Great Moments in Pedantry: The odds of your existence

What are the odds that you, as an individual, exist? Pretty good, you'd guess, since you're sitting right here reading this. But, in an abstract sense, the chances that you exist are really rather slim. In fact, once you see the full infographic, put together by futurist and designer Sofya Yampolsky of Visual.ly, I'm sure you'll be much more skeptical of your existence.

The infographic is based on this post by Dr. Ali Binazir.

Read the rest

Odds are good you won't be hit by a satellite this weekend

A retired climate research satellite will plummet to Earth on Friday. There is a 1-in-3,200 chance of it hitting a person. BUT! Don't worry too much about that, says Scientific American reporter John Matson. A 1-in-3200 chance of a piece of the satellite hitting somebody, is not the same as a 1-in-3200 chance of it hitting you, specifically. He calculates the risk of that as 1-in-22 trillion.

Deceptive "independent research" from Hollywood front suggests Australians are easily frightened

A press release from a mysterious "independent" Australian research outfit announced that if Aussie ISPs would help the movie industry by threatening the families that Hollywood says are downloading without permission, copyright infringement would fall by a whopping 72 percent.

This is a big number. A very big number. Especially since the same poll question, when asked in France (where the motion picture lobby has succeeded in passing a "disconnect anyone we don't like from the Internet" law) showed that only four percent of downloaders changed their habits out of fear of detection.

No, it's not that Australians are easily frightened. Rather, the Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation (an "independent" firm that lists the MPAA on its board and has no visible clients apart from the entertainment industry) included responses from people who don't download in its poll -- that is, they lumped in the very small number of people (zero, possibly) who said, "I download, and this would make me stop" with the very large number of people who said, "I don't download, but, well, hypothetically, if I did, this might make me stop."

If 72 percent say they would stop sharing after a warning, then 28 percent didn’t agree with this statement. And since only 22 percent of the people said they used file-sharing software in 2011 (the only people who would be affected by a three strikes system), this means that warnings from ISPs wouldn’t even deter people who aren’t the target of this system in the first place.

Or put differently, it could very well be that none of the 22 percent file-sharers indicated that they would stop doing so when notified by their ISP.

Now that’s an entirely different conclusion isn’t it?

Anti-Piracy Lobby Misleads Aussie Press for Three-Strikes Campaign

Clinical significance is not the same as statistical significance

A great example of why details and context always, always matter, from the surgeon/blogger at The Skeptical Scalpel:

Twelve patients who served as their own controls wore compression stockings for a week and then no stockings for a week alternating. The stockings lowered the amount of fluid in the neck by 60%, a statistically significant difference. So far, so good.

This resulted in another highly statistically significant finding, which was a 36% reduction in episodes of apnea [cessation of breathing] and hypopnea [inadequate breathing]. Sounds good, right? The problem is that the average number of episodes of apnea/hypopnea decreased from 48 per hour to 31 per hour. Patients experiencing more than 30 episodes of apnea/hypopnea per hour are classified as having severe obstructive sleep apnea. This means that the treatment only put the patients in the low range of severe obstructive sleep apnea. They still would require maximum therapy.

Via Ivan Oransky

Misleading government stats and the innumerate media who repeat them

This week's Bad Science column from Ben Goldacre is an entertaining and frustrating look at the way that the government manipulates statistics with help from a tame and innumerate news media:
The Sun said: "Police have charged nearly 150 people after violent anarchists hijacked the anti-cuts demo and brought terror to London's streets." The Guardian republished a Press Association report, headlined: "Cuts protest violence: 149 people charged". And from the locals, for example, the Manchester Evening News carried "Boy, 17, from Manchester among 149 charged over violence after anti-cuts march".

In reality, a dozen of these charges related to violence, while 138 are people who were involved in an apparently peaceful occupation of Fortnum and Masons organised by UKUncut, who campaign on tax avoidance.

You will have your own view on whether people should be arrested and charged for standing in a shop as an act of protest. But describing these 150 people as "violent anarchists... who brought terror to London's streets" is not just misleading: it also makes the police look over 12 times more effective than they really were at charging people who perpetrated acts of violence.

Anarchy for the UK. Ish.

Mobile "bandwidth hogs" are just ahead of the curve

A Cisco white-paper on mobile data usage shows that "high bandwidth" users are just early adopters -- the first people to start using high-bandwidth apps like video. In other words, it's not P2P or tethering that mobile operators have to worry about, it's using mobile data in exactly the way it's advertised. (via cmdln)