 16, 10 vs. 15, 11 vs. 14) in the second round. Surprisingly, 12-seeds treat 13-seeds like pushovers, prevailing 80 percent of the time. What did the one 13-seed victor have that the victims didn't? Team experience. Valparaiso had been to the tourney three straight years when it knocked off Florida State in 1998. The four 13-seed losers had not been to the previous year's tourney.
Matchup history: Gonzaga (12) beat Indiana State (13), 2001. Valparaiso (13) beat Florida State (12), 1998. George Washington (12) over Southern University (13), 1993. New Mexico State (12) over Southwest Louisiana (13), 1992. Eastern Michigan (12) over Penn State (13), 1991.
The 3 vs. 6, 11 vs. 14 bracket is perhaps the most difficult pairing to figure out in the second round. That's mainly because sixth-seeded teams are such surprising performers. While fewer 6-seeds make it to round two than 3s (59 to 70), they have a slightly better win percentage than their higher-seeded foes in the second round. For that matter, they also win with greater regularity than four and 5-seeds. Eleventh-seeded teams aren't slouches either. In fact, odds are that the four teams advancing from this bracket pairing will be composed of more No. 6, 11 or 14 seeds than 3-seeds.
This is the most hotly contested matchup of the second round. It's also probably the one bracket pool players ponder the longest, considering that one and 2-seeds usually get automatic passes to the Sweet 16, and the 4 vs. 5 game doesn't warrant much scrutiny since winners are served up to top seeds in round three anyway. Coaching inexperience actually helps 6-seeds in this matchup. Sixth-seeded teams with coaches who've been to the Dance fewer than six times are 15-7 (.682). That compares well to a 9-17 (.346) record for sixes with more veteran coaches. Meanwhile, less experienced 3-seeds hold serve better than tourney-grizzled squads. Third-seeded teams who've been to the Dance fewer than five times in a row are 19-13 (.594); the rest are 5-11 (.312).
Recent upsets: Texas Tech over Gonzaga, 2005. Utah over Oklahoma, 2005. Vanderbilt over North Carolina State, 2004.
It isn't exactly a "gimme" when 3-seeds square off against 11-seeds in round two. And the credit, or blame in this case, lies mostly with the 3-seeds. There is no clear performance indicator to explain why 11-seeds beat 3s. But there are two tell-tale signs of faltering 3-seeds: Bench play and team experience. No. 3 seeds with thin benches (no more than 20 percent of their scoring from nonstarters) are 7-7; deeper 3s are undefeated at 8-0. No. 3 seeds that either didn't go to the tourney the previous year or are tourney fixtures (more than six straight appearances) are 8-0; all others are 7-7.
Recent upsets: Southern Illinois over Georgia, 2002. Temple over Florida, 2001. Loyola- Marymount over Michigan, 1990.
6 vs. 14 | 9-2, 0.818
If you advanced a 14-seed into the second round, you'd be smart to eliminate them in round two. But then again, logic would've dictated that you never advance a 14-seed in the first place. So if you're still feeling reckless with this matchup, take the 14-seeds that beat their opponents by more than 12 points per game. They're 2-0 against 6-seeds; the rest of the 14-seeds are 0-9.
Recent upsets: Tennessee-Chattanooga over Illinois, 1997. Cleveland State over St. Joseph's, 1986.
Anyone who's contemplating an 11 vs. 14 matchup in their bracket probably isn't reading this article to begin with and doesn't care that 11-seeds have never lost to 14-seeds in the second round. Washington beat Richmond in 1998, Connecticut handled Xavier in 1991 and Minnesota stopped Siena in 1989.
By all rights, the 2 vs. 7 and 10 vs. 15 bracket should be a no-brainer, and most bracket pool players pick it that way, giving 2-seeds an automatic pass to the Sweet 16. But 2-seeds aren't nearly as reliable as top seeds in advancing beyond the second round. On average, one or two 7- or 10-seeds per tourney will take the place of 2-seeds. You can go the safe route, cross your fingers and advance all the 2-seeds. Or you can observe the telltale signs of 7- and 10-seed Cinderellas and go out on limb.
Despite being the closer competitor by seed position, 7-seeds are surprisingly more prone to getting beat by two seeds than 10-seeds are. The 7-seeds that offer the stiffest resistance are tourney-tested, having been to the previous year's Dance and have beaten their opponents by more than six points a game. These 7-seeds are a respectable 9-10 (.474); others are 4-27 (.129).
Recent upsets: West Virginia over Wake Forest, 2005. Xavier over Mississippi State, 2004. Michigan State over Florida, 2003.
Amazingly, 10-seeds nearly break even with two seeds in the second round. Of course, the odds of a 10-seed winning its first two games are still just 19 percent, so it's not worth getting too excited about their propensity to topple two seeds. That said, the 10-seeds with the best odds of reaching the Sweet 16 come from the Big Six conferences (the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 or SEC). They're 8-4 (.667), while mid-major 10-seeds are half as reliable at 6-12 (.333).
Recent upsets: North Carolina State over Connecticut, 2005. Nevada over Gonzaga, 2004. Auburn over Wake Forest, 2003.
A 7-seed has only played a 15-seed once in round two. In 1993, No. 7 Temple beat 15-seed Santa Clara.
10 vs. 15 | 3-0. 1.000
No. 10 seeds have pushed their round two record over .500 by beating 15-seeds in all three of their matchups. Georgetown beat Hampton in 2001, Texas beat Coppin State in 1997 and Temple handled Richmond.
You wouldn't go too far wrong by automatically advancing 1-seeds to the Elite Eight. More top seeds advance to the Elite Eight than 2-seeds get to the Sweet 16 or 5-seeds win in round one! Heck, more 1-seeds get to the Elite Eight than 2- or 3-seeds … combined. Nearly 70 percent of top seeds -- almost three per tourney -- win their first three games. The only other seeds worth considering in this bracket are No. 4, 5 and 8 seeds. They've graduated 24 teams -- more than one per tourney -- to the fourth round. The three lower seeds (9, 12 and 13) have only advanced to the Elite Eight twice.
On the top seed side of the Sweet 16 bracket, the most frequent matchup pits the two highest seeds against each other. No. 1 and 4 seeds are involved in 36 percent of the games, with top seeds winning 70 percent of the time. That might sound like a lock, but it's the worst performance by a 1-seed in any of its matchups over the first three rounds. Top seeds are more reliable when they boast a preseason All-American on a squad that went to the tourney the previous year. These teams are 17-4 (.810); inexperienced and "starless" top seeds are just 4-5 (.444). No. 4 seeds thrive when they beat their foes by more than 10 points per game. They're an even .500 at 6-6; less dominant 4-seeds are 3-15 (.167).
Recent matchups: Louisville (4) over Washington (1), 2005. St. Joseph's (1) over Wake Forest (4), 2004. Kansas (1) over Illinois (4), 2002. Maryland (1) over Kentucky (4), 2002.
Given their seed proximity, you'd think that 5-seeds would do nearly as well against top seeds as 4-seeds. Instead, they tend to be an easy mark for the big boys, pulling upsets less often than 8-seeds do against 1-seeds in the second round. What distinguishes the five top seeds that get upset? Interestingly, it's the tourney fixtures that tend to fare worse in this matchup, maybe because they're complacent. No. 1 seeds that have been to the tourney at least five times are just 12-4 (.750); the less experienced top seeds are 10-1 (.909). On the other hand, 5-seed Cinderellas get more than 20 percent of their scoring from the bench and are from the Big Six conferences. These teams are 4-9 (.308); their counterparts are 1-13 (.071).
Recent matchups: Michigan State (5) over Duke (1), 2005. North Carolina (1) over Villanova (5), 2005. Duke (1) over Illinois (5), 2004.
Given how dominant 1-seeds are in the first three rounds of the tourney, it's not surprising that they're a perfect 13-0 against 12-seeds. It is a little eye-opening, however, that they handle their underdog opponents so easily. No. 1 seeds have beaten 12-seeds by an average of 13.1 points, with only four of the 13 games getting settled by single digits. Ball State came the closest to springing an upset in 1990 when the Cardinals lost to UNLV 69-67, which went on to massacre Duke in the finals 103-73.
Recent matchups: Illinois over UW-Milwaukee, 2005. Oklahoma over Butler, 2003. Michigan State over Gonzaga, 2001.
In the two Sweet 16 matchups between these seeds, the top seed has held serve against its long-shot opponent. Temple dispatched Dick Tarrant's pesky Richmond Spiders in 1988, and Michigan State took care of Oklahoma in 1999.
4 vs. 8 | 2-3, 0.400
Once every five years or so, a No. 4 and 8 seed go head-to-head in the Sweet 16. The Cinderella 8-seeds are tough teams that keep the score low and close, averaging less than 80 points a game and winning by no more than eight points. Teams with these qualities are 3-0. The other two 8-seeds have fallen to their fourth-seeded foes.
Recent matchups: North Carolina (8) over Tennessee (4), 2000. Wisconsin (8) over LSU (4), 2000. Syracuse (4) over Georgia (8), 1996.
The only two times these seeds have met in the Sweet 16, the favored 4-seeds have prevailed. Bill Self's Kansas Jayhawks beat Mike Anderson's UAB Blazers in 2004, while Cincinnati defeated the UTEP Miners in 1992.
No. 8 seeds have upset 5-seeds both times that they've squared off against each other. Mark Gottfried and his Alabama Crimson Tide were the most recent school to do the trick, toppling Jim Boeheim's defending champion Orange in 2004. And the first upset came in the very first year of the modern 64-team era, when Rollie Massimino masterminded an upset of Lefty Driesell's Maryland Terps on his was to the 1985 championship.
The 1994 Boston College squad, coached by Jim O'Brien, has the distinction of being the only 9-seed to reach the Elite Eight. It achieved the feat by knocking off Bobby Knight's fifth-seeded Hoosiers.
In 2002, Quin Snyder's Missouri Tigers upset Steve Lavin's UCLA Bruins in the only 8 vs. 12 matchup of the modern tourney era.
The only matchup pitting these seeds against each other occurred in 1998 when Jim Harrick's Rhode Island Rams beat Cinderella Valparaiso, led by coach Homer Drew and his son, guard Bryce Drew.
On the 2-seed side of the Sweet 16 bracket, the competition is much more balanced than its counterpart, where top seeds advance nearly 70 percent of the time. While 2-seeds are the most common winners, claiming 45 percent of the Elite Eight positions, the likelihood is that some other seed will advance. No. 3 and 6 seeds prevail in 37 percent of the matchups. In the other bracket, the four and five seeds only get to the quarterfinals 21 percent of the time. Even the No. 7, 10 and 11 seeds get into the act, advancing 15 teams, nearly twice as many as the No. 8, 9 and 12 seeds in the other bracket. On the other hand, 2-seeds are the only seed on this side of the Sweet 16 bracket with a winning record. Go figure. All this makes for one big bout of bracket-picking anguish.
Of all the matchups with a single seed position difference in the first three rounds (8 vs. 9, 4 vs. 5, 6 vs. 7 and 12 vs. 13), this one is the second-most lopsided, behind only 12 vs. 13 (4-1). It gets more lopsided if you concentrate only on 2-seeds that get imbalanced scoring, more than 60 percent of their points from either the backcourt or frontcourt. These squads are 11-2 (.846); the more balanced-scoring two seeds are just 4-7 (.364). If your heart is set on picking a 3-seed, go with one that has a coach who isn't a rookie to the tourney but has fewer than 10 trips to the Dance. These 3-seeds are 7-4 (.636), while their counterparts are 2-11 (.154).
Recent matchups: Arizona (3) over Oklahoma State (2), 2005. Oklahoma State (2) over Pittsburgh (3), 2004. Marquette (3) over Pittsburgh (2), 2003. Kansas (2) over Duke (3), 2003..
This matchup happens almost as frequently as the 2 vs. 3 matchup, a testament to the resilience of 6-seeds in the first two rounds. Unfortunately, that resiliency doesn't seem to help them against 2-seeds. The 6-seeds that tend to escape defeat are inexperienced schools (less then three straight tourney trips) with solid frontcourts (more than 45 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers). Teams with these two qualities are 5-6 (.455); the rest of the six seeds are 0-10.
Recent matchups: (2) Kentucky over (6) Utah, 2005. (2) Connecticut over (6) Vanderbilt, 2004. (2) Oregon over (6) Texas, 2002.
This matchup comes around about once every three years and is nearly always won by the 2-seed. The only 11-seed triumph came way back in 1986, the second year of the modern tourney era, when Dale Brown's LSU Tigers knocked off Georgia Tech. What did LSU have that the other 11-seeds didn't? Tourney experience. They're the only 11-seed to square off with a 2-seed that had been to the tourney more than two years in a row. Want a weird little factoid to impress your buddies (and who doesn't)? UConn has been in the last three 2 vs. 11 matchups, twice as a 2-seed and once as the 11-seed.
Recent matchups: Connecticut (2) over Southern Illinois (11), 2002. Connecticut (2) over Washington (11), 1998. Duke (2) over Connecticut (11).
Four of the five 3 vs. 7 matchups happened in the first decade of the tourney. In the only recent game, seventh-seeded Xavier knocked off 3-seed Texas. All the winning 3-seeds had strong frontcourts that scored more than 60 percent of their team's points. The two 7-seed winners were tourney-tested, having been to the Dance at least three straight years.
Recent matchups: (7) Xavier over (3) Texas, 2004. (7) Temple over (3) Vanderbilt, 1993. (3) Florida State over (7) Western Kentucky, 1993.
Nearly every other tourney pits a 3-seed against an underdog 10-seed. The best guidance to the outcome of this matchup hinges on the team experience of the Cinderella. The three 10-seeds that are making a return trip to the Dance are undefeated; the seven that didn't go to the previous tourney are winless.
Recent matchups: (3) Georgia Tech over (10) Nevada, 2004. Syracuse (3) over Auburn (10), 2003. Kent State (10) over Pittsburgh (3), 2002.
This matchup has been a tale of two eras. No. 6 seeds won the first three games, and 7-seeds have won the next three. One dynamic has remained fairly consistent through all six head-to-head battles: The team that allows on average the fewest points per game has a solid 5-1 edge.
Recent matchups: (7) West Virginia over (6) Texas Tech, 2005. (7) Michigan State over (6) Maryland, 2003. (7) Tulsa over (6) Miami-Fla, 2000.
Since 2000, 6-seeds have asserted their dominance in what was once an even matchup. The telltale sign of a 6-seed winner is team experience. Schools that have been to the tourney more than five straight years are 4-0; the other two schools are 0-2. The mark of a 10-seed victor is scoring punch. Both 10-seeds that scored more than 78 points a game are 2-0, while their more offensively challenged counterparts are winless.
Recent matchups: (6) Wisconsin over (10) North Carolina State, 2005. (6) Purdue over (10) Gonzaga, 2000. (6) Temple over (10) Purdue, 1999. (10) Gonzaga over (6) Florida, 1999.
No. 7 seeds have had a rough time with 11-seeds in the Sweet 16. They've lost both times the two seeds have gone head to head, once in 1990 when offensive juggernaut Loyola-Marymount upset Alabama and again in 2001 when Temple beat Penn State.
The only 7 vs. 14 matchup of the modern tourney era came just one year after the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985. A Navy squad led by David Robinson held off Cleveland State.
In the only game pitting these two low seeds against each other, Pete Gillen's 10th-seeded Providence Friars avoided an upset at the hands of Tennessee-Chattanooga in 1997.
A funny thing happens on the way to the Elite Eight. The matchup the brackets were designed to yield -- the 1 vs. 2 battle -- happens only one-third of the time. The second most likely matchup, a 1 vs. 3 game, happens in only one of seven brackets. No. 1 seeds do their part, appearing in nearly 70 percent of the quarterfinal games. It's the other side of the bracket that's splintered. As for which seed will advance in this round, 1-seeds get to the Final Four almost as many times (36) as the No. 2, 3 and 4 seeds combined (37). And those top four seeds account for 87 percent of the Final Four combatants. So when you're slotting teams into your semifinal brackets, it wouldn't be farfetched for you to pick two 1-seeds and two of the next three seeds. Of course, the big question is which of those top-seeded teams should you choose. These matchup breakdowns should help.
More one seeds have their tourney run ended by two seeds in the Elite Eight than by any other opponent in any other round. Considering that only 12 one seeds lose in round two and 14 in the Sweet 16, this matchup is somewhat of a waterloo for top-seeded teams. Still, they manage to eke out a winning record against two seeds, mainly at the expense of inexperienced squads with coaches that lack tourney seasoning. Two seeds with fewer than four straight tourney trips and coaches who've been to the Dance less than four times are 0-12; the more tourney-tested two seeds are 13-3.
Recent matchups: (2) Oklahoma State over (1) St. Joseph's, 2004. (2) Kansas over (1) Arizona, 2003. (1) Kansas over (2) Oregon, 2002. (1) Maryland over (2) Connecticut, 2002.
As impressive as the performances of two seeds are against top seeds in the Elite Eight, three seeds do even better. This is the only matchup in the first four rounds of the tourney in which one seeds don't post a winning record. The one seeds that lose in this matchup tend to be sputtering heading into the tourney. Top seeds that have won less than nine of their last 10 pre-Tournament games are 1-4; those that have notched nine or 10 wins are 5-2. The telltale sign of a triumphant three seed is victory margin. Third-seeded teams that win by an average of less than 10 points are 0-4; the rest are 6-2.
Recent matchups: (1) Illinois over (3) Arizona, 2005. (3) Marquette over (1) Kentucky, 2003. (3) Syracuse over (1) Oklahoma, 2003.
When they're not struggling with two and three seeds, top seeds are 15-3 against the rest of the field, 9-1 if you back out their performance against six seeds. In this matchup, the difference between a top-seeded winner and loser is frontcourt scoring. The six top-seeded victors got at least 50 percent of their points from forwards and centers; the two losers leaned on their backcourt for more than 60% of their scoring. Both the sixth-seed squads that won (Michigan in 1992 and Providence in 1987) were high-scoring teams, averaging at least 78 points a game. The six-seed victims all scored fewer than 78 points per game.
Upsets: (6) Michigan over (1) Ohio State, 1992. (6) Providence over (1) Georgetown, 1987.
Top seeds have no trouble with seven seeds, but this matchup might be a curse for the favorites. None of the one seeds in this showdown have gone on to win the tourney. The seven seed that came closest to springing an upset was Xavier, which lost by just three points to Duke in 2004.
Matchups: Duke over Xavier, 2004. Texas over Michigan State, 2003. Michigan over Temple, 1993. Duke over Navy, 1986.
Top seeds have ended the Cinderella stories of three 10 seeds in the Elite Eight. The games have served as a good tune-up for the one seeds; two of the three victors -- Indiana in 1987 and UConn in 1999 -- have gone on to win the tourney.
Matchups: Connecticut over Gonzaga, 1999. North Carolina over Temple, 1991. Indiana over Louisiana State, 1987.
In what has to qualify as one of the greatest upsets of the modern tourney era, LSU upended top-seeded Kentucky 59-57 to become the only 11 seed to reach the Final Four. What did LSU have that the other two 11 seeds didn't (not that you'd ever pick an 11 seed to advance this far)? They were the only one of the three from a Big Six conference.
Matchups: (1) Michigan State over (11) Temple, 2001. (1) UNLV over (11) Loyola-Marymount, 1990. (11) LSU over (1) Kentucky, 1986.
About once every five years, a two seed plays a four seed in the Elite Eight. Considering that it hasn't happened since 1996, we're due for this matchup. The outcome of the game usually hinges on coaching experience. The coach with more Elite Eight appearances has won three of the four matchups. The only win by a coach with fewer quarterfinal trips occurred in 1996 when Boeheim's Orange upended Roy Williams' Jayhawks. Even then, Williams only had one more Elite Eight appearance than Boeheim, and he'd made 10 fewer trips to the tourney.
Matchups: (4) Syracuse over (2) Kansas, 1996. (4) Oklahoma State over (2) Massachusetts, 1995. (2) Arkansas over (4) Virginia, 1995. (2) Duke over (4) St. John's, 1991.
As close as these seeds are, you'd think there would be more than two games over the last 21 years. You'd also think that two seeds would do better. Five seeds have won both matchups, most recently last year when Michigan State upset Kentucky and in 1996 when Mississippi State beat Cincinnati.
Over the last 19 years, a two seed has squared off against an eight seed only once, when Connecticut held off Alabama in 2004. The other two 2 vs. 8 matchups happened in the first two years of the modern tourney era. Villanova is the only eight seed to come out on top against a two seed. The Wildcats knocked off North Carolina on their improbable run to the 1985 championship. What set Villanova apart from the other two eight seeds was that their coach, Rollie Massimino, had been to the Elite Eight before.
Matchups: (2) Connecticut over (8) Alabama, 2004. (2) Louisville over (8) Auburn, 1986. (8) Villanova over (2) North Carolina, 1985.
In 2002, No. 2 Oklahoma put an end to the longest tourney run by a 12 seed when the Sooners beat Big 12 rival Missouri.
On those rare occasions when a three seed goes up against a four seed in the Elite Eight, the older team in terms of class composition has won each time. All three winners -- Georgia Tech, Ohio State and Seton Hall -- had more juniors and seniors in their starting lineup than their opponents.
Matchups: (3) Georgia Tech over (4) Kansas, 2004. (4) Ohio State over (3) St. John's, 1999. (3) Seton Hall over (4) UNLV, 1989.
Three and five seeds have split their two games against each other in the quarterfinals. In 1989, No. 3 Michigan beat No. 5 Virginia on its way to the championship. In 2000, No. 5 Florida beat No. 3 Oklahoma State, advanced to the finals, then lost to Michigan State.
Three and eight seeds have met just once in the Elite Eight. In 1998, three-seed Stanford ended Rhode Island's longshot run.
The only Elite Eight matchup involving a nine seed occurred more than a decade ago, in 1994, when third-seeded Florida beat Boston College.
Once they slip by top seeds in the Sweet 16, four seeds are a pretty resilient bunch. In addition to going 3-4 against two and three seeds, they're a solid 5-1 against lower-seeded opponents. The only lower seed to win was Kansas in 1988 when the sixth-seeded Jayhawks and Danny Manning beat their rival No. 4 Kansas State and Mitch Richmond. In the other two matchups, No. 4 Georgia Tech vs. No. 6 Minnesota in 1990 and No. 4 Cincinnati versus No. 6 Memphis State in 1992, the higher seed held ground. In all three 4 vs. 6 matchups, the team that allowed the fewest points per game on average prevailed.
Last year saw the only 4 vs. 7 quarterfinal matchup in the 21 years of the 64-team era when four seed Louisville (actually a one or two seed in disguise) burst seven seed West Virginia's bubble.
It's been eight years since a four and 10 seed have squared off in the quarterfinals. In 1997, No. 4 Arizona knocked off Gillen's 10th-seeded Providence Friars. Then the Wildcats went on to win their only championship of the modern era. In the other 4 vs.10 matchup seven years earlier, No. 4 Arkansas beat No. 10 Texas.
A five seed has played a 10 seed only once in the Elite Eight. In 2002, No. 5 Indiana ended No. 10 Kent State's Cinderella run before losing to Maryland in the championship game.
Here's another matchup that's only happened once: In 2000, eight-seed Wisconsin upended Big Ten rival Purdue.
In the only Elite Eight matchup between these two middle seeds, eighth-seeded North Carolina beat seventh-seed Tulsa in 2000 -- the same year that eighth-seed Wisconsin beat Purdue in the only 6 vs. 8 matchup. Eerie.
The semifinals mark the point in the tourney where seeding offers virtually no guidance to the outcomes of matchups. For one thing, 10 of the 42 Final Four games in the modern era have involved like-seeded opponents. Secondly, of the 32 remaining games, the higher seed is just 18-14. In matchups where the gulf between opponents is one or two seeds, the higher seed is just 9-10. In games where the difference in seed position between opponents is more than two, the higher seed holds a solid 9-4 record.
The keys to predicting the like-seeded matchups with 90 percent proficiency are conference affiliation, playing location and winning record. In general, Big Six conference teams with lesser records playing closer to their campuses prevail. For toss-up games, where the seed difference between teams is one or two positions, frontcourt scoring accurately predicts the outcome in 14 of the 19 matchups.
Of the 42 semifinal games played in the modern tourney, only nine have pitted one seeds against each other, further confirmation that you should think twice before filling your Final Four bracket with too many top seeds. In the two games in which a Big Six conference one seed has played a mid-major one seed, the Big Six has prevailed both times. In the remaining seven games, the team playing significantly closer to their campus (an area within 150 miles) is 3-1. Of the three games in which the two teams were a similar distance from home, the one seed with the lower winning percentage is 3-0. Follow these three rules and you would've been 8-1 in predicting the outcome of 1 vs. 1 semifinal matchups.
Recent matchups: Maryland over Kansas, 2002. Duke over Michigan State, 1999. Kentucky over Minnesota, 1997.
Just like the 1 vs. 2 matchup in the Elite Eight, the Final Four showdown is hotly contested. The key performance indicator in the six games has been frontcourt scoring. The team that gets a higher percentage of its points from forwards and centers is 5-1. The only exception occurred in 1991, when two seed Duke ruined UNLV's perfect season en route to the championship.
Recent matchups: (2) Connecticut over (1) Duke, 2004. (2) Arizona over (1) Michigan State, 2001. (1) Arkansas over (2) Arizona, 1994.
The toughest matchup for one seeds in the entire Tournament is in the semifinals when they face three seeds. They've only won once in five tries, when Duke broke the curse in 2001 by upending third-seeded Maryland. The key to this matchup, as with the 1 vs. 2 Final Four showdown, is frontcourt scoring. The team that relies on forwards and centers for the higher percentage of its scoring load is a perfect 5-0.
Recent matchups: (3) Syracuse over (1) Texas, 2003. (1) Duke over (3) Maryland, 2001. (3) Utah over (1) North Carolina, 1998.
What a difference one seed makes. Whereas top seeds struggle against three seeds, they have little trouble with fours, winning all but one of the five matchups. The only fourth-seeded squad to rain on the one seed's parade was Arizona in 1997, which parlayed a Final Four upset over North Carolina into a national championship. What did the Wildcats have that the other four seeds lacked? An explosive offense. Arizona was the only four seed in this matchup that actually averaged seven points per game more than its opponent.
Recent matchups: (1) Illinois over (4) Louisville, 2005. (1) Connecticut over (4) Ohio State, 1999. (4) Arizona over (1) North Carolina, 1997.
Last year's North Carolina/Michigan State Final Four game marked the first time that a five seed played a top seed for the right to advance to the championship.
Michigan State was also involved in the only 1 vs. 8 semifinal game. The top-seeded Spartans beat Big Ten rival Wisconsin on their way to the 2000 championship.
Amazingly, two seeds have squared off against each other in the Final Four only once in the 21 years of the modern tourney era. It happened in 1995, when Arkansas beat North Carolina. Just like with the 1 vs. 1 matchup, proximity and winning record were reliable guides in predicting the outcome of this like-seeded game. Arkansas was playing closer to home than North Carolina and had a lower winning percentage.
Surprisingly, the 2 vs. 3 matchup occurs almost as often in the Final Four as a 1 vs. 2 game. Two seeds prevail in the best-of-five series, but by the slimmest of margins. If you took the two seed in every situation except when the three seed was from the ACC or Big East, you'd be a perfect 5-0 in predicting outcomes.
Recent matchups: (3) Georgia Tech over (2) Oklahoma State, 2004. (2) Kansas over (3) Marquette, 2003. (2) Kentucky over (3) Stanford, 1998.
In 2002, Indiana sprung a mild upset when the fifth-seeded Hoosiers upended Oklahoma in the only 2 vs. 5 matchup of the 64-team era.
These seeds haven't played each other in the Final Four since 1988 when Kansas and Danny Manning upset Duke on its way to Larry Brown's only NCAA championship. The year before that, two-seed Syracuse staved off Providence.
The first four years of the modern tourney era saw some of the Final Four's funkiest matchups. Here's another one: In 1985, eight-seed Villanova beat two-seed Memphis State before its date with destiny against Georgetown.
One year after the improbable Memphis State/Villanova matchup, 11-seed LSU lost to two-seed Louisville, which went on to beat Duke in the 1986 final.
In 1990, just six years into the 64-team era, the only 3 vs. 4 semifinal matchup saw three-seed Duke holding off Arkansas. Duke's reward for the victory was the privilege of getting steamrolled by UNLV, 103-73, in the finals.
In 1996, four-seed Syracuse beat Mississippi State in the modern tourney's only 4 vs. 5 semifinal matchup. The Orange lost to Kentucky in the finals.
In 1992, Michigan's Fab Five, a six seed that could have been a two seed, beat four-seed Cincinnati. The Wolverines got trounced by Duke, 71-51, in the finals.
2000 marked the only year of the modern tourney era that had two eight seeds in the Final Four. In addition to the 1 vs. 8 matchup between Michigan State and Wisconsin, five-seed Florida squared off against eight-seed North Carolina. The Gators lost to MSU in the finals.
As little an impact as seeding had on Final Four outcomes, you'd think it wouldn't make a difference in the finals. Not so. Of the 17 championship games involving teams with different seeds, the higher seed has won 12 of them. Since 1990, higher seeds are 11-2 against their lower-seeded opponents. Another surprising fact about the finals is that the matchup the brackets were intended to yield -- a 1 vs. 1 showdown -- has happened only three times in 21 years, the last such game occurring in 2005 when North Carolina beat Illinois. The only other like-seeded matchup involved three seeds Michigan and Seton Hall in 1989. The Wolverines' frontcourt scoring was a key to their victory, as it was in two of the other three like-seeded showdowns. The bottom line: If you went with the higher seed in championship games and the team with the better front line in like-seeded battles, your prediction rate would be 71 percent (15-6).
One in seven tournaments features two heavyweight top seeds going toe to toe. Since it happened last year when North Carolina bumped off Illinois, the law of averages says it won't happen this season. Interestingly, the top seed with the most imbalanced scoring between its front- and backcourt has won each of these showdowns. In 1993, North Carolina used its strong frontcourt (which accounted for 66 percent of its points during the regular season) to knock off Michigan. In 1999, UConn had a scoring mismatch with its backcourt (63 percent of its scoring) and took care of Duke. Last year, it was North Carolina's dominant frontcourt (71 percent of its scoring) that outmanned an Illini squad.
It's strange that seeding should have this kind of impact between two close seeds in the finals. Top seeds treat two seeds like one of those lowly seeds they face in the early rounds, beating them 80 percent of the time. The only two seed to buck the trend is Louisville, which beat Duke in the 1986 championship game. Actually, a more reliable performance indicator in this matchup is backcourt scoring. The squad that gets a higher percentage of its points from guards is 5-0.
Recent matchups: (1) Duke over (2) Arizona, 2001. (1) UCLA over (2) Arkansas, 1995. (1) Arkansas over (2) Duke, 1994.
You'd think a 1 vs. 3 championship game would have happened more than once. For Duke fans, once might be enough, considering how soundly UNLV throttled them, 103-73, in the 1990 finals. The Blue Devils would get their revenge the following year when they ruined UNLV's perfect season in the 1991 semifinals.
The two 1 vs. 4 championship games happened in successive years, and they both involved a top-seeded Kentucky squad. In 1996, Kentucky took care of Syracuse, but the following year, the Wildcats were upset in overtime by fourth-seeded Arizona.
The two 1 vs. 5 finals matchups came two years apart. Michigan State beat Florida in 2000, and Maryland handled Indiana in 2002.
If it weren't for Villanova's upset of Georgetown in 1985, Kansas could lay claim to springing the biggest championship upset of the modern tourney era. The Jayhawks beat top-seeded Oklahoma in 1988. Four years later, Michigan's Fab Five tried to duplicate the feat but were thumped by Duke.
In the first year of the modern tourney era, the championship game saw its most unlikely matchup -- and most surprising outcome. Eighth-seeded upstart Villanova toppled overwhelming favorite Georgetown 66-64, playing a nearly flawless game that included 90 percent shooting in the second half.
The only 3-seed to beat a 2-seed in the finals is Syracuse, which knocked off Kansas in 2003. (Syracuse also holds the distinction of being the only champion that hadn't gone to the previous year's tournament.) The key to this matchup is scoring balance. The squad with the smallest percentage gap between its frontcourt and backcourt scoring has won all four games.
Recent matchups: (2) Connecticut over (3) Georgia Tech, 2004. (3) Syracuse over (2) Kansas, 2003. (2) Kentucky over (3) Utah, 1998.
The only other like-seeded finals matchup of the 64-team era besides the three 1 vs. 1 tilts saw Michigan squeak by Seton Hall in overtime in 1989.
Freelance writer Pete Tiernan has been studying the NCAA Tournament for 16 years. E-mail him here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
INC Academy
https://inc-cost.eu/inc-academy
Now	Now	 - 7/1/2021	July 1
INC Academy – Talk by Marc Marti-Renom, "Structural determinants of genomes and genomic domains"
February 11 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm GMT
March 11 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm GMT
April 8 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST
April 22 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST
May 6 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST
May 20 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST
June 3 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST
June 17 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST
July 1 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm BST


text:
Kim Woo-yong (kor. 김우용; ur. 26 września 1971) – południowokoreański zapaśnik walczący w stylu wolnym. Mistrz świata w 1999 roku.

Przypisy

Południowokoreańscy zapaśnicy
Urodzeni w 1971

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Welcome to the Tabletop Roleplayers' Book Club!
Home › Monthly Book Selections › 95. (December 2020) Story of Your Life / Arrival by Ted Chiang
Welcomes and Intros
Nominations and Suggestions
Monthly Book Selections
Slow Reads
General Book Babble
1 Game Discussion
6 Book Reviews
1 Help and Club Talk
Google+ Archives
January 6 NeilNjae
January 5 clash_bowley
January 5 RichardAbbott
January 3 Apocryphal
Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
7. Spoken and written language (mild geek warning)
▲ 0 ▼
RichardAbbott
January 3 in 95. (December 2020) Story of Your Life / Arrival by Ted Chiang
The heptapods use two different languages to speak and to write, effectively doubling their communication potential in the encounter - did this convince you?
The best Planet Earth analogy I can think of is the use in certain ancient languages (eg ancient Egyptian or Akkadian) of written markers called determinatives. These indicate some quality of the word (eg "made of metal", "is a herd animal", "is a god") but so far as we know had no corresponding indicator in the spoken language. About the only similar feature which has survived into modern English would be capital letters to indicate a sentence start or proper noun - these help the reader to parse text, but do not have any analogue in spoken conversation.
Is there any connection with the extensive use of visual icons in computer and phone screens? (or road signs, for that matter)
Apocryphal
I wonder if the nearest equivalent is actually computer programming languages? These have no use as spoke languages (though, I suppose they could have if that's how we interfaced with computers - but we don't). You write Alexa skills. You don't write them in English, though I'm guessing the language you use is heavily based on English. But the written language you use is what empowers Alexa to interact with various people in English (or their chosen language).
I don't think the use of Akkadian / Egyptian determinatives is really quote the same. Their function is really to broaden the scope of a limited set of symbols. Cuneiform writing in general, being logo-syllabic, is already quote different from the spoke language, isn't it? Furthermore, Cuneiform was used to write many spoken languages, including Hittite, Hurrian, Amorite, Elamite, and Sumerian - for which it was originally developed.
clash_bowley
If the written and spoken language are for different purposes, and they are, why make them the same?
NeilNjae
How is this different from other forms of bilingualism? Or the differences between spoken language and sign language? The use of emoticons to express thoughts and feelings is contemporary, but people have long been doing things like calligraphy and layout-using poetry. And as mentioned in the story, mathematical notation isn't read linearly. Computer code is similar in not having a spoken form, particularly languages like APL.
@Apocryphal said:
That's an interesting analogy though I'm not totally convinced by it, mainly because computer code is what you "say" to the computer (in order to get it to do something), and the computer output (whether spoken or displayed) is what it "says" to you". With the heptapods both A and B are different versions of the sentiment going in the same direction. Maybe some computer-based analogies would be:
1) the normal display or utterance of the program together with some debug output read to solve a problem (in both cases the flow is directed from computer to person)
2) a flowchart of the intended actions together with the final code used to deliver the result (in both cases describing a flow from person to computer)
Yes, you are right (though I might quibble with "limited set of symbols" as the symbol set is considerably larger than an alphabetic language ). I was thinking specifically of determinatives / capital letters being present in the written script but not in the spoken. But the wider point is interesting in itself... any written language already uses symbols which are not present in the spoken form, and the symbols have a very long history of their own. How many people consciously associate the letter A with an ox head any more? And that symbol of itself does not tell you precisely how to pronounce the syllable it's contained in - long or short for one thing, and dialect differences for the same word. So in our case the written form of our language captures only a small part of its spoken equivalent, whereas in SoyL the written form was the more complex and comprehensive.
@RichardAbbott said:
I wonder if the nearest equivalent is actually computer programming languages? ...
But when I'm reading and thinking about code, I rarely do so linearly. At the large scale, the sequence of objects, functions, declarations in a source code file is rarely the sequence of use, or even the sequence of clearest understanding. And when you start moving outside purely imperative code, even the small scale gets non-linear. Lazy evaluation means terms may be only partially executed when declared; add structure fusion and you can write hylomorphisms that take a small initial seed, grow it to a structure of infinite size, then repack it into some different final structure, all while using only small, constant space. Constraint and logic programming are about defining relationships between things then asking a theorem prover to find a consistent allocation of values. Even SQL engines have some heavy-duty query optimisers that mean the database executes something very different from what you write (and a key part of complex query writing is understanding that optimiser, so you present queries in such a way that the optimiser rewrites queries how you want, not how it wants).
@NeilNjae said:
Some great points, especially for the reminder that the code as written in the source bears little resemblance to the final sequence of instructions processed by the device.
Making a (possibly strained) analogy with the film version, one of the best features to me was the depiction of how the heptapod writing was generated, in (for want of a better phrase) annotated circles. The analogy is that this circle could be parse in lots of ways - start from the top and work clockwise comes to mind as a first guess. But the actual sense of the utterance may not be most appropriately parsed in that way, but needs to be taken on board as a kind of gestalt. This is maybe the only place where the film tried to mirror the books physics dimension, as you could maybe see the circular utterance as parallel to a global conservation principle which has to be taken all at once rather than in pieces.
The circular writing was one of the best points of the film for me. Excellent visually as well as logically.
I also liked that in the film, and thought it was a better visual choice than the logogram-y writing of the story. I liked how the writing was created in the film: pretty much all at once, without assembly from a series of strokes. It showed the alienness of the hepapods and foreshadowed their thinking.
This space intentionally left blank.
Copyright © 2018 various authors.


text:
The waffle maker has seven different browning settings to accommodate all tastes. Regardless of which setting you pick, the advanced heating technology ensures consistent cooking straight through the waffle. A special steam-release system prevents condensation from building up, too, thus ensuring that your waffle comes out crispy on the outside and fluffy on the inside.
I have to admit, I have always eaten Belgian Waffles a little differently than everyone else. Unlike the majority of people that probably like their waffles sweet, I tend to prefer mine totally different. For the sake of typical presentation, and how my wife likes to eat her's, I will show them with Butter and Lakanto Maple Flavored Monkfruit Syrup on them. I on the other hand like to eat mine with sausage patties, 4 over-easy eggs (one on each waffle section) and Jalapeno Tabasco sauce. Maybe I was just born to be Keto, LOL!
About a month ago, the airliner that was supposed to take me to Charlotte had to land in Asheville because of Tropical Storm Fay. The airline put me up at a Marriott Suites hotel. Everything was more-or-less mediocre EXCEPT the breakfast -- they had a modern-day replica of the Twin-o-Matic (with Teflon, of course) There was a machine that dispensed the right amount of batter into a plastic cup which was then taken to the waffle iron. By flipping, you could make two waffles -- the thing was computer controlled. It worked very well. My fellow passengers were either amused (or bored) when I showed them the original item on my website. Only a VERY SMALL number of people are interested in vintage appliances.
For our first round of testing, we made waffles using Stella's buttermilk waffle batter. This batter relies on steam to puff the waffles, so it has a high level of hydration for a light and crisp result. With this batter, we found significant differences in the quality of the waffles made by each iron. Irons that didn't get hot enough weren't able to produce enough steam, resulting in heavy, dense, and soggy waffles, while those that heated up well produced very light and crisp waffles.
Bella's rotating waffle maker bakes one round traditional waffle in less than 3 minutes, making it one of the quickest-to-cook models we tested. It received near top performance scores amongst traditional waffle makers tested, producing perfectly tender waffles from both a mix and from scratch and evenly browned 'em, too. Little ones helping cook breakfast will love flipping the waffle maker over after you add the batter.
There are two other key subjects to consider, both related to the cooking process. First, you shouldn't have to wrestle with your waffles (or have to pry them out with a sharp knife) when they're ready to come out of the machine. That doesn't mean a waffle maker must have non-stick surfaces, but we've found that non-stick coatings usually make all the difference. A good alternative can be a cast-iron waffle maker, but continually seasoning a cast-iron appliance calls for another level of care and work.
Despite most waffle irons having nonstick coatings, you'll need to liberally grease both the top and bottom of the waffle iron with oil. If you've ever had the problem of a waffle sticking, it's likely that you've been too stingy with the oil. Worry not; so long as your waffle iron is hot, your waffles will not be greasy. If you're like me and have forgotten to grease the waffle iron before pouring your batter in, all is not wasted (I promise— you can see how I rectified the problem here). Using a pastry brush, grease around the sides of each waffle, and let the oil settle between the waffle and the waffle iron for about 10 seconds. Then, carefully lift the waffles out of the iron and all should be well in the world!
Brussels waffles[61] are prepared with an egg-white-leavened or yeast-leavened batter, traditionally an ale yeast;[62] occasionally both types of leavening are used together. They are lighter, crisper and have larger pockets compared to other European waffle varieties, and are easy to differentiate from Liège Waffles by their rectangular sides. In Belgium, most waffles are served warm by street vendors and dusted with confectioner's sugar, though in tourist areas they might be topped with whipped cream, soft fruit or chocolate spread. Variants of the Brussels waffles – with whipped and folded egg whites cooked in large rectangular forms – date from the 18th century.[63] However, the oldest recognized reference to "Gaufres de Bruxelles" (Brussels Waffles) by name is attributed from 1842/43 to Florian Dacher, a Swiss baker in Ghent, Belgium, who had previously worked under pastry chefs in central Brussels.[64] Philippe Cauderlier would later publish Dacher's recipe in the 1874 edition of his recipe book "La Pâtisserie et la Confiture". Maximilien Consael, another Ghent chef, had claimed to have invented the waffles in 1839, though there's no written record of him either naming or selling the waffles until his participation in the 1856 Brussels Fair.[65][66] Neither man created the recipe; they simply popularized and formalized an existing recipe as the Brussels waffle.[67]
American-style waffle irons are used to make traditional waffles, which are thin and crispy with relatively shallow pockets. This means they cook fairly quickly, too. The savory batter used for this type of waffle makes it particularly well-suited to making special shapes like hearts, or for use in place of bread for things like breakfast sandwiches.
Allow the liquid to come to room temperature. Reserve one cup of the liquid and dissolve the yeast in it. Sift the flour into a bowl; sprinkle the salt at the edge of the flour and make a hole in the middle. Pour the dissolved yeast and the melted butter into the hole. Then, add the egg yolks, the sugar and the remaining liquid into the hole. Scoop the sides over and mix the ingredients. You may also do this with a mixer and a dough hook.
If you love waffles, it's worth giving the large Cuisinart Double Belgian Waffle Maker some of your precious counter real estate. It makes the waffles dreams are made of thick, fluffy, and tender on the inside, and crunchy on the outside. Plus, it bakes two at a time. After you add batter to one chamber, you rotate it in its frame, fill the other side, and rotate it again. Lights and tones signal when each one is done. Unlike less expensive flip machines, this one feels solid and well built. It also comes with a ¾ cup measure for batter.
There are more than 170 user reviews on Amazon, and most are highly positive. "This is what I have been looking for," wrote one verified purchaser in October 2016. "I make waffles weekly and even take my waffle maker on family vacations to the beach. I need a new one every few years and hesitated spending so much for this one. I am glad I did. The waffles are thick and fluffy inside."
One of the most important attributes of a waffle maker is how well its nonstick coating works—there's nothing worse than trying to clean stuck-on waffle from those narrow cracks. Luckily, waffles popped out easily from the Krups GQ502D with the aid of silicone tongs or chopsticks, even on the one or two occasions when opening the lid took a little prying. The manual recommends oiling the plates just once each time you use the machine, and we found that this step was more than enough to keep waffles from sticking, even through many rounds of batter. Best of all, the waffle plates detach from the machine, so once they're cool you can pop them in the sink and wash them with soap and water, or, according to the manufacturer, even run them through the dishwasher. This is so much easier than cleaning most of the other machines we tried, including our former top pick, which requires you to wipe down the plates still in the machine with first a soapy cloth and then a damp one; inevitably, some soap seems to cling stubbornly in the cracks. But only two other machines we tested—the Nordic Ware stovetop model and Black+Decker's brand-new (as of 2016) Removable Plate Waffle Maker, model WM700R—featured removable plates, and both fell far short of the Krups in ease of use and quality of waffles.
Butter is another thing to keep in mind when it comes to fat. Don't use it; well, don't use it as it is for making the waffles. As much as I love butter, it doesn't create a crisp enough waffle in its truest form. There are options, however. A somewhat obvious option is, of course, any neutral-tasting oil. The other option, which might seem unusual, is clarified butter. If you have the time to make clarified butter feel free to use it here. But, as I'll probably write many times, please don't feel obliged to do so— oil works marvelously in this recipe. If you're worried about imparting flavor, coconut oil is a fantastic option.
By the early 20th century, waffle recipes became rare in recipe books, and only 29 professional waffle craftsmen, the oublieurs, remained in Paris.[52][55] Waffles were shifting from a predominately street-vendor-based product to an increasingly homemade product, aided by the 1918 introduction of GE's first electric commercial waffle maker.[56] By the mid-1930s, dry pancake/waffle mix had been marketed by a number of companies, including Aunt Jemima, Bisquick, and a team of three brothers from San Jose, Calif. – the Dorsas. It is the Dorsas who would go on to innovate commercial production of frozen waffles, which they began selling under the name "Eggo" in 1953.[57] Manufacturers are now testing the production of waffles with potato starch, which increase the stability of the waffle and protect them from sticking to the iron.[58]
Criteria for what makes an ideal waffle are somewhat subjective: I happen to like mine crunchy on the outside but fluffy in the center, but maybe you like yours golden and crispy? Still, some technical standards are pretty universally accepted, and those were what we focused on during our test. A good waffle iron should heat evenly and cook batter consistently from top to bottom and side to side without burnt spots or raw patches. It should allow enough steam to escape during the cooking process as to produce waffles that are structurally firm and not soggy. It should also be reliable, repeating the same results batch after batch, and easy to clean.
Hungry diners know whether or not their breakfast is ready when the Cuisinart's convenient "ready to bake/ready to eat" indicator lights with corresponding red and green hues come on. The Cuisinart features a cool-touch lid and round, non-stick cooking plates with four quarters, giving users the option of having a single waffle or dividing it up. We particularly like how this waffle maker, in its brushed stainless steel housing, stands on end for convenient storage in tight spaces.
The two sections of the waffle iron are held together with clamps that keep the sections from separating. Because the clamps form part of the trunion mount, there is never any danger that the section that is on the bottom will come open because its clamp part is bearing the weight in the mounting. The upper section may always be easily opened due to the "U" shaped trunion opening.
Of course, it's a waffle iron that makes it all possible. And while the same machine may spend the other 51 Sundays a year wedged in the back of your cabinet, when that craving strikes, it better be ready for the big leagues. Because if you're going to go through the motions—the ceremony!—of making homemade waffles, why bother with mediocre results? If that's what you wanted, you could just defrost some frozen ones.
With a little flick of the wrist, The Hamilton Beach® Flip Belgian Waffle Maker lets you effortlessly bake, make and flip perfect waffles just like a gourmet restaurant chef. Best of all, the adjustable browning control makes waffles golden brown and crispy on the outside and meltingly tender on the inside. To cook waffles like the best restaurants do, simply preheat the waffle maker until the READY light comes on. Then, pour in waffle batter and flip to lock in place. Waffles are done in 5-8 minutes, depending on the setting and the recipe. Using an oven mitt, flip the waffle maker back and open the cover to a perfect waffle.
The important qualities of a waffle maker are pretty much the same, though, no matter which type of waffles it makes. The ability to provide even heat across all of the plates tops our list; obviously, no waffle is going to be crunchy and delicious if part of it is undercooked, or if it's necessary to burn one side to a crisp in order to cook the other side all the way through.


text:
Q: Conditional probability with MLE of Poisson variable I'm having some trouble with this study question and would appreciate any help. This may be a duplicate but I have not been able to find any others.

Question: Leaves of plants are examined for bugs. The number of bugs on a leaf follows a Poisson distribution with mean $\mu$. However, many leaves have no bugs because they are unsuitable for feeding and not simply because of the chance variation allowed by the Poisson law. Therefore the empty leaves are not counted.
a) Find the conditional probability that a leaf contains $x$ bugs, given that it contains at least one.
b) Let $x_i$ be the number of bugs found on leaf $i$ (after the leaves with zero bugs are ignored).
Show that the MLE of $\mu$ satisfies the equation
$$\hat{\mu}=\bar{x}(1-e^{-\hat{\mu}}).$$
c) Determine $\hat{\mu}$ numerically for the case $\bar{x}=3.2.$

My attempt:
a) If X is the number of bugs on a leaf and Y is the number of observed bugs on a leaf, then the probability is given by
\begin{align}
P(Y=x)&=P(X=x|X>0) \\
&=\frac{P(X=x)}{P(X>0)} \\
&=\frac{P(X=x)}{P(X>0)} \\
&=\frac{P(X=x)}{1-P(X=0)} \\
&=\frac{P(X=x)}{1-e^{-\mu}} \\
\end{align}
b) Having some trouble with this. First I found the regular MLE of $\hat{\mu}$ for Poisson and got $\bar{x}=\hat{\mu}$, so I'm assuming I need to use $$\frac{\mu}{1-e^{-\mu}}$$ in some way? Is this what my answer to a) is supposed to be? I tried finding the MLE of $\hat{\mu}$ again using this instead of $\mu$ but couldn't get the answer I needed.
c) Not sure what to do here...

A: Assuming $X\sim\mathsf{Poisson}(\mu)$, the probability that a leaf contains $x$ bugs given that it contains at least one is
\begin{align}
P(X=x\mid X\ge 1)&=\frac{P(X=x)}{P(X\ge 1)}\mathbf1_{x\in\{1,2,\ldots\}}
\\&=\frac{e^{-\mu}\mu^x}{x!(1-e^{-\mu})}\mathbf1_{x\in\{1,2,\ldots\}}
\end{align}
For finding MLE of $\mu$, this conditional pmf should be used for your likelihood. You cannot say that the MLE of $\mu$ is simply $\bar x$ because here you are considering a Poisson distribution which is truncated at zero.
For $\mu>0$, the likelihood function given the sample $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ is
\begin{align}
L(\mu)&=\prod_{i=1}^n \frac{e^{-\mu}\mu^{x_i}}{x_i!(1-e^{-\mu})}\mathbf1_{x_i\in\{1,2,\ldots\}}
\\&=\left(\frac{e^{-\mu}}{1-e^{-\mu}}\right)^n \frac{\mu^{n\bar x}}{\prod x_i!}\mathbf1_{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\{1,2,\ldots\}}
\end{align}
Log-likelihood is of the form
$$\ell(\mu)=n\ln\left(\frac{e^{-\mu}}{1-e^{-\mu}}\right)+n\bar x\ln\mu+h(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$$
Now taking the derivative of $\ell(\mu)$ and setting it to zero and so on, you get  $$\hat\mu=\bar x(1-e^{-\hat\mu})$$, where $\hat\mu$ is the desired MLE of $\mu$.
The last equation cannot be solved analytically for $\hat\mu$. So you are asked to use numerical methods (e.g., Newton-Raphson) to find $\hat\mu$ when $\bar x=3.2$.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Put your hard-earned money to work building a comfortable, secure retirement. Choose the IRA account that's right for you.
(1) Important Note: Please consult your tax advisor regarding consequences for Individual Retirement Account contributions and withdrawals.
Contributions may be tax deferred.


text:
Xumarlı () is a village in the Zangilan District of Azerbaijan.

History
The village was located in the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, coming under the control of ethnic Armenian forces during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in October 1993. The village subsequently became part of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh as part of its Kashatagh Province, referred to as Krmen (). It was recaptured by Azerbaijan on 21 October 2020 during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.

References

External links

Populated places in Zangilan District


Albemarle & Bond is one of the UK's leading pawnbrokers. They now use www.albemarlebond.co.uk for both this brand plus Herbert Brown. Both operate as trading names of Speedloan Finance Ltd. The collective network of branches is 114. It is not made clear what the current variation between the pair is. It does appear that there are around 20 Herbert Brown shops. This company was formed in 1840 and acquired in 2007 whilst the central company started out in 1983. Albemarle's network has took on a major downsize. At their peak we believe they had upwards of 230 stores. It is lucky that they are still in operation having been rescued from administration by Promethean Investments back in 2014.
Their potential collapse was blamed on reckless expansion that wasn't helped by a plunge at the time in gold prices. This firm has been unfortunate online as well on the high street. Back in 2012 they acquired EPDL (Early Pay Day Loans) in a £1.2 million deal. EPDL was rebranded as Cash Window that would struggle and eventually cease trading. A small handful of products are headlined on the www.albemarlebond.co.uk site such as cheque cashing, pawnbroking, travel money etc. There are no unsecured Albemarle & Bond loans available online or in-store. Historically, there was a personal loan in-store that was available from £100 to £1000 on terms spanning 12 and 18 months. On the secured side they also promoted the logbook lender Mobile Money online.
As it stands, the only type of lending is made through a secured pawnbroker loan. Their calculator shows £50 to £1000 on repayments of 1 to 6 months. For a single month they just ask for £9.99 per £100 that is a good deal. Unfortunately, they are seeking jewellery or a good watch to be used as security (no electrical items). Several branch listings were checked over and these had matched opening hours. Mon, Wed, Thu, Fri and Sat were all 9am to 5pm whilst Tuesday differed as 9.45am to 5pm. The same times were seen with Herbert Brown. Overall, online loans would be expected here. It makes you wonder if they will ever be able to close up the gap on H&T Who Fund Online as well as In-Store.


text:
Q: Error Status 1 in Arduino MEGA I have written the following code to receive USART data on Arduino MEGA2560 using reception complete interrupt(ISR) for USART module 1 as I am using USART0 for printing on Serial monitor! The MEGA is interfaced with ESP8266 WiFi module and therefore after sending the AT commands for initialization, the interrupts() is being set!
The problem is that I get:
"Exit Status 1
Error Compiling for Arduino/Genuino MEGA"
I am using the latest IDE (.12 version) and here is the code.
#include <avr/interrupt.h>
#include <avr/io.h>

#define F_CPU 16000000UL
#define BAUDRATE 9600
#define BAUD_PRESCALER (((F_CPU / (BAUDRATE * 16UL))) - 1)

volatile int i=0;
volatile uint8_t buff[6];
volatile uint8_t StrRxFlag=0;

void setup() {
  // put your setup code here, to run once:
  Serial1.begin(9600);
  Serial.begin(9600);
  USART_INIT();
  reset();
  client_set();

}

void USART_INIT(void)
{
    cli();
    UBRR1 = BAUD_PRESCALER;                 // Set the baud rate prescale     rate register
    UCSR1B = ((1<<RXEN1)|(1<<TXEN1)|(1 << RXCIE1));       // Enable receiver and transmitter and Rx interrupt
    UCSR1C = ((0<<USBS1)|(1 << UCSZ11)|(1<<UCSZ10));  // Set frame format: 8data, 1 stop bit. See Table 22-7 for details

}

void reset()
{
  Serial1.println("AT");
  if(Serial1.find("OK")) Serial.println("The module is fine");
}

void client_set()
{
 char a;
 Serial1.println("AT+CWMODE=2");
 delay(1000);
 while(Serial1.available())
 {
    a = Serial1.read();
    Serial.print(a);
 }

  Serial1.print("AT+CWJAP=\"new\",\"123\"");
  //delay(2000);
  while(Serial1.available())
  {
    a = Serial1.read();
    Serial.print(a);
  }

  Serial1.print("AT+CIFSR");
  //delay(1000);
  while(Serial1.available())
  {
    a=Serial1.read();
    Serial.print(a);
  }

  Serial1.print("AT+CIPSERVER=1");
  //delay(1000);
  while(Serial1.available())
  {
    a=Serial1.read();
    Serial.print(a);
  }
 interrupts();
}

void loop() {

}

ISR(USART1_RX_vect)
{
    buff[i]=UDR1;         //Read USART data register
    if(buff[i++]=='\r')   //check for carriage return terminator and  increment buffer index
    {
        // if terminator detected
        if(buff[i]=='\n')
        {
        StrRxFlag=1;        //Set String received flag
        buff[i-1]=0x00;   //Set string terminator to 0x00
        Serial.println("Received data is");
        for(int j=0; j<sizeof(buff);j++)
        {
          Serial.print(buff[j]);
        }
        i=0;                //Reset buffer index
        }
    }
}

Please ignore the sending of AT commands using Serial1 as that does not have any relevance! I want to know as to whether there is any mistake in the usage of the interrupt (ISR) and related things.
I am attaching the IDE response after compilation too. Thanks in advance!

A: I don't know the Arduino Libraries, but looking at the compiler output, my guess is that the ISR may already be defined within the serial port library. There is probably some kind of a callback function to react to incoming data?
The compiler reports something like "Multiple defintion of __vector_36". This normally refers to an ISR being defined more than once, which is illegal.
Lets take a look at the interrupt vector table from the MEGA2560:
36 $0046 TIMER3 OVF Timer/Counter3 Overflow
37 $0048 USART1 RX USART1 Rx Complete

The weird thing is, that  vector 36 is the "Timer/Counter3 Overflow" and vector 37 the "USART1 Rx Complete" that should cause the error.


text:
Želary jsou ucelený cyklus osmi povídek české spisovatelky Květy Legátové, který je navzájem propojený jednotlivými hlavními postavami. Poprvé vyšly roku 2001 v nakladatelství Paseka a o rok později obdržely Státní cenu za literaturu.

Děj jednotlivých povídek popisuje osudy obyvatel fiktivní stejnojmenné zapadlé horské vesnice nacházející se na moravsko-slovenském pomezí a jejich bídu v období první republiky.

České povídky
Knihy z roku 2001
Fiktivní obce
Díla Květy Legátové


The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes recently released resources to support smoke-free policies in Public Housing Agencies and multifamily properties. This new microsite includes best practices, templates and tips from experienced public housing and multifamily housing agents. Health departments can use these materials to raise awareness and increase adoption of smoke-free environments throughout public housing developments and multifamily properties within the communities they serve. Click to access the site.


The landlord was once a tenant before he became a home owner. Likewise a tenant can one day be a landlord; as the saying goes, nothing lasts forever. Owning a home is every Nigerian tenant's real estate dream. The path to it may not be easy, but it will eventually be worth it.
The security of owning the roof over your head, the feeling of contentment, satisfaction, fulfillment, it is the wish of most, if not all, Nigerians. It is called Home ownership.
Owning a home is the biggest and best investment a person can ever make and so he has to manage that investment to the best of his ability. It requires extraordinary commitment not only of funds, but time and attention as well.
There are disadvantages that come with owning a home like maintenance, financial matters and more responsibilities. But above all these, there are also a lot of benefits that comes with owning your own home.
2. It gives a sense of permanence where your family can live and grow. Emotional security goes with this.
3. It is the best investment. The value of your home appreciates which means that if you decide to sell it, its price will be much higher than your purchase price. On the average, homes appreciate about 5% every year.
4. It gives you and your family security and piece of mind knowing that you have a home to call your own.
5. It develops lifelong friendships.
7. It increases self-esteem knowing that you possess something of value.
8. It eliminates landlord hassles.You will have no more worries with regard to lease not being renewed and increase in rent.
9. It gives you the freedom to redecorate, remodel, make improvements, have pets, change the colour or the décor of your home to your own taste and as you desire.
10. It gives privacy. Unlike renters wherein landlords can have access to the place.
11. It often time gives more space – like larger rooms, laundry area, storage area.
12. It develops a sense of community.Homeowners become attached to neighbors, become interested and involved in events and work towards the betterment of the community to protect and preserve property.
They say little drops of water makes a mighty ocean; the journey of a thousand miles begins with that bold stride – that step of faith.
Key into the various products one of the foremost real estate companies in Nigeria, Realty Point Limited has set aside for their esteemed customers and Nigerian tenants to share in the experience of home ownership.


text:
What up, Sport? Baron's Blunders
Quinn Hull, Sports Editor
Forget Jeremy Lin for a moment. On Monday evening, in the middle of the New York Knicks' loss to their cross-river rival, the New Jersey Nets, "Linsanity" took a brief pause so that basketball fans could witness the antics of Baron Davis. With 8:37 left in the first half, the Knicks' reserve point guard temporarily stole Lin's show by scoring his first points of the season (and his final points of the night) on a three-pointer.
In celebration, Davis backed down-court with his thumb and forefinger clutched together and touched to his lips — a pretty much universally-understood gesture for smoking a joint. One might say that Davis merely followed hitting a basketball "J" (or a 'jumper,' for those of you who've never heard of sports) by hitting an imaginary version of the drug-related "J" that the rest of us non-shooters have to settle for.
Whatever you want to call it, Davis's on-court counter-cultural gesture was just one of a few things worth noting in this week's episode of What up, sport?
On Wednesday, ganja made another guest appearance in the wacky world of sports, when Middle Tennessee State University (that's a real thing?) football player Preston Bailey was charged with felony possession with intent to sell, a crime that'll get you up to 60 years behind bars in the state of Dolly Parton. Police said they found scales, baggies, cash and the stash in his apartment, located off-campus.
And how was Bailey bankrolling this little operation?
Said Kyle Williams of the Murfreesboro Police Department: "He admitted he got his start-up money for this illegal drug business by using scholarship money that he received from MTSU as a football player." Fortunately, as Oberlin neither gives out athletic scholarships (we're D-III; MTSU, believe it or not, hails from the NCAA's scholarship-endowing Division I) nor readily allows students to live off-campus, our great institution is unlikely to suffer such a grand embarrassment.
Yet, in spite of the misconduct of players like Bailey, during October of last year the NCAA started seriously considering paying their student-athletes.
The hullabaloo came about when a big batch of malcontent football and basketball playing students from schools such as the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California Los Angeles and the University of Arizona sent in a petition imploring the big, bad NCAA to "realize its mission to educate and protect us with integrity."
The NCAA since has responded with tentative rule changes that would, if enacted, allow schools to pay athletic students $2,000 dollar-a-year stipends in addition to "full" scholarships that already cover tuition, fees, room and board, books and supplies. These rule changes wouldn't affect Oberlin athletics per se, as they'd only pertain to schools with upper-level men's basketball and football teams (that is, the sports that bring those schools billions of dollars in ticket and TV revenue each year), but one can hope, one day, you'll see a Yeoman playing for dough.
In any case, $2,000 extra might in the very least allow the NCAA to realize its duty to "educate and protect" by bankrolling a few more weed-growing operations…
Back to Baron Davis. The man responded to accusations that his earlier-mentioned three-point celebration was meant to encourage subliminal marijuana-related hysteria on Tuesday by tweeting this:
"To clear up rumors. I was kissing my hands after I shot the 3 last nite. Kissing the 3 was all I was doing. Stop fishing and hating plz"
Plz, Baron, no one was "hating." And what do you mean, "fishing?"
According to Urban Dictionary, "fishing" is "just another word for spittin' game." And "spittin' game," as we all know, is just another euphemism for "hitting" on someone of romantic interest.
Alternatively, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb "to fish" means to "catch or try to catch fish, typically by using a net or hook and line."
Whoops, we've got you Mr. Davis, and you can't get away. You'll always be caught hitting something.


Hi dear reader. In the present new era, information about the growth and development of technology is extremely simple to grab. You can get a range of reports, tips, content, anywhere in the world in only seconds. Along with details about hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten might be accessed from several free resources via the internet.
The same as now, you are researching for more knowledge about hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten, arent you? Just sit in front of your beloved computer or laptop that is definitely linked to the Net, you may get various useful unique ideas and you may use it for your purposes.
Do you know The thought of hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten that we give you here relates to the interest record about hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten. We learned that a lot of people look hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten on search engines like google. We tend to present a most recent picture to suit your needs.
Although in our viewpoint, which we have provided the best hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten image, however, your opinion may be little bit different with us. Okay, You can use it as the research content only. And hidden picyures worksheet kindergarten has been submitted by Maria Nieto in category field.
# hidden pictures worksheet kindergarten, #flower drawings.#cute picyures.#sunner picyures of activites.#picyures of dogs.#behind the couch.#solar system.#cool backgrounds.#picyure bird.


text:
Uber Drivers In Brazil Protest Proposed Ride-Sharing Regulations
Proposed legislation would make ride-sharing drivers subject to the same rules as taxi drivers
By Stephen EdelsteinOctober 31, 2017
Sheet/Metal
AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Stephen EdelsteinView Stephen Edelstein's Articles
twitter.com/SAEdelstein
Taxi drivers have protested Uber because they view the ride-sharing service as unfair competition. But this time it's the Uber drivers who are up in arms.
Hundreds of Uber drivers took to the streets in Brazil Monday to protest proposed new regulations they view as too restrictive, reports Reuters. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi also went to Brazil to personally lobby against the regulations, which are being proposed in a bill that Brazil's Senate is set to vote on Tuesday.
Uber and its drivers are concerned that the legislation would force ride-hailing drivers to follow the same stricter rules as taxi drivers. About 800 Uber drivers reportedly turned out to protest the measure in Brazil's capital Brasilia, and similar protests were staged in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. Uber said it did not organize the protests, but did alert authorities to them.
The bill has already been approved by the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the Brazilian Congress. It would classify ride-sharing services as public transit, subjecting them to additional taxes and regulations, including requirements that drivers get special government permits, and that cars carry taxi license plates.
Increased regulations and licensing requirements would run counter to Uber's business model, which uses part-time drivers who view the service as a side gig. But many current Uber drivers work for the service more or less full time, eroding the distinction between drivers for ride-hailing services and traditional taxi drivers. The popularity of ride-hailing services has also led regulators around the world to consider stricter rules.
Uber lost its London operator license at the end of September due to regulatory concerns ranging from background check policies to the way Uber reported crimes committed by its drivers. The Philippines temporarily suspended Uber for accepting applications for new drivers during a government-mandated hiring freeze. Stricter driver training rules in the Canadian province of Quebec led to complaints from Uber.
Brazil is Uber's third largest market, with 17 million users and 500,000 drivers. Sao Paulo accounts for more trips than any other city in the world, according to the company.
Uber Shareholder Thinks the Company Is Worth $95 Billion
What is the world's biggest ride-hailing company really worth?
Uber to Begin Charging Riders Extra If It Takes Drivers Longer To Reach Them
New fees sweeten the pot for drivers.
Uber Hands Over Travel Data to Paris Officials to Aid Urban Planning
The data could provide valuable insight into traffic patterns.
Uber Faces at Least 5 Criminal Probes in the U.S., Report Says
That's two more than previously reported.
Uber, Lyft May Not Be Required to Fingerprint Company Drivers in California
Will the two ride-sharing companies dodge a bullet?


text:
Emanuela Da Ros (* 24. Dezember 1959 in Vittorio Veneto, Venetien, Italien) ist eine italienische Schriftstellerin und Journalistin.

Leben
Emanuela Da Ros studierte Kunstgeschichte an der Universität Padua, welches sie mit einer Arbeit über Byzantinische Kunst abschloss. Anschließend unterrichtete sie Italienisch und Geschichte an einem Gymnasium in ihrer Heimatstadt. Ab 1997 arbeitete sie zusätzlich als Journalistin und debütierte mit dem Kinderbuch Poste e risposte im Jahr 2000 als Schriftstellerin. Für ihr Erstlingswerk wurde sie bei der Verleihung des Bologna Ragazzi Award als beste unveröffentlichte Schriftstellerin ausgezeichnet.

Bisher erschienen mit Der Melonen-Klau und andere Nachrichten aus Haus Nummer vier, Ein süßer Typ und Viermal verliebt drei ihrer Werke in der Deutschen Sprache.

Sie ist mit Charles De Bastiani, mit dem sie zwei gemeinsame Kinder hat, verheiratet.

Werke
Originalwerke
 2000: Poste e risposte
 2001: Il giornalino Larry
 2002: I love school
 2004: Lui è bellissimo!
 2005: Un cuoco da ragazzi
 2007: Io voglio
 2008: Avventure in cucina
 2009: Ma Babbo Natale non ce l'ha il cellulare?
 2011: Se

Übersetzungen auf Deutsch
 2004: Der Melonen-Klau und andere Nachrichten aus Haus Nummer vier
 2007: Ein süßer Typ
 2011: Viermal verliebt

Weblinks

Autor
Literatur (Italienisch)
Journalist (Italien)
Italiener
Geboren 1959
Frau