Comment: Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score 1) 282
He answered yes by raising his hand. He then volunteered ONE example. He was not asked to disclose all cases. He did not misrepresent anything. He did not state he only had one lawsuit, or answer any questions as to how many lawsuits he had been involved in. That's not his fault for those questions not being asked.
What the judge said is "All right, let's go to Mr. Hogan". You are trying to say "Mr. Hogan didn't have to say anything because that's not a question, the judge just said 'let's go' and that means nothing!" However, standard voir dire instructions are that when you raise your hand and it is "your turn", you must explain your answer in "narrative form". So the reason he gave an example is not because he volunteered an example without prompting. It was because he was instructed that, when picked by the judge, he must elaborate on his yes/no answer. To repeat that, he was required to explain his answer. The judge did not vocalize that requirement at that time, because it was part of the previous instructions. That's why all of the people who raised their hand were not asked explicitly to elaborate, but they all did when he called their names. Since he was, in fact, instructed to explain, he was required to answer truthfully. Omissions are considered deceit as far as the court is concerned.
Comment: Re:Not sure if you can post anonymously early or n (Score 1) 405
Comment: Re:Aliens? (Score 1) 94
This doesn't change much. As mentioned, this is a pretty fundamental assumption. What this assumption gets you is that if you go big enough, all of the differences in mass distribution smooth out and everywhere is just like everywhere else. There will be a "typical" cluster of galaxies that "most" are "pretty close" to. And within such a typical cluster you can talk of a "typical" galaxy, and a "typical" star within that galaxy. But are we a typical planet in a typical solar system in a typical galaxy in a typical local cluster in a typical supercluster? Unknown
What's more important is how common solar systems with terrestrial and gas giant planets are. If there are rocky planets, it's thought that more or less they will turn out the same at the same distance from the sun, (scaled by the sun's intensity of course), and depending on their mass for how well they can hold onto an atmosphere. (And of course that's wishy washy, it's argued whether or not Mars would be earth-like at our distance, if it would still have been too small to hold onto an atmosphere long-term, and if the a large moon is necessary to keep the magnetic field rolling). More or less the distance and primary's luminosity will determine atmospheric temperature, and that will determine the rate of out-gassing, and you'll get all kinds of feedback, and either end up with a Venus, Earth, or Mars depending on how the atmospheric pressure and temperature equilibriums end up balanced. There doesn't appear to be a HUGE amount of variance in elemental abundance between solar systems, except according to their age. (Even that is more of a quick rule of thumb than a hard curve). This of course isn't settled by any means. Then you have things that are less settled. How important is a moon to things? Some say our magnetic field would be gone by now without the tidal forces of the moon keeping the core etc. churning away. Others say that's silly, but it might be a bit weaker by now. Then you have to figure out how much water and such we got from bombardment by comets flung out of orbit by gas giants. How many and how large of gas giants do you need to typically get that effect? Is it even strictly necessary, or just handy? Would we have still ended up Earth-like (with much smaller oceans perhaps?) without Late Heavy Bombardment? Or would we have frozen solid without the greenhouse effect of all that water? Or did most of our water come from within anyway so at most we would just have slightly smaller oceans and slightly lower temperature? If gas giants are needed, we at least have spotted those all over the place. (In fact we've spotted them around stars we thought shouldn't have any!)
None of that is really helped or hindered by the homogeneity of the entire universe. If we can get the telescope resolution to make fair estimates on the likelihood of earth-like planets (for some definition of that term) throughout the Milky Way, then we can maybe look at nearby galaxies and guestimate how likely those stars are to be like our own stars...and from there if we can eventually look far enough we can say "OK well by homogeneity most galaxies are probably pretty close to this, so maybe earth-like planets are around about this common...ish".
Comment: Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? (Score 5, Informative) 98
Comment: Re:Distance remains the same? (Score 1) 182
Comment: Re:Comparison to HL2 port from Valve? (Score 5, Informative) 130
Comment: I hate Odds Ratios (Score 1) 114
One of the worst "bad abstract tricks" is putting your findings as Odds Ratios. What's an Odds Ratio? You probably know that the "probability" of an event is "Event over Total". The probability of rolling a 6 on a standard die is 1/6. The "odds" of an event is "Event to Not Event". The odds of rolling a 6 are not 1:6, they are 1:5 for (or more often said, 5:1 against). So then the odds ratio (OR) of two groups is the ratio of ratios, or the ratio of the odds for one event compared to the odds of another. So a big source of confusion is thinking the odds and probability are the same thing. Clearly they aren't. And clearly the closer they get to even odds, the bigger the difference. The odds of tossing a coin and getting heads are 1:1, but that's a 1:2 probability.
An example of the odds ratio in action: You ask 1000 men if they smoke, and you get 300 who say "yes" (made up statistics). That's odds of 300 to 700, or 3:7. You ask 1000 women if they smoke, and 250 say "yes". That's odds of 250:750, or 1:3. The odds ratio is then (3:7) : (1:3) or 9:7, or 1.2857...:1 So in the abstract you will see that this study has found that males have an OR of 1.29 when compared with women. And they'll just sit back and let the journalists call that "almost 30% more likely!" When it's not. That's how much higher the odds are, and odds are not probability! And of course you can't forget about confidence intervals. It's actually even worse than that. An increasing number of medical papers will take the OR of 20:1 and go straight to "20 fold more likely to blank!" when the probability ratio is 3.5:1 not 20:1.
Part of the problem is not enough statistics courses for scientists. I had to take 2 as part of my degree, and they never covered odds ratios, or odds at all actually. Only probabilities, which are more useful to reason about usually. This is further compounded by people using odds and probability interchangeably. I see on things like scratch and wins and store give aways "Odds of winning 1 in 3", which is a probability.
Comment: Re:What? (Score 5, Insightful) 1052
Comment: Re:I have some issues interpreting that statement (Score 3, Informative) 117
Comment: Re:Collection != leak (Score 1) 216
Comment: Re:Clearance; promotion (Score 1) 272
Write original material?
The reference here was probably to Elastica getting sued by Wire over 5 notes. So, 5 notes, regardless of tempo or key change, leaves about 40,000 unique "song parts". And of course, a large portion of them sound terrible, so there are maybe a few thousand possible parts of songs, and each song will be made of many of them. Since there are a lot more than a few thousand songs, by Wire's logic, there are no unique songs left in the world. Of course, that was settled out of court, so it's not actually the law at all
Comment: Re:Several states (Score 1) 1218
Comment: Re:Here's a video released by Anon about surveilla (Score 3, Interesting) 149
There was a Canadian show I watched one episode of called "Continuum", the "good" guy (well, girl) is a "Protector" in the "CPA" (I forget if it's "civilian" or "corporate" protection). In other words, she's a secret police officer. No uniform, license to kill. The "government" is the Corporate Congress. After bringing about additional market collapses they bought out the world governments and dissolved them. The CPA doesn't arrest people directly, they implant "trackers" which work not by actually being a GPS tracker, but by inducing more and more pain until the "perp" turns themselves in at the CPA station for sentencing and removal of the excruciator (hungry rats are sooooooooo 20th century). (The pilot has her smashing somebody's face in for vandalism then implanting the excruciator). Her suit/implants record everything she sees and hears and transmits it to HQ for filing. So, bringing it back to the second post in this thread, one of her buddies calls the government Big Brother, and she says the exact same thing "It can't be because otherwise you'd be dead". All while her implants are filming and recording, and transmitting back to HQ for processing and filing.
Anyway, the whole show is so heavily "1984 but the government is the good guy" I couldn't believe it. But they make sure the "bad guys" (pro-democracy rebels) are equally unsympathetic by having them kill as many innocent people as possible 24/7 for no reason. (PS the bad guys are a government trained death squad used to put down protests, but for some reason maybe explained in episodes I didn't watch, they rebelled.)