Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 417

by geogob (#47908147) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

I understand that in most states, no proof of damage must be given. In many states, the statement itself suffices. An audience is not necessary.

But hey, IANAL. And especially defamation legislation is tricky in the US. Regardless I would press charges (which is more accurately said than "sue them").

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 417

by geogob (#47907809) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

I use a car every they. I guess that makes me a bank robber. You know, could use it as a get away car.

My neighbor also suspect me of murder an cannibalism. He saw me through the kitchen window with a butcher knife and used the BBQ the whole summer. Furthermore, the other neighbors haven't been seen since beginning of the vacation period. All hard evidence...

Seriously, I don't know if you were trying to be funny or sarcastic... but I hope it was either one of those.

Comment: Re:This is the guy who decides? (Score 3, Interesting) 196

by geogob (#47907443) Attached to: New Details About NSA's Exhaustive Search of Edward Snowden's Emails

Forget the tinfoil hat.

Obviously, any email discussing the existence and raising concern about highly classified programs will be also classified as such. Most likely these emails would be removed or redacted to before any review of the email could take place. I am pretty certain emails shouldn't contain highly classified information, hence the people reviewing the emails will most likely not have the security clearance to review highly classified materials. Assuming they are classified as such, not only do they not have to admit of their existence, they are not allowed to admit it.

I am really not a fan on conspiracy theories, nor do I prone propagating them. On the contrary.
Although this might sound like one, for me it feels more like standard procedures and due process that turned out to be quite convenient.

Comment: Re:Quite accurately? (Score 1) 170

by geogob (#47887825) Attached to: Universal Big Bang Lithium Deficit Confirmed

No I don't get it and you are wrong.

Your example has as nothing to do with accuracy. I'll help you.

According to Oxford :

The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.

In other word, the accuracy of a model results tells you how good it represents the real world. What you (and all others who so kindly replied to my original comment) are referring to is precision.

So, following your example, both model A and B would be inaccurate, but model B would be more precise than model A. Using ISO terminology, model A and B would show a bad trueness, and A would be less precise than B.

Comment: Re:Quite accurately? (Score 1) 170

by geogob (#47880291) Attached to: Universal Big Bang Lithium Deficit Confirmed

No. If you have stable equations, you have stable equations. Period. It only means that the result will not strongly diverge with a small perturbation.

How these equations represent the real world (ie. how accurate the results are) has nothing to do with their stability. And this is exactly what the point of the whole story is... the equations, regardless if stable or not, do not represent the observed reality.

Comment: Re:Quite accurately? (Score 2, Insightful) 170

by geogob (#47879651) Attached to: Universal Big Bang Lithium Deficit Confirmed

To say you can calculate quite accurately an expected value makes no sense a all. I can only understand that they estimate the value using models and believe these models to be accurate. Any other signification is senseless and it would be pointless to argue over it.

Furthermore, you can't asses the accuracy of an estimation with a model. The model is, as you point it yourself out, what gives the estimated value. Only a measurement can validate the estimation and the model.
Their models gave prediction for the other elements and observations showed that the model was pretty much spot on. Using the same approach for Li, they assumed (or hope for) a similar accuracy. Observation now show that it wasn't the case.

But the point of the statement was that the believed it would be accurate (again, because any other interpretation of the sentence makes no sense at all). If it is not based on other results using the same model or technique, how do you believe they would have that confidence on the accuracy of their expectation?

Comment: Re:Quite accurately? (Score 0, Troll) 170

by geogob (#47879249) Attached to: Universal Big Bang Lithium Deficit Confirmed

Correct wording would have been "Astronomers believe they can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe based on their experience with other elements."

or something along those lines. The second part, i'm not sure, but the "believe they" really makes the whole point.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...