"In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years ((13.798±0.037)×109 years or (4.354±0.012)×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."
Still, the Sun rotates around the Milky Way center at a rate of every 240 million years; "Sun's Galactic rotation period 240 Myr (negative rotation)" according to Sparks 2007. Well, does that mean that the sun only has rotated around the Milky Way some 60 times (four times every billion years), since Big Bang? That sounds very little. Could the universe be much older than estimated?!
You called me out, and
Can anyone with more info on this tell me how this earlier paper is different - arxiv.org/abs/0907.0042
I certainly don't pretend to understand the content of the England/Michaelian papers.
But after a quick scan of Michaelian's paper, I think the difference might be that England's paper rigorously quantifies the theory mathematically, while Michaelian's paper does not.
One should check with xarchive.org (and elsewhere) which ip-addresses have visited Michaelians' article.
A few years back some Spanish researchers were caught tapping original data
"But now evidence has been offered that Dr. Ortiz and his group did access the observing logs. Prompted by questions by Dr. Rabinowitz of Yale, one of Dr. Brown's team members, Dr. Pogge, who maintains the Smarts telescope Web site, decided to investigate the traffic on the site. He found that computers from an unfamiliar address had visited the Web site eight times from July 26 to 28, when the Spanish group was making its announcement. Each time the computers went straight to pages deep within the site that described the Brown group's observations of K40506A. The first three visits happened a few minutes apart early on July 26, a day and a half before the Ortiz group made its announcement. Another cluster of hits came on the morning of the July 28 before the object was observed in Mallorca and Dr. Ortiz made his more complete report to the astronomical union. Dr. Pogge was able to trace the computers through the so-called IPP numbers, which the Internet assigns to each computer on it. Those numbers eventually led him to the Web site of the Andalusian Institute. Dr. Pogge said he gasped out loud when it popped up."
These things happen.
Nonetheless, Jeremy L England's article is plain sloppy research for not finding Michaelian's paper.
The difference is that Jeremy L England has more influential friends within media.
Yeah, this is serious matter
"300 posts to the Google Product Forums "
How many people work at the Google Product Office? Probably more than 300. 300 is not enough people to be labeled more than a blip on anyone's it-radar. Perhaps they were astroturfing.
Windows 8 (and the entire Windows 8.x by extension) may be the prime example of that.
That interface on a desktop computer may be worse than anything else built by Microsoft.
Yes, use the interquartile range instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interquartile_range
It is like the median a very robust method, not readily influenced by outliers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
The median is wickedly robust, with a breakdown point at 50%, meaning that you can throw a huge a mount of junk data at it and it still doesn't care.
The arithmetic mean and the standatd deviation are both junk, often worse than the too-often-assumed-normal data thrown at it.
Hmmm. A Donald Duck pr0n version?
Wait, a pr0n version of Sherlock and Wa..., err, John Holmes? A century worth of speculations is over?
In a similar vein, there is a Gamespot.com comparison of the Steam Box price versus the retail prices of the parts:
"The sum of the system's various components--including its processor, motherboard, and hard drive--came out to around $1300. The most expensive component was its Zotac GeForce GTX 780 3GB video card--estimated at more than $500. It's important to note that the 300 Steam Machine units available today for beta testers are prototype systems. Specifications, and thus price, could change before the system launches publicly in 2014. It's also important to remember that several boxes will be available, featuring an array of specifications and price points. We've asked Valve to comment on the $1300 price point, but haven't heard back."
The Steam Box, a Gabe Newell subsidized bargain or will they just minimize profit as can be done to gain traction? Newell vs Jobs, I sense a difference.
(BTW, I still think Apple sucks, even if I have to admit the new Mac Pro design is nice.)
Holing a gunk?
From defencetalk.com (http://www.defencetalk.com/mission-completed-swedish-gripen-back-from-libya-37964/)
Gripen in Libya: "650 combat missions, almost 2,000 flight hours and more than 150,000 reconnaissance photos"
So, it does have some real-life experience too
Those facts make it sound like some "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot. What if we all are suspects here at Slashdot?