EXTREME RED HOT ALERT!
Buy Wednesday September 12th 2007
WW Energy Inc
Symbol : WWNG
This will EXPLODED TODAY, and will again TOMORROW!
Yesterday we told you this stock would sky rocket, and today it did!
Moving over 4.1 million shares, and up 100%.
The stock doubled, and is going to double again tomorrow!
There is an odour in the air a huge press release is coming out tomorroW!
Current: $.02
Expected: $.54
WWNG WAS ONE OF THE HOTTEST STOCKS TRADED, AND IS EXPECTED TO DO
BETTER TOMORROW!
Check 07/10/07. 2 months ago. This stock traded milions and milions of
shares, over 7 million on the 2nd day. It's doing it AGAIN! TOMORROW
IS THE 2ND DAY!
Get in on the action Wednesday September 12th 2007!
WWNG is the winner for this week!
Company info:
WW Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides services
to the oil and gas industry. The company engages in the
acquisition, exploration, exploitation, and development of
leases, and oil and gas related assets. It has exploitation
projects in Texas, Utah, and New Mexico. The company also
engages in transporting fresh production water for oil drilling
and exploration, and waste water for disposal. In addition, it
provides services for heavy hauling of drilling and well
equipment used in oil and gas production and exploration
industry. The company also operates in Colorado and
Arizona. WW Energy was founded in 1999 and is based in
Farmington, New Mexico.
--
EI mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.gking.harvard.edu/?info=ei
Dear all,
At the moment I am conducting some research on suicide, and I am
> trying to use Relogit. I am using the package
> for Stata, and I have a question.
>>
>
> First I estimate the model with an ordinary logit command, and then
> "keep if e(sample)". After that I try to use the relogit command using
> the exact same model, but I get the error message "matrix has missing
> values". I have gone through all the variables, and there are no
> missing values.
>
> Have you come across this problem before, and do you know what can
> cause it?
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
>
>
> Monica K Nordvik
>
Monica K Nordvik
PhD student
Department of Sociology
Stockholm University
S-106 91 Stockholm
Sweden
+46-8-16 17 22
monica.nordvik(a)sociology.su.se
Dear
My trouble is that I deal with non-synchronic elections. In the tutorial of
Ezi this table is present:
Turnout
Vote NoVote
+-------+---------+
Black| betaB | 1-betaB | X
Race +-------+---------+
White| betaW | 1-betaW | 1-X
+-----------------+
T 1-T
where we OBSERVE:
T = proportion of voting age people who Turnout to vote
X = proportion of voting age people who are black
N = number of voting age people
and we wish to ESTIMATE:
betaB = fraction of Blacks who vote
betaW = fraction of Whites who vote
my table considerin PCI party, one of the parties which partecipated to 1976
elections, is the following
Turnout
Vote '79 NoVote '79
+-------+---------+
PCI76| betaB | 1-betaB | X
Party +-------+---------+
1-PCI76| betaW | 1-betaW | 1-X
+-----------------+
T 1-T
where we OBSERVE:
T = proportion of voting age people who Turnout to vote in 1979
X = proportion of voting age people who are PCI in 1976
N = number of voting age people
and we wish to ESTIMATE:
betaB = fraction of PCI '76 who vote in 1979
betaW = fraction of 1-PCI '76 who vote in 1979
Then I yo on taking another party (in Italy there are a lot of parties). The
PSI 1976. Then I analyse the
coefficient of transition betaB between PSI 1976 and PCI 1979 so the table is:
Turnout
PCI79 1-PCI79
+-------+---------+
PSI76| betaB | 1-betaB | X
Party +-------+---------+
1-PSI76| betaW | 1-betaW | 1-X
+-----------------+
T 1-T
where we OBSERVE:
T = proportion of voting age people who Turnout to PCI '79
X = proportion of voting age people who are PSI in 1976
N = number of voting age people
and we wish to ESTIMATE:
betaB = fraction of PSI '76 who PCI79
betaW = fraction of 1-PSI '76 who PCI '79
Then in the same way I considerer all the other existing parties PSI76 on DC79
mtch. in successive steps
(proceding IMPORT in Ezi).
My first question is: If one less betaB and one less betaW are not exacty the
of 1-betaB and betaW is not
to complement consider because it's wrong? GHactual = 2 (example my Ezi output)
what does it mean?
How does this index change?
My second question is: taking the variables in couples must they actually come
out parts on vote or parts
on part too? Just PCI76 on Vote79 or PSI76 on PCI79?
Could yuo be so kind of giving me an example parties in non syncronic
elections? Considering the existence
in time 0 (1976) of at least 3 parties in time 1 (1979) of 3 parties as ever.
Best Regards.
Claudio Grasso
University of Trento
Trentino-Sùdtirol
Italy
Dear, I ask yuoif the following in the right my working EXCEL database:
>
> Party 1 in Don't vote Subscrive Party1 Don't
> vote
> to in to electoral list in t1 in t1
> in ((to+t1)/2)
>
> Council 1 50 50 100 40 60
> Cooucil 2 51 49 100 41 59
> Council 3 52 48 100 42 58
> Council 4 53 47 100 43 57
> Total 206 194 400 166 234
>
> For me: t=party1 in t0, x=Don't vote in time t1, n=Subscrive electoral list
>
> ((all people in vote age in t0 + t1)/2).
> Then as the example of Ezi sample.asc shows I consider once finished this
> first elaboration party one in theme t1 because its present in the
> successive
> elections in t1 so t = party1 in t0, x= Dont vote in time t1, n= Subscrive
>
> electoral list ((all people in vote age in t0 + t1)/2).
> I think that yuor expression vote other party means considering all the
> parties in t0 and t1 taking them as couples one to the time t0 and the other
>
> to t1 included the dont vote in time t0 and t1 completed the elaboration and
>
> obtained the result with the output Quantities of interest I consider t
> =
> party2 in time t0, x = Dont vote in t1, n = Subscrive electoral list
> and
> so on for the other eventual parties then I sum up the output of
> Quantities
> of interest and I abtain the single coefficient of transition.
> If the parties are 2 for example the result is a table 3 x 3 considering
>
> also dont vote in t0 and t1.
> Is this description correct? Thank. Best regards. Claudio Grasso
>
> > University of Trento
> > Trentino Suedtirol
> > Italy
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, fdmplimo(a)usp.br wrote:
> Dear professor King
>
> My name is Fernando Limongi. I work with Argelina Figueiredo taht
> recently talked with you about applying your solution to the ecological
> problem to Brazilian electoral data. I am using eziwin to get the
> estimates of split or join vote on Brazilain elections. The program runs
> only up to 3,000 or 4,000 cases. When I try with more cases, the program
> does not run. In the software documentation there is no reference to
> limitations due to the number of cases. Is there such a limitation? If
> yes, Is there something that can be done to circunvent this limitation?
>
> I am trying to run the data on EI but Gauss is not very popular in
> Brazil, so no one has a copy of the program. I tried to adapt your
> routine with some others softwares but always fial for the missinf of
> some of the programes invoked. With regard EI, Gauss is the only
> software that runs it?
>
> Thank you very much for your time
>
>
> Fernando Limongi
> Political Science Department at USP
>
>
You probably have just a hardware limitation; if you used a machine with
more RAM, odds are it will work. But there are workarounds. The key is
that the basic model only estimates 5 parameters in order to get you
precinct-level estimates for all n precincts. The extended model won't
usually have many more parameters.
That means you are using a lot of data to estimate those parameters and
you could use less without much cost. There are several options. The
easiest is to set _EselRnd to select (randomly) some fraction of the data
in the estimation stage; you'll still get estimates for all quantities of
interest at the precinct level. The other option would be to run the
whole analysis separate for different subsets (such as regions) of your
data. That too would work and would add some flexibility, allowing the
model to fit the data better.
Gary
---
Gary King
Institute for Quantitative Social Science
Harvard University, 34 Kirkland St, Cambridge, MA 02138
http://GKing.Harvard.Edu, King(a)Harvard.Edu
Direct 617-495-2027, Assistant 495-9271, eFax 812-8581
-
EI mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=ei
Pardon the abruptness and the liberty of this
letter; It is due to its exigency.
I am a Bank official in the UK. I write to ask for your help.
I am in need of a foreign partner to assist in the transfer of a
considerable amount of money.
What we require is someone who is reliable and trustworthy, who has a vision
and who will be able to manage whatever business in which we shall inject
venture capital. We need someone who can share our dreams and ideals.
I have the legal title to the sum and we shall go through the legal
procedures entailed in both our laws and international laws in transferring
the funds to you in trust.
Please do not at this point misunderstand my intention, because
understandably, we are not acqainted. I do not even know if you will be
reliable and trustworthy, but I believe that everything starts with a first
step. I know that I need to explain everything clearly to you before you can
come to a decision as to whether you can assist me or not, and I will do
this as soon as I get a response from you.
I am sure that with the insider information I can provide, we will with your
help, conclude the transaction within 7 working days. In consideration for
your assistance, we have agreed to give you the normal transaction
commission obtainable of 10% of the total sum, and another 5% if you can
successfully put together an investment portfolio for us, as we will like to
invest some of this money in your country, rather than leave it idle in a
bank account.
If you can be of assistance, please write to me for more information,
otherwise, I thank you for your patience.
Thank you for your courtesies.
Best regards,
Peter Jackson
________________________________________________
Message sent using Dodo
Internet Webmail Server
-
EI mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=ei
At 01:16 PM 10/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>I used all of the "file, convert" options,
>and they produce a file called "ezigraphic.out." However, I cannot get
>powerpoint to recognize the program. It won't paste it into the slide.
Greg,
I'll tell you what I do. If it's inefficient, presumably somebody else
will give you a more-desirable alternative. But for now...
What I do is ask EI to convert the graphic into Postscript. When the
output file is created, change the name so that it has a Postscript suffix
(*.ps or *.eps). The file then should be meaningful to a Postscript
printer, but it still won't go into Powerpoint -- you'll try to look at the
graph and see words like "contains information for a Postscript printer."
You need to insert some thumbnail information into the file using a format
that Office Suite or Corel's Suite will be able to visualize for you (e.g.,
TIFF). In the past, I've used Ghostview, the shareware system built off of
Ghostscript. Ghostview also lets you crop off unwanted GAUSS labels and
whatnot. The saved version of your graph will be meaningful to MS products
and you can add attractive labels in Powerpoint.
There are two things that I've never been able to master completely, and
that still remains somewhat mysterious to me.
1) I've never figured out a way to rip off the dateline that GAUSS/EI puts
in the graph. I've cropped it out, so that one generally does not see it,
but it stays in the file and has a habit of reappearing at the most
inopportune times. I asked Gary once how he solves the problem, but as I
recall the solution involved pulling the graph into a software package that
was not available to me (and maybe wasn't even available on PC, I don't
remember).
2) You have to be careful about the resolution that comes out of the
software if you are going to print a paper. Sometimes you get the
high-resolution Postscript graph and sometimes you the low-resolution TIFF
version. Nor have I quite figured out the sorcery that determines which
one is going to appear at any one time. I've had to get a publisher to run
the graph again because they initially included the low-res version from
the file I'd sent them.
In the past, I think I've had to choose between problem #1 and problem
#2. I either get the software to print a low-resolution version of the
graph, or it comes out with the dateline that I try to crop out.
Hope this helps.
steve
--------------------------------------------------------------
D. Stephen Voss, Assc. Prof URL- http://www.uky.edu/~dsvoss
1603 Patterson Office Tower Phone- (859)257-4313
Dept. of Political Science "It was my duty to bring
University of Kentucky the facts to light, and there
Lexington, KY 40506-0027 I must leave it." Sherlock Holmes
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
EI mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=ei
Gary et al.,
I have used ezi to generate a tomography plot, and I would like to import
it into a powerpoint slide. I used all of the "file, convert" options,
and they produce a file called "ezigraphic.out." However, I cannot get
powerpoint to recognize the program. It won't paste it into the slide.
What should I do?
Greg
Gregory A. Pettis
Political Science
UNC Chapel Hill
Polling and Teaching Fellow
Elon University
Elon, N.C. 27244
-
EI mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=ei
Professor King and other ei practitioners:
I am hoping for some clarification and/or advice. My polisci
colleague and I study political movements and elections in Ecuador. We
have analyzed some of the results of the 2002 elections there, primarily
the votes for President in the first and second rounds. We are
particularly interested in the voting differences between indigenous
peoples (hereafter Indians) and others (mestizos, blanco-mestizos,
etc.). I won't go into the methodological problems of estimating
ethnicity here. We have the data at the parish level (the closest thing
to a precinct) and have looked at the relationship between %Indian and %
voting for Presidential Candidate G, who was in an alliance with an
indigenous-led political movement. The hypothesis is simple: a larger %
of Indians should vote for candidate G than should non-Indians. For the
943 parishes we first ran the "Goodman regression" and find that the
estimate for the proportion of Indians casting their vote for candidate
G is .465 and for non-Indians it is .163. Then, using the ezi program
we run the regular or first-stage ei and the "Aggregate Quantities of
Interest" are .463 for Indians and .164 for non-Indians. These results,
and others, are very close between the "no-intercept" OLS regression and
ei.
So, it seems we have two results: 1) a much higher proportion of
Indians voted for candidate G than did non-Indians and,
2) there is not an "ecological fallacy" or aggregation problem with that
conclusion. The thing is, we have a very important "control" variable -
region. There are very strong regional differences in Ecuador in voting
patterns. There are three regions: Coast, Sierra, and Oriente (jungle).
The third is not very important since only 3% of the population lives
there. Candidate G is a Sierra (and Oriente) candidate and he did not
receive a lot of support on the Coast (especially in the first round).
This confounds the ethnic differences because Indians live
overwhelmingly in the Sierra, not on the coast.
I have read numerous other articles using ei, including those going
on to a "second-stage" and the exchange between Herron and Shotts and
Adolph and King. But we are not interested in analyzing the variance in
the ei estimates of the proportion of Indians voting for candidate G
across the parishes, which is the equivalent of what the other
researchers have been doing. If the ecological inference issue has been
resolved, i.e., a higher % of Indians really did vote for candidate G
than did non-Indians, would it not be appropriate to just return to
simple OLS regression if I want to explain variance in votes for
candidate G across parishes, with %Indian and two dummy variables
representing the Coast and Oriente regions of Ecuador? This is to
resolve the question of whether a higher proportion of Indians voted for
candidate G in the Sierra than did non-Indians, which is the case. By
the way, we also estimated this by "regular" ei by just using the
parishes in the Sierra, which once again produced estimates very close
to the Goodman regression.
SO, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHETHER USING OLS REGRESSION WITH OUR
ORIGINAL DEPENDENT VARIABLE, THE %INDIAN PREDICTOR AND A COUPLE OF
CONTROL VARIABLES IS AN ACCEPTABLE APPROACH. (By the way, in the OLS
regressions we do weight the cases by size of parish).
I appreciate any comments,
Scott H. Beck, Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN 37614
Tel.: 423-439-6648
Email: r30scott(a)etsu.edu
Gary,
As an applied researcher, I'm curious as to your reaction to the Herron
and Shotts article in the January 2004 AJPS. They essentially argue that
for any
meaningful application involving EI to employ the extended model, and they
explain how to do so.
Obviously if you have serious disagreements with their argument you cannot
address their points in full in an email to a listserve.
I guess something I'm wondering about in particular is the relationship
between the information contained in the bounds and how EI responds to
aggregation bias. H&S make a convincing argument (as far as I am
concerned, at this point anyway) that this "logical inconsistency" means
aggregation bias will be passed along to contaminate any second-stage EI-R
effect estimates. However, it seems intuitive to me that this problem is
not necessarily absolutely corrupting, but more a matter of degree. They
show with the Burden and Kimball data that in that case this "logical
inconsistency" was a real problem. However, the bounds in that data was
quite atrocious. I can imagine that if you have very informative data (a
la AKHS 2003), and then you run extended models with some covariates, that
these extended models might remove some of the aggregation bias from the
resulting second stage estimates (in fact, that's what they are designed
to do). We don't have Monte Carlo simulations on this question, only one
example with poor data, so the question is open as to the degree to which
this "logical inconsistency" actually matters for the estimates.
I guess I'm wondering if this is logic you might agree with, and I'm
curious as to your other thoughts. I really should have discussed this
with you at PolMeth, but the article only came to my attention later.
Greg
Gregory A. Pettis
ABD, Political Science
UNC Chapel Hill
Polling Fellow, Elon University
CB # 2203
Elon, N.C. 27244
(336) 278-5239
-
EI mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=ei
