hackers make less than $15,000 per successful attack and net, on average, less than $29,000 a year. The average attacker conducts eight attacks per year, of which less than half are successful.
Unless the first two numbers are way off, they suggest the average hacker has (less than) two successful attacks which would be (less than) a quarter of the average eight per year.
A quick rewrite:
hackers make more than $14,000 per successful attack and net, on average, more than $28,000 a year. The average attacker conducts eight attacks per year, of which more than a quarter are successful.
There, that's a much more positive spin on things!
If I was amoral and had the skills, I'd take up hacking at those prices. A 25% chance of $14,000 for a week's work? Where do I sign up?
The odds of one of the two of them calling it correctly 6 times in a row
I'd clarify that, and say "The odds of either one of the two of them." Otherwise there's room for interpreting it as "a particular one of the two of them."
Hey Slashdot, you wanted ideas about things you could do to improve yourself. How about adding a retraction and/or additional information to a summary after it's been shown that the whole thing is a load of hooey?
The apostrophe problem I was referring to was the liberal sprinkling of â about the summaries of late. As snarky comments go, it wasn't well thought out.
But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.
63 to 1.
And what "other considerations" did you use to come to the conclusion that it is more likely that 6 apparently completely independent toin cosses, at entirely different locations, witnessed by several people from both sides were all rigged, than that a simple not-very-improbable 1-in-64 event just occured*?
*notwithstanding the fact that it didn't occur - there were apparently more than just six coin tosses and Sanders apparently won around half of them. So you've leapt to a wild conclusion based on nothing at all.
Combine a mass spectrometer and a projector that can bounce an image off objects in the room that puts the focal point of the light in front of or possibly behind the object
What's the mass spectrometer for?
I don't see how you can change where the focal point of the light is if you're just bouncing it off whatever happens to be in the room. You're just lightning an object.
Someone replied to another comment of mine with this:
NPR talked to the Iowa Democratic Committee; they say there were at least a dozen tiebreakers, and Sanders won at least a handful. All the 6 of 6 shows is that you can cherry pick things to make them look fishy.
Even if there were just the 6, winning them all is not so unlikely as to reasonably warrant suspicion, given the improbable level of conspiracy required.
1/64 isn't really that small of a probability, especially given the overwhelming logistical effort that would be necessary to deliberately engineer such a result without (reasonable) suspicion.
And she lost at least one of the (more than six) coin tosses.
No-one fixed anything. A slightly unlikely thing happened, just as slightly unlikely things happen every day. In fact, it's even less unlikely than you think it is, because there were at least seven coin tosses and Bernie Sanders won at least one of them.
If you're comparing this situation to the lottery, then you're an innumerate idiot.
Well, a bit overdramatic at least.
But anyway, my comment was to the guy who said "Go back to basic probability." There's nothing wrong with the probability arguments made - just the (qualitative) statement at the end.
Slashdot Mirror
hackers make less than $15,000 per successful attack and net, on average, less than $29,000 a year. The average attacker conducts eight attacks per year, of which less than half are successful.
Unless the first two numbers are way off, they suggest the average hacker has (less than) two successful attacks which would be (less than) a quarter of the average eight per year.
A quick rewrite:
hackers make more than $14,000 per successful attack and net, on average, more than $28,000 a year. The average attacker conducts eight attacks per year, of which more than a quarter are successful.
There, that's a much more positive spin on things!
If I was amoral and had the skills, I'd take up hacking at those prices. A 25% chance of $14,000 for a week's work? Where do I sign up?
Conal O'Rourke. Just in case anyone else tries to Google it.
The odds of one of the two of them calling it correctly 6 times in a row
I'd clarify that, and say "The odds of either one of the two of them." Otherwise there's room for interpreting it as "a particular one of the two of them."
To quote an AC, whose reply may be lost to those without a low threshold:
Only the SAR (radar) on the M2 died. The optical imaging component is working just fine.
Moral decisions should be made by individuals, not governments.
So as long as I think a murder is justified...?
Musk in particular isn't stupid.
Not being stupid doesn't mean he isn't impetuous.
He's also extremely rich, and if the guy sues, Musk won't be dealing with it or even feel the consequences.
Hey Slashdot, you wanted ideas about things you could do to improve yourself. How about adding a retraction and/or additional information to a summary after it's been shown that the whole thing is a load of hooey?
John Cleese's real name: John Cheese.
Mind. Blown.
The apostrophe problem I was referring to was the liberal sprinkling of â about the summaries of late. As snarky comments go, it wasn't well thought out.
It's not bad writing because an extradition is a rendition.
(a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland)
"It support"? C'mooon. Maybe you should call "it support" to fix your apostrophe problem.
But Abu Hamza wasn't "rendered"
Yes he was. An extradition is a rendition.
Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy.
No-one said anything about extraordinary rendition.
Scotland is a country. It's not a sovereign state.
But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.
63 to 1.
And what "other considerations" did you use to come to the conclusion that it is more likely that 6 apparently completely independent toin cosses, at entirely different locations, witnessed by several people from both sides were all rigged, than that a simple not-very-improbable 1-in-64 event just occured*?
*notwithstanding the fact that it didn't occur - there were apparently more than just six coin tosses and Sanders apparently won around half of them. So you've leapt to a wild conclusion based on nothing at all.
The probability of someone winning all 6 coin tosses is 1/32.
Combine a mass spectrometer and a projector that can bounce an image off objects in the room that puts the focal point of the light in front of or possibly behind the object
What's the mass spectrometer for?
I don't see how you can change where the focal point of the light is if you're just bouncing it off whatever happens to be in the room. You're just lightning an object.
Someone replied to another comment of mine with this:
NPR talked to the Iowa Democratic Committee; they say there were at least a dozen tiebreakers, and Sanders won at least a handful. All the 6 of 6 shows is that you can cherry pick things to make them look fishy.
Even if there were just the 6, winning them all is not so unlikely as to reasonably warrant suspicion, given the improbable level of conspiracy required.
Ask Slashdot: How Can We Improve Slashdot?
That's not "Ask Slashdot," that's "Tell Slashdot."
Seems obviously highly suspicious to me.
1/64 isn't really that small of a probability, especially given the overwhelming logistical effort that would be necessary to deliberately engineer such a result without (reasonable) suspicion.
And she lost at least one of the (more than six) coin tosses.
Socat Weak Crypto Draws Suspicions Of a Backdoor
I thought we were calling them "backholes" now?
So many people are talking the "odds" of this happening.
The odds of this happening are not 1/64, or ~1.6%. They are 63:1 (63 to 1).
1/64 is the probability.
Carry on.
Sheesh.
No-one fixed anything. A slightly unlikely thing happened, just as slightly unlikely things happen every day. In fact, it's even less unlikely than you think it is, because there were at least seven coin tosses and Bernie Sanders won at least one of them.
so tight in the Iowa caucus
Name of Bernie Sanders's sex tape.
If you're comparing this situation to the lottery, then you're an innumerate idiot.
Well, a bit overdramatic at least.
But anyway, my comment was to the guy who said "Go back to basic probability." There's nothing wrong with the probability arguments made - just the (qualitative) statement at the end.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And for extra weirdness, Sanders wins.