,
cheap jordans for sale

President Obama wasn’t the only winner in November’s election: Math also triumphed. At the forefront of the algorithmic charge was numbers nerd Nate Silver, who correctly predicted the presidential winner in all 50 states on his New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight.

Silver incorporated several factors into his calculations, including whether a candidate was an incumbent and how much money a candidate received in campaign contributions. But a hefty portion of Silver’s predictive secret sauce was the careful aggregation and weighting of results from multiple polls. To the chagrin of many,
cheap real jordans
, he was dead-on,
cheap air jordans
, and election night was touted as a win for Silver as much as it was for the president. (As one fan tweeted: “Tonight, Nate Silver is the Chuck Norris of the Web. Or Chuck Norris is the Nate Silver of fighting.”)

Silver wasn’t the only math whiz prognosticating about this year’s political races. David Rothschild,
cheap wholesale jordans
, an economist at Microsoft Research in New York City,
cheap retro jordans
, predicted back in February on his blog The Signal that Obama would win the election. That’s right,
cheap jordans
, February. (Florida, which Obama won by a margin of less than 1 percent,
cheap jordans online
, was the only state that The Signal didn’t call correctly). Rothschild’s recipe for seeing the future was also a mix of ingredients, including economic indicators,
cheap Authentic jordans
, incumbency and Obama’s approval rating.

Clearly these multifactor mathematical approaches have merit. But recently Rothschild and his University

http://mejora-e-pyme.c...c=24912.msg24998#msg24998

http://www.poznanpk.cb...rum_topic&topic=13467

http://www.arcobonsai....opic.php?f=1&t=221151