Error Detection And Correction Quotes

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress. —J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER, 1949

I was trained to sniff out weakness in my cohorts. I learned how to read body language, how to detect lies, how to use people against one another, all in order to discover where my own people had committed trespasses against the Empire. Anything from small breaches of conduct to outright treachery against the throne. I was the shadow they couldn’t shake. You put me in a base or battle station or office and they knew they were on notice. I’d scare up what they’d done like a hunter flushing prey from the brush. And I’d hurt them to earn a confession and correct the errors. Oh, it wasn’t just physical pain I caused, though that was certainly a part of it. It was emotional pain.

Handwriting and document analysis were emerging tools in the field of criminal investigation. Although many people greeted the new forensic sciences with reverence, attributing to them a godlike power, they were often susceptible to human error. In 1894, the French criminologist Bertillon had helped to wrongfully convict Alfred Dreyfus of treason, having presented a wildly incorrect handwriting analysis. But when applied carefully and discreetly, document and handwriting analysis could be helpful. In the infamous Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb murder case, in 1924, investigators had correctly detected similarities between Leopold’s typed school notes and the typed ransom note.

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.

A good example is overflow detection on arithmetic, or providing bignums instead of just letting 32-bit integers wrap around. Now, implementing those is more expensive but I believe that providing full-blown bignums is a little less error-prone for some kinds of programming. A trap that I find systems programmers and designers of operating-systems algorithms constantly falling into is they say, "Well, we need to synchronize some phases here so we're going to use a take-a-number strategy. Every time we enter a new phase of the computation we'll increment some variable and that'll be the new number and then the different participants will make sure they're all working on the same phase number before a certain operation happens." And that works pretty well in practice, but if you use a 32-bit integer it doesn't take that long to count to four billion anymore. What happens if that number wraps around? Will you still be OK or not? It turns out that a lot of such algorithms in the literature have that lurking bug. What if some thread stalls for 2 to the 32nd iterations? That's highly unlikely in practice, but it's a possibility. And one should either mitigate that correctness problem or else do the calculation to show that, yeah, it's sufficiently unlikely that I don't want to worry about it. Or maybe you're willing to accept one glitch every day. But the point is you should do the analysis rather than simply ignoring the issue. And the fact that counters can wrap around is a lurking pitfall

They thought I was stubborn. In the strict sense of the word there is no such thing as a stubborn insane person...When one possessed of the power of recognizing his own errors continues to hold an unreasonable belief-that is stubbornness. But for a man bereft of reason to adhere to an idea which to him seems absolutely correct and true because he has been deprived of the means of detecting his error- that is not stubbornness. It is a symptom of his disease, and merits the indulgence of forbearance, if not genuine sympathy.

Table 3.2 Components of Clinical Whole Blood, Plasma, and Serum Matrices

Conversely, the release of elements or cell lysis associated with the coagulation cascade is responsible for the increase in potassium (±6%), inorganic phosphate (±11%), ammonia (±38%), and lactate (±22%) in serum compared to plasma [9]. Furthermore, anticoagulants, preservatives, and other additives that aid or inhibit coagulation may interfere with the assay, as discussed later. Also, the presence of fibrinogen may interfere with chromatic detection or binding in immunoassays or the appearance of a peak that may simulate a false monoclonal protein in the gamma region during protein electrophoresis [9,10]. Serum Versus Plasma for Clinical Laboratory Tests There are many advantages to using plasma over serum for clinical laboratory analysis. However, for some analytes, serum is preferred over plasma. These issues are addressed in this section.

is to certify that someone so far unidentified wrote deliberate errors into the corrected final proofs of this book after they left my hands, then stole the proofs and the typescript, presumably to avoid detection from their hand-writing.     These errors were picked up by me in the advance copies and I immediately phoned the publishers, Canongate, and wrote the same day, July 18, 1980, giving details for an errata slip, which they promised to post out to everyone who had received a review copy.     The most dangerous errors were that a Seumas MacNeill's name had been given three incorrect spellings, which, as I feared, appeared to incense him, as he deeply resented any mis-spelling of his name, indicating the person responsible well knew of him.     He maturely retaliated in his Piping Times (Nov, 1980), at the age of 63, by mis-spelling my name five different ways and also mis-spelled the publisher's name in a "book review" signed Seumas MacNeill, He then distributed his magazine throughout the U.K., Europe, the Commonwealth and the U.S.A., asserting to the piping world the book was totally inaccurate, an allegation he was also permitted to make on BBC,

Robinhood Unable to Login with Provided Credentials? +1-(888) 552-9619 or +1-(888) 552-9619 USA – Having trouble logging into your Robinhood account with the provided credentials? If you’re seeing an error message, ensure you’re entering the correct email and password. If the issue persists, try resetting your password using the “Forgot Password” option. Still can’t log in? It could be due to account restrictions, security holds, or suspicious activity detection. The best way to resolve login issues is by contacting Robinhood customer support at +1-(888) 552-9619 USA for immediate assistance. Their team can help you reset your credentials and recover your account. Don’t let login issues disrupt your trading—call +1-(888) 552-9619 USA today for expert support!

These are inspired by the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. This setup uses superpositions of coherent states — states in which wave phases are the same —. When errors occur, they shift the phase. These shifts become detectable due to the unique properties of the superpositions, enabling timely corrections.

1. Try to make explicit the basis of any hunches and intuitions about whether or not someone is lying. By becoming more aware of how you interpret behavioral clues to deceit, you will learn to spot your mistakes and recognize when you don’t have much chance to make a correct judgment. 2. Remember that there are two dangers in detecting deceit: disbelieving-the-truth (judging a truthful person to be lying) and believing-a-lie (judging a liar to be truthful). There is no way to completely avoid both mistakes. Consider the consequences of risking either mistake. 3. The absence of a sign of deceit is not evidence of truth; some people don’t leak. The presence of a sign of deceit is not always evidence of lying; some people appear ill-at-ease or guilty even when they are truthful. You can decrease the Brokaw hazard, which is due to individual differences in expressive behavior, by basing your judgments on a change in the suspect’s behavior. 4. Search your mind for any preconceptions you may have about the suspect. Consider whether your preconceptions will bias your chance of making a correct judgment. Don’t try to judge whether or not someone is lying if you feel overcome by jealousy or in an emotional wildfire. Avoid the temptation to suspect lying because it explains otherwise inexplicable events. 5. Always consider the possibility that a sign of emotion is not a clue to deceit but a clue to how a truthful person feels about being suspected of lying. Discount the sign of an emotion as a clue to deceit if a truthful suspect might feel that emotion because of: the suspect’s personality; the nature of your past relationship with the suspect; or the suspect’s expectations. 6. Bear in mind that many clues to deceit are signs of more than one emotion, and that those that are must be discounted if one of those emotions could be felt if the suspect is truthful while another could be felt if the suspect is lying. 7. Consider whether or not the suspect knows he is under suspicion, and what the gains or losses in detecting deceit would be either way. 8. If you have knowledge that the suspect would also have only if he is lying, and you can afford to interrogate the suspect, construct a Guilty Knowledge Test. 9. Never reach a final conclusion about whether a suspect is lying or not based solely on your interpretation of behavioral clues to deceit. Behavioral clues to deceit should only serve to alert you to the need for further information and investigation. Behavioral clues, like the polygraph, can never provide absolute evidence. 10. Use the checklist provided in the appendix (table 4) to evaluate the lie, the liar, and you, the lie catcher, to estimate the likelihood of making errors or correctly judging truthfulness.