No actually, I use it without any pre-processing. It works fine sometimes

If I may, I can suggest my book:

Cultural Responses to Occupation in Japan: The Performing Body during and after the Cold War.https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Responses-Occupation-Japan-Performing/dp/178093596X.

The book looks at how artists responded to occupation in Japan that continues after the military occupation of Japan between 1945-1952. It shows how artists negotiated wartime memories as well as postwar 'peacetime' occupation during ongoing conflict and the militarisation of society, focusing on the body.

An acceptable approach would be to pipette to the 1st well (or to each of the 1st row of wells) 30uL of the stock solution and then pipette 30 uL of the solvent. Homogenize the mixture by aspiring/dispensing several times. Now you have 60uL of a 10ug/mL solution in the 1st one.

To the 2nd well (or 2nd row of wells) pipette 30 uL from the 1st well and then pipette 30 uL of the solvent. Homogenize the mixture by aspiring/dispensing several times. Now you have 60uL of a 5ug/mL solution in the 2nd one.

To the 3rd well (or 3rd row of wells) pipette 30 uL from the 2nd well and then pipette 30 uL of the solvent. Homogenize the mixture by aspiring/dispensing several times. Now you have 60uL of a 2.5ug/mL solution in the 3rd one.

...

...

To the 7th well (or 7th row of wells) pipette 30 uL from the 6th well and then pipette 30 uL of the solvent. Homogenize the mixture by aspiring/dispensing several times. Now you have 60uL of a 0.15625 ug/mL solution in the 7th one.

Finally remove 30uL from the 7th well and discard them.

You end up with 30uL in each of the 7 wells with the following concentrations: 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625, 0.3125, 0.1565 ug/mL.

You should be aware that this procedure is very practical from the experimental standpoint but suffers from the fact that the concentrations are not independent (the 7th solution is obtained by diluting the 6th one which in turn is obtained by diluting the 5th one which...) which requires proper statistical analysis. Any error in obtaining any intermediate solution will propagate to the subsequent ones. Proper care (read extra care) should be taken.

Hope it helps (if so, please upvote)

I think another important issue is the decision in conditions of uncertainty and of risk. Theorists of decision making have for some decades been engaged in analysis of the logical-formal process of choosing in the presence of incom- plete information and in conditions of risk or of uncertainty. The formal theory of decision making was introduced in the first half of the twentieth century by Abraham Wald and was developed above all for use with Bayesian statistics which had as their objective the definition of the best strategy on the basis of a predetermined criterion of optimality. Over the course of time, various types of optimal results were identified for the analysis of decision making strategies: the choice which minimizes the maximum loss (which calculates for each choice the maximum loss that could derive from it, opting for the minimum one); the choice which maximizes the maximum gain (which calculates for each choice the maximum gain that could derive from it); the choice which tends towards the smallest average loss (according to the criterion of Bayes–Laplace); the choice which tends towards the smallest average loss (according to the criterion of Bayes–Bernoulli).

The answer to the question seems to require a mechanistic understanding of the problem at hand, rather than devising two scenarios and proceed probabilistically by assumptions. I am not sure what a processor means in your field. In my experience, built systems tend to degrade over time; as do most physiological systems. What matters is the window of time considered, not just the hypothetical year.One would seem to need specific information about the type of system (in series, parallel, whatever; maintenance, if any, and so on). Failure analysis deals with these using hazard functions and cumulative hazard functions. NASA has a number of publications that are extremely useful and free (www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/fthb.pdf). Incidentally, some system actually harden for a certain period of time. hence, the two pronged scenario may be theoretically incorrect. Hope this helps a bit. There is much more to say on these matters. Finally, the Poisson assumption may not be appropriate as the distribution that may be appropriate can be that of the minima, maxima, Pareto, stretched Pareto and so on.

Thanks a lot Francisco.

Here's a link to a PDF of the Bradley article; it includes the actual items, though it doesn't make clear the order of presentation. I agree with Adelheid that contacting Drew Westen directly is a good idea. The other link here is for his page at Emory and includes email, telephone, and surface mail info.

Very useful responses. Thank you.

Investment in technology in developing countries is low.

I see that the full Oregon Department of Agriculture and Oregon State University testing criteria for sterile or low fertility Buddleja is at https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NurseryChristmasTree/BuddlejaScreening.pdf. They state "produces less than 2% viable seeds compared to fertile cultivars that were evaluated under the same conditions and location" and provide the conditions under which this is tested.

Global database of dams (but I´m not sure that it includes small dams):

www.ambiotek.com/dams/dams_dev.kmz

UNEP GEOdata from United Nations Environment Programme:

http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/results.php

Dear John,

do you understand  that I am criticizing the logic of microeconomics? If you assume monopolistic (or incomplete) competition,  the problem does not change much. Explanation becomes longer. So, I have illustrated by the assumption of perfect competition (or pure competition, if you like). You may not be interested in the logical structure of a theory, but you cannot mix up contradicting theories. It may increase information but increase confusion at the same time.

Hi Danilo,

There are standard models for dose response cytotoxicity curves, which I suggest you use. For comparing toxicicty between the different algae, I would suggest, you calculate IC10, IC50 and IC90 values, which can than be compared using one-way ANOVA.

To do this, you can use this equation:

IC_F= ((100-F)/F)^1/H * IC₅₀

Where F equals the fraction of maximal response, e.g. for IC₉₀, F=90 and H is the Hill's slope of the cytotoxicity curve.

Why re-invent the wheel?

Cheers,
Kirsten

Am new to docking studies, but this is very crucial for my studies kindly help in sorting this problem where am not able to run autogrid also

Hi!

Please specify  your question.  The water-saturated of aggregates soils?

Thanks Munir... 

Yes. You can. The ion concentration in most electrophoresis buffers is much higher (ca. 10-fold)  than that in typical tap water (whether out of the tap or bottled for drinking) and will have little consequence on the resulting current. However, you should consider switching from TBE or TAE to a Tris-free, low-ionic-strength buffer, such as 5 mM lithium boric acid or sodium boric acid (neither the Tris nor the EDTA are really needed; Brody and Kern 2004). This saves time and money on electrophoresis media preparation, and saves time when running the gels. For a medium that is free of Tris and has low ionic strength, the gel can be run at much higher voltage without overheating (e.g., I run DNA gels at 300 V or about 60 V/cm in 5 mM lithium borate and get the results much quicker than I could with TBE). For these lower ionic strength media, some tap water or bottled drinking water may then have enough salts to influence the results.  But this might simply mean running the gel at a rate slower than might otherwise be possible (but still faster than is possible with TAE or TBE).

References:

Brody, J. R., and S. E. Kern. 2004. History and principles of conductive media for standard DNA electrophoresis. Anal Biochem 333: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ab.2004.05.054

Brody, J. R., E. S. Calhoun, E. Gallmeier, T. D. Creavalle, and S. E. Kern. 2004. Ultra-fast high-resolution agarose electrophoresis of DNA and RNA using low-molarity conductive media. BioTechniques 37: 598, 600, 602.

thanks dear professor,mutual information based methods (such as generalized mutual  information method, pompe,1993) are analyzed for long time series with many possible different values. whether this method is  true  for short  binary sequences with two values 0,1?

About NDVI:  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MeasuringVegetation/

Thank you.  I'm using femurs.

I also used the Fitdistr package in R to determine the shape of seed dispersal kernels, which have similar distributions to those you describe. But you should summarise the data (mean, median, mode, etc.), determine the best-fit distribution, and possibly consider normalising the data.

Andrew :-)  

It does not make sense - always the player who lost the match will be more tired.

Dear

Please find some explanation in this abstract:

Abstract
Surface deformation monitoring can provide valuable constraints on the dynamic behaviour of a reservoir, by allowing the evaluation of volume/pressure changes with time, as well as an estimation of reservoir permeability. Levelling campaigns, tiltmeters, GPS and InSAR are all geodetic techniques used to detect and monitor surface deformation phenomena. Among them, InSAR data from satellite radar sensors are gaining increasing attention for their unique technical features and cost-effectiveness. In particular, Permanent Scatterer InSAR (PSInSAR™) is an advanced InSAR technique, developed in the late nineties, capable of providing very precise 1D displacement measurements along the satellite line-of-sight (LOS) and high spatial density (typically exceeding 100 measurement points/sqkm) over large areas, by exploiting point-wise radar targets already available on ground. Recently, some significant advances have been reported in InSAR data processing that can further increase the quality and the effectiveness of this data source for reservoir monitoring: (a) the development of new InSAR algorithms and in particular the so-called SqueeSAR™ approach, which allows a significant increase in the spatial density of measurement points; (b) the availability of an increased number of satellite radar sensors characterized by higher sensitivity to surface deformation, higher spatial resolution, and better temporal frequency of acquisition.

You can find more informations in the following publication: Measuring Surface Deformation using Satellite Radar Sensors - a Powerful Tool in Permanent Reservoir Monitoring. 'Andrea Tamburini et al. 2011. DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.20145216.

Good luck