<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;statistics&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:42:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you need some handy numbers to argue that violent video games are more dangerous than guns, Public Policy Polling has just delivered a <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_207.pdf" target="_blank">gift-wrapped poll result</a> especially for you. In the middle of a long poll attempting to suss out potential front runners for the 2016 elections, PPP <a href="http://gamepolitics.com/2013/02/08/ppp-poll-games-more-dangerous-guns#.URWb0aVEF8E" target="_blank">decided to toss in a question comparing violent video games and guns</a>.
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/gV2sFzF.png" style="width: 351px; height: 114px;" /></center>
<p>
There you have it. Violent video games are a "bigger safety threat" than guns, according to two out of three respondents. Seems pretty open and shut. Everyone cross out the word "gun" on your pet piece of legislation and replace it with "video game!" The nation is saved!<br />
<br />
Many of you may be reaching for your guns/lower jaw/commenting implement. Before we start firing off mouths/angry wall o&#39; text screeds/bullets, let&#39;s have a look at the methodology.
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>PPP surveyed 800 voters nationally from January 31st to February 3rd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.5%. We oversampled 416 Democratic and 508 Republican primary voters with margins of error of +/-4.8% and +/-4.4% respectively. In Iowa between February 1st and 3rd we interviewed 313 Democratic and 326 Republican primary voters with margins of error of +/-5.5% and +/-5.4% respectively. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.</i></blockquote>
This certainly seems above board. So, why do the results seem so surprising? Well, maybe it&#39;s the prevailing demographics of those surveyed. <a href="http://kotaku.com/5982842/oh-come-on-67-of-polled-voters-say-video-games-are-a-bigger-threat-to-safety-than-guns?post=57188875" target="_blank">As pointed out in the comments at Kotaku</a>, there are two factors that skew the results.<br />
<br />
1. 72% of the respondents are older than 45.<br />
<br />
2. The "violent video games" question was only posed to Republican primary voters.<br />
<br />
Now, this data pretty much agrees with the stereotypical view that older people and Republicans trust guns more than they trust violent video games. Sure, there are plenty of outliers along the way, but the Republican Party has generally fought gun control laws, and older people are generally more distrustful of recent technology. In fact, given a narrow enough demographic, you could probably get poll results that indicates that "most Americans" believe cellphones are a bigger safety threat than depleted uranium.<br />
<br />
So, what PPP has <i>actually</i> done is gift-wrapped a set of numbers useful for preaching to the converted. All it does is add to noise that surrounds this heated topic. Considering there&#39;s nothing else resembling that question in the other several dozen pages, one wonders why the question appears at all. Truly bizarre.
</p>
<center><div id="DV-viewer-602442-ppp-release-national-207" class="DV-container"></div>
<script src="//s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script>
<script>
  DV.load("//www.documentcloud.org/documents/602442-ppp-release-national-207.js", {
    width: 550,
    height: 560,
    sidebar: false,
    text: false,
    page: 44,
    container: "#DV-viewer-602442-ppp-release-national-207"
  });
</script>
<noscript>
  <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/602442/ppp-release-national-207.pdf">PPP Release National 207 (PDF)</a>
  <br />
  <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/602442/ppp-release-national-207.txt">PPP Release National 207 (Text)</a>
</noscript></center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>two-thirds-of-a-foregone-conclusion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130208/17362421926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:45:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: How The BPI Cherry Picks Its Averages To Pretend File Sharers Spend Less</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/15563721940/lies-damn-lies-statistics-how-bpi-cherry-picks-its-averages-to-pretend-file-sharers-spend-less.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/15563721940/lies-damn-lies-statistics-how-bpi-cherry-picks-its-averages-to-pretend-file-sharers-spend-less.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written more than a few times about how multiple studies have shown time and time again that those who file share tend to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/00590921141/dear-riaa-pirates-buy-more-full-stop-deal-with-it.shtml">spend more</a> on buying music than those who don't.  We've also talked about how the RIAA absolutely <i>hates</i> this fact and tries to dance around it at all costs.  The latest move comes from RIAA sister organization, BPI (basically the UK RIAA), which has <a href="http://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/bpi_digital_music_nation_2013.pdf" target="_blank">released a report</a> (pdf) that they claim shows the opposite:
<blockquote><i>
Appearing to debunk the common belief that filesharers
spend more on music than other consumers, Kantar
Worldpanel found that the average spend over a
12-month period for professed filesharers was lower
than the spend of consumers who only use legal
services. Kantar Worldpanel&#8217;s respondents diarise
their music purchases on an ongoing basis &#8211; there
are no estimates made of past purchasing, just an
accurate recording of spending patterns over time.
The panel data demonstrated that filesharers spent
an average of &pound;26.64, compared with &pound;33.43
by legal-only consumers, refuting the popular
argument that filesharers are the heaviest
spenders on music.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, when you're talking about averages, it's not difficult to fudge the numbers a bit, and as TorrentFreak explains, that's exactly what BPI did.  If you break out the specific numbers, you can <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/music-pirates-are-cheapskates-some-of-them-130210/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">tell a very different story</a>:
<blockquote><i>
<strong>-</strong> Legal only digital music buyers spend an average of <strong>&pound;33.43</strong> a year.<br />
<strong>-</strong> File-sharers, in total, spend an average of <strong>&pound;26.64</strong> a year.<br />
<strong>-</strong> File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of <strong>&pound;0</strong> a year.<br />
<strong>-</strong> File-sharers, the 55.2% who are buying, spend an average of <strong>&pound;48.26</strong> a year.
</i></blockquote>
TorrentFreak confronted BPI on this, and they shot back that TorrentFreak's analysis was unfair:
<blockquote><i>
"You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music 'consumers', and pretend they don&#8217;t exist or are not relevant. What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music? Do we disregard everyone else who is freeloading?," a BPI spokesman said.
<br /><br />
"It's not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally."
</i></blockquote>
Fair enough... except that BPI's <i>own numbers</i> "wave away" all of the people who consume music <i>legally</i> for free, but don't spend anything on music.  That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don't pay for music, but who <i>also</i> do not infringe.  These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works.  And if the BPI was being <i>intellectually honest</i> they would have to average all of those &pound;0s into the average for "legal only" if they want to require all the &pound;0s to be added into the infringing side as well.  Basically, BPI is picking and choosing who it includes and excludes to make their argument look better.  When it hand waves away all the zeroes on its side of the argument, while including all the ones on the other side of the argument, of course it'll make the numbers look better for its argument.  However, if you're going to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have only two choices.  Either you include all the people who don't buy on <i>both sides</i> or on <i>neither</i>.  BPI didn't do that.  They only chose the ones who don't buy on the file sharing side.
<br /><br />
It's important to note that an analysis of the UK market by economist Will Page, back when he was with PRS for Music, noted that only 40% of the UK adult population <a href="http://prsformusic.com/creators/news/research/Documents/Economic%20Insight%2022%20Wallet%20Share.pdf" target="_blank">actually bought <i>any</i> music at all</a>.  So you've got 60% non-buyers, some of whom are file sharing and some of whom are not.  The BPI report chose to only include those who file shared, and ignore those who didn't.  That's a clear methodological problem with their data.  If they're going to include the non-buyers on the file sharing side, they need to include the non-buyers on the "legal" side, or they're simply lying with statistics.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/15563721940/lies-damn-lies-statistics-how-bpi-cherry-picks-its-averages-to-pretend-file-sharers-spend-less.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/15563721940/lies-damn-lies-statistics-how-bpi-cherry-picks-its-averages-to-pretend-file-sharers-spend-less.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/15563721940/lies-damn-lies-statistics-how-bpi-cherry-picks-its-averages-to-pretend-file-sharers-spend-less.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>add-back-the-missing-zeroes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130210/15563721940</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Didn't We Already Do This? Press Relies On Questionable Stats To Claim Instagram Lost Half Its Users</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/06151721688/didnt-we-already-do-this-press-relies-questionable-stats-to-claim-instagram-lost-half-its-users.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/06151721688/didnt-we-already-do-this-press-relies-questionable-stats-to-claim-instagram-lost-half-its-users.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, whatever happened to good, old fashioned, fact checking.  It was just a few weeks ago that many people were writing about how the press had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/16205021515/doing-data-journalism-badly.shtml">confused</a> by data claiming a massive drop in Instagram users following its terms of service kerfuffle.  Of course, it later came out that the data from Appdata, was suspect, as it only looked at Instagram usage <i>on Facebook</i>, despite the fact that most Instagram usage is done directly through its app on mobile phones.  So here we are a few weeks later... and a bunch of news sources, including Wired, are <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/15/instagram-losing-daily-users" target="_blank">reporting that Instagram has lost half of its daily users</a>.  This is based on data from a different organization, AppStats, but appear to suffer from the exact same flaw: it only looks at app usage <i>on Facebook</i>, which is a minority of Instagram usage.  There may or may not be trouble with Instagram usage, but shouldn't the press by now be at least a little skeptical of claims based on dodgy data?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/06151721688/didnt-we-already-do-this-press-relies-questionable-stats-to-claim-instagram-lost-half-its-users.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/06151721688/didnt-we-already-do-this-press-relies-questionable-stats-to-claim-instagram-lost-half-its-users.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/06151721688/didnt-we-already-do-this-press-relies-questionable-stats-to-claim-instagram-lost-half-its-users.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they-didn't</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130115/06151721688</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:49:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>Unintended Consequences, Lead And Crime</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09433321595/unintended-consequences-lead-crime.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09433321595/unintended-consequences-lead-crime.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you haven't yet, you owe it to yourself to read Kevin Drum's recent article for Mother Jones about <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline" target="_blank">the possible link between crime rates and leaded gasoline</a>.  The article makes a rather convincing case that the massive growth, and then subsequent decline, in crime over the last six decades or so was influenced quite strongly by the fact that automobile gasoline had lead -- and then went unleaded due to environmental concerns.  The article cites numerous studies that all seem to suggest the same thing -- and carefully tries to get past the "correlation is not causation" issue by looking at multiple studies that tackle the same question from different angles (different time periods, locations, population types, etc.) to try to eliminate other possible explanations.  One of the parts that struck me as most interesting was the data on big cities as compared to other regions:
<blockquote><i>
Like many good theories, the gasoline lead hypothesis helps explain some things we might not have realized even needed explaining. For example, murder rates have always been higher in big cities than in towns and small cities. We're so used to this that it seems unsurprising, but Nevin points out that it might actually have a surprising explanation&#8212;because big cities have lots of cars in a small area, they also had high densities of atmospheric lead during the postwar era. But as lead levels in gasoline decreased, the differences between big and small cities largely went away. And guess what? The difference in murder rates went away too. Today, homicide rates are <a href="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/city.cfm" target="_blank">similar in cities of all sizes</a>. It may be that violent crime isn't an inevitable consequence of being a big city after all.
</i></blockquote>
The article has not gone entirely without criticism.  Drum has <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/lead-and-crime-correction" target="_blank">distanced himself</a> from the claim of the key researcher he relies on in the piece that 90% of the rise and fall of crime (<b>not</b> 90% of crime) is attributable to lead, suggesting that 50% might be a more reasonable number.  Separately, Ronald Bailey has reasonably <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/04/leading-poisoning-causes-crime" target="_blank">taken Drum to task</a> for blithely making statements about "blindingly obvious" things concerning IQ and ADHD that turn out to be... not true.  When you take those things out of the equation, some of the report relies on "aggressiveness" and "impulsivity," but as Bailey notes, there is no national data series on aggressiveness or impulsivity.  And, having seen way too many "studies" on video games / violent media causing greater "aggressiveness" and "impulsivity," but always failing to show that those traits actually lead to more crime, it pays to be somewhat skeptical.
<br /><br />
That said, the data is <i>very</i> interesting, and certainly worth much more research and better understanding.  At the very least, it's a reminder of our complex ecosystem and economy, where understanding cause and effect is often incredibly complicated, and the end results may be quite surprising.  It is all too easy to jump to conclusions about cause and effect (and, yes, we are just as guilty of this as others at times) -- but the real world is an impossibly complex mixture of inputs and variables, that rarely succumb to simple explanations that follow the initial "most obvious" rationale.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09433321595/unintended-consequences-lead-crime.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09433321595/unintended-consequences-lead-crime.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09433321595/unintended-consequences-lead-crime.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-world-works-in-bizarre-ways</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130107/09433321595</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Bad Science Is Coming to Get Us</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/22445810905/dailydirt-bad-science-is-coming-to-get-us.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/22445810905/dailydirt-bad-science-is-coming-to-get-us.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Scientific publishing has been a lucrative industry in recent years, even though scientists have faced increasing competition over limited funding. The publish-or-perish academic model may be contributing to an increase in scientific fraud, but maybe the increased accessibility of digital journals is simply making it easier for honest mistakes to be caught. The scientific method is supposed to weed out incorrect conclusions, but there may be a lot of wasted effort as scientists try to replicate experiments that are just completely fictitious. It gets harder and harder to make decisions based on evidence -- if there is growing uncertainty that any evidence can be trusted....

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?_r=2&#038;ref=science&#038;&pagewanted=all" href="http://nyti.ms/SrPfAE">The number of retractions from scientific journals has increased tenfold over the past decade.</a> But it's not clear how much is misconduct and how much is honest scientific mistake... [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?_r=2&#038;ref=science&#038;&pagewanted=all">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/data-detective-makes-his-fraud-busting-algorithm-public.html" href="http://bit.ly/YV7KBU">Data detective Uri Simonsohn has published his statistical methods for exposing the suspicious data of social psychologists.</a> Lies, damn lies and statistics... but at least statistics can be used to ferret out the lies. [<a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/data-detective-makes-his-fraud-busting-algorithm-public.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/05/science_in_the_telegraph_and_the_daily_mail_what_s_wrong_with_british_journalism_.single.html" href="http://slate.me/UvZV0Z">Apparently, the UK is notorious for its bad science journalism.</a> We're talking "labvertisements" -- industry/product-funded science stories about (possibly fake) studies conducted by questionable scientists with dubious methods. But at least they're honest about it and take their research with a huge grain of salt. The US just re-packages many of these reports as serious news. [<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/05/science_in_the_telegraph_and_the_daily_mail_what_s_wrong_with_british_journalism_.single.html">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/22445810905/dailydirt-bad-science-is-coming-to-get-us.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/22445810905/dailydirt-bad-science-is-coming-to-get-us.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/22445810905/dailydirt-bad-science-is-coming-to-get-us.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100904/22445810905</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:42:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/07473420959/why-press-is-getting-wrong-message-out-nate-silver-walloped-pundits-story.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/07473420959/why-press-is-getting-wrong-message-out-nate-silver-walloped-pundits-story.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Let me start off by saying that I've been a longterm Nate Silver fan, back before he was the "fivethirtyeight" guy, and when he was just some random guy whose statistical models were helping my fantasy baseball team kick ass.  And let me follow that up by noting that even more than being a Nate Silver fan, I'm a huge fan of statistics in general.  I think that statistics should be a <i>required</i> class in school and that a combination of statistics and economics (the two go hand in hand) literacy (or lack thereof) is a major problem today, leading to numerous bad policy decisions.  Finally, I've never been a fan (at all) of political punditry that focuses on the "horse race" aspect of politics.  So, given all that, it has certainly been fun to follow the secondary storyline from last night -- which is how Nate Silver and his statistical genius <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-07/nate-silver-led-statistics-men-crush-pundits-in-election" target="_blank">"crushed" the pundits</a> in predicting the election -- to the point that every single major press "pundit" was <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/grading-pundit-predictions/58768/" target="_blank">flat out wrong</a>, and it looked like Silver had a perfect crystal ball.  And, given how much Silver was attacked for being a "stats guy," (or for being biased, rather than neutral) you can certainly understand why it's tempting to wish he'd do something like Whitney McNamara's <a href="http://tumblr.absono.us/post/35203726587" target="_blank">mock blog post</a>:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/x6UJj"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/x6UJj.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
In many ways, I agree that yesterday was the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/our-money-ball-election.html" target="_blank">"moneyball moment"</a> in politics, in which the prognosticators were shown to be faulty, while the number crunchers were shown to be accurate.  Hell, it was a much stronger example than the Moneyball case in baseball, which never had a "victory" quite as clearly aligned with the numbers.
<br /><br />
Of course, if you look at what's happened to baseball since "Moneyball" and the success of the first statistical analysis guys, it should be a reminder that statistical prognostication is still about the <i>probabilities</i> -- and not about true <i>predictions</i>.  And this is where the "suddenly-in-awe" pundits are still getting confused.  They seem to think that Silver or other statistical modelers suddenly have a magic crystal ball with which they can predict the future.  But probabilities and predictions are different, and Silver himself would likely admit (and, actually, <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/nov/02/forecasting-tuesday/?utm_source=local&#038;utm_media=treatment&#038;utm_campaign=daMost&#038;utm_content=damostviewed" target="_blank">did admit</a>) that when you're dealing in probabilities, you're still going to be completely wrong some percentage of the time (he can even tell you <i>what</i> percentage of the time!) Even if the probabilities show a 90% likelihood that a certain event will happen, it still means that one time out of 10, you're going to be wrong.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, our brains don't deal that well with probabilities.  We don't think in probabilities.  Because we're dealing with a (mostly) binary situation, we assume that as soon as the probabilities tilt in our favor, it means that a "win" is somehow assured, and mentally, the probabilities turn into a prediction.  It's very, very difficult for our brains not to think that way.
<br /><br />
So I'm thrilled to see statistical analysis "win" over the moronic pundit-class who thinks that "storylines" or "momentum" (or, um, the ultimate in believing in anecdotes over data, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/" target="_blank">"my friends see more yard signs" for one candidate</a>) are valid methods for prognosticating.  But it seems that the press, by going on to insist that Silver and his ilk are the new magic prognosticators, are missing the point just as much as those who thought the election could be predicted by political pundits.
<br /><br />
Statistics is a tool for highlighting the probabilities.  I'm sure that Nate Silver clones are going to be appearing a lot more on TV during the next major election cycles -- and I think that's a step forward.  But now it seems like some people are expecting Silver and other stats guys to be right every time.  And that's going to lead to backlash, just as the "failure" of Moneyball-type analysis to always get it exactly right resulted in some backlash in baseball.  There will be data analysis in future election cycles -- likely from Silver himself -- that is wrong.  That's the nature of probabilities.  It will happen.  And, unfortunately, people will then suddenly go back to arguing the opposite: that the stats geeks were "wrong."
<br /><br />
But, as they say in the stats world, these are small sample size issues.  Believing that statistical analysis is a perfect tool for predictions based on a <i>single</i> election is almost (though not quite) as weak as some of the traditional political punditry methods for predictions.
<br /><br />
Hopefully, as with baseball, after a few years, the whole idea that these are entirely separate worlds will melt away.  In baseball, every team now uses detailed statistical analysis as <i>a tool</i>, and most seem to understand that it suggests probabilities that help them find underexploited opportunities.  But no one relies on it as a crystal ball that predicts the absolute future.  Hopefully we'll reach that same sort of equilibrium in political analysis as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/07473420959/why-press-is-getting-wrong-message-out-nate-silver-walloped-pundits-story.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/07473420959/why-press-is-getting-wrong-message-out-nate-silver-walloped-pundits-story.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/07473420959/why-press-is-getting-wrong-message-out-nate-silver-walloped-pundits-story.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>small-sample-sizes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121107/07473420959</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:22:02 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Statistical Stupidity: 95% Of All Lazy Journalists Believe That 88% Of All Homemade Porn Ends Up Online</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121024/08422420809/statistical-stupidity-95-all-lazy-journalists-believe-that-88-all-homemade-porn-ends-up-online.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121024/08422420809/statistical-stupidity-95-all-lazy-journalists-believe-that-88-all-homemade-porn-ends-up-online.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We are often told that we need mega-media news organizations because they, unlike their smaller internet bretheren, are more trustworthy because they fact-check. This is a repeated premise (despite <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/16265119070/no-riaa-is-not-asking-72-trillion-limewire-bad-reporters-bad.shtml">example</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120420/19032418594/breivik-press-ongoing-myth-violent-gamer.shtml">example</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/02314911877/the-day-the-wsj-attributed-my-quote-to-someone-else.shtml">example</a> showing that it just isn&#39;t true), which is why some folks may still be surprised when an organization like CBS can botch their reporting so horrifically. Witness their reporting of a <a href="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/23/study-vast-majority-of-homemade-porn-private-photos-end-up-online/">new study put out by the Internet Watch Foundation</a> concerning explicit images that end up on so-called parasite websites.
<blockquote>
<i>Eighty-eight percent of homemade pornography, including videos and still images, finds its way onto porn sites, often without the owners&rsquo; knowledge, a new study from Britain&rsquo;s Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has found.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The study analyzed more than 12,000 sexually explicit images uploaded by young people and found that the great majority of images had been stolen and published to what the organization calls, &ldquo;parasite&rdquo; websites.</i></blockquote>
If you read that first sentence, the one that says that <i>88% of all homemade pornography</i> ends up online, and didn&#39;t immediately begin laughing at the sheer silliness of that number, you&#39;re a stronger person than I am. Now, granted, being both a horribly ugly pasty white and being, at best, mildly attractive, I&#39;m not someone prone to taking pictures of my man-junk, nor mid-coitus. But what the hell? Eighty-eight percent? There&#39;s no way that could possibly be true.<br />
<br />
And, of course, it <i>isn&#39;t</i> true. Nor is it even what the report concluded. What it actually concluded was that <i>88% of explicit images <b>uploaded to the internet</b> end up on parasitic websites</i>. Now, that claim may still be inflated, but it isn&#39;t as outlandishly inflated as CBS made it sound. This isn&#39;t to say that major media should be 100% accurate all the time, but to claim that journalism will die if this kind of reporting goes away is the kind of over-exaggerated false claim that you would expect...well...I guess CBS to make.<br />
<br />
So keep this story in your back pocket for the next time someone tells you how much we need mega-media news because they fact-check. Also make sure you throw some random made up statistics at that person. Hell, if they love major news media so much, there&#39;s a 43% chance that they&#39;ll believe them one-half of the time. Every time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121024/08422420809/statistical-stupidity-95-all-lazy-journalists-believe-that-88-all-homemade-porn-ends-up-online.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121024/08422420809/statistical-stupidity-95-all-lazy-journalists-believe-that-88-all-homemade-porn-ends-up-online.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121024/08422420809/statistical-stupidity-95-all-lazy-journalists-believe-that-88-all-homemade-porn-ends-up-online.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-cannot-possibly-be-true</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121024/08422420809</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:05:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Would US Education Be Better If We Replaced Algebra Requirements With Stats &#038; Logic?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/03153719874/would-us-education-be-better-if-we-replaced-algebra-requirements-with-stats-logic.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/03153719874/would-us-education-be-better-if-we-replaced-algebra-requirements-with-stats-logic.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ By now you may have heard about the NY Times article from over the weekend in which political science professor Andrew Hacker makes the somewhat contrarian suggestion that the US education system would function much better <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.xml" target="_blank">if we ditched algebra requirements</a>.  The whole article is worth reading, but the basic gist of it is that many people who end up dropping out of school do so in part because of trouble they have in getting past basic algebra.  It's a key stumbling block.
<blockquote><i>
California's two university systems, for instance, consider applications only from students who have taken three years of mathematics and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like art or history. Community college students face an equally prohibitive mathematics wall. A study of two-year schools found that fewer than a quarter of their entrants passed the algebra classes they were required to take.
<br /><br />
"There are students taking these courses three, four, five times," says Barbara Bonham of Appalachian State University. While some ultimately pass, she adds, "many drop out."
<br /><br />
Another dropout statistic should cause equal chagrin. Of all who embark on higher education, only 58 percent end up with bachelor's degrees. The main impediment to graduation: freshman math. The City University of New York, where I have taught since 1971, found that 57 percent of its students didn't pass its mandated algebra course. The depressing conclusion of a faculty report: "failing math at all levels affects retention more than any other academic factor." A national sample of transcripts found mathematics had twice as many F's and D's compared as other subjects.
</i></blockquote>
I will admit that my initial reaction to this article was to scoff and think that it's ridiculous.  Understanding basic algebra, to me, seems fundamental to understand a variety of other important things -- including some forms of logic and statistics.  So, I wondered how dropping algebra as a requirement might make those already lacking fields even worse.
<br /><br />
However, Hacker's piece actually suggests something of a solution: potentially replacing algebra <i>with a form of statistics</i>, which is rarely a required course.
<blockquote><i>
Instead of investing so much of our academic energy in a subject that blocks further attainment for much of our population, I propose that we start thinking about alternatives. Thus mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call "citizen statistics." This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.
<br /><br />
It could, for example, teach students how the Consumer Price Index is computed, what is included and how each item in the index is weighted - and include discussion about which items should be included and what weights they should be given.
</i></blockquote>
I will admit to being unsure how such a class will work <i>without</i> a basic underpinning in algebra.  However, <i>conceptually</i>, what Hacker is saying makes sense.  Focusing on the formulaic side of algebra isn't particularly practical for many people.  I could see how classes that focus on practical mathematical skills around statistics <i>and</i> logic, could actually be a lot more useful.  And while he says these don't need to be "backdoor" algebra classes, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.  Having people understand the basics of algebra by putting them in realistic situations they understand, and showing how to apply such things in a useful manner doesn't seem like such a bad idea...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/03153719874/would-us-education-be-better-if-we-replaced-algebra-requirements-with-stats-logic.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/03153719874/would-us-education-be-better-if-we-replaced-algebra-requirements-with-stats-logic.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/03153719874/would-us-education-be-better-if-we-replaced-algebra-requirements-with-stats-logic.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reshuffling</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120730/03153719874</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Analyzing The Olympics</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100825/11210610774/dailydirt-analyzing-olympics.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100825/11210610774/dailydirt-analyzing-olympics.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite the ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/15210819860/its-olympics-tradition-how-difficult-can-nbc-universal-make-it-to-enjoy-olympics.shtml">restrictions</a> on watching the Olympics, there are still plenty of statistics about various events for data nerds to collect and crunch that might provide some useful insights. By studying athletic performance over time, we can tell when technologies like fancy swimsuits are giving too much of an advantage or when a change in training and technique have made vast improvements. Here are just a few projects that are diving deep into Olympic data.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2012/07/26/olympic-medal-table-predictions-london-2012/" href="http://on.ft.com/QnncpY">Various economic figures can be used to try to predict how many medals each country will earn in 2012.</a> The USA is expected to get somewhere between 99 and 113 medals, and China is predicted to come in second place with 67-98 medals. [<a href="http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2012/07/26/olympic-medal-table-predictions-london-2012/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/20/london-eye-twitter-sentiment" href="http://bit.ly/MbUt5O">The London Eye will be lit up like a mood ring during the Olympics, based on Tweets and a bit of sentimental analysis to gauge positive and negative commentary of the Games.</a> The analysis is sponsored by an energy company, so it'll be watching for words like "Olympics", "London 2012" and the hashtag #energy2012. [<a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/20/london-eye-twitter-sentiment">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-07/what-science-says-you-should-be-watching-2012-summer-olympics" href="http://bit.ly/MbUp6g">Researchers from the Center for Sports Engineering Research at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK will be studying the 2012 games to look for significant changes in athletic performance.</a> They've developed a "performance improvement index" to quantify things like: how sprinters are running faster than ever before or that javelin throwers are in a performance plateau. [<a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-07/what-science-says-you-should-be-watching-2012-summer-olympics">url</a>]</li>

</ul>



If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100825/11210610774/dailydirt-analyzing-olympics.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100825/11210610774/dailydirt-analyzing-olympics.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100825/11210610774/dailydirt-analyzing-olympics.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100825/11210610774</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Meaty Metrics</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/19304018792/dailydirt-meaty-metrics.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/19304018792/dailydirt-meaty-metrics.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Analyzing baseball statistics turned into a huge field called sabermetrics. A long time ago, geeks were weird people who performed strange stunts like biting the heads off chickens. But geeks nowadays are gathering stats on just about everything, so here are just a few meaty figures to chew on. 

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/big-maconomics-how-mcdonalds-explains-the-world/256431/" href="http://bit.ly/IXgwZs">The Big Mac serves as an interesting economic tool -- providing a global standard for comparing national currencies and economic activity.</a> Analyzing the Big Mac consumption per country can show interesting trends in wages and how economies reacted to the Great Recession -- although not every country sells Big Macs. [<a href="http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/big-maconomics-how-mcdonalds-explains-the-world/256431/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/13/big_mac_prices_soar_26_in_argentina.html" href="http://slate.me/NWxzhT">The price of a Big Mac jumped 26% in Argentina because the government of Argentina was playing around with its national inflation numbers -- and pressuring McD's to keep its prices low.</a> If Big Macs didn't lose their freshness, there might have been an arbitrage opportunity.... [<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/13/big_mac_prices_soar_26_in_argentina.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://m.gawker.com/5895081/wendys-overthrows-burger-king-rivers-run-red-with-the-blood-of-burger-nobles" href="http://bit.ly/JbM2lG">The number two burger chain in the US (for 2011) goes to Wendy's -- as Wendy's US sales topped $8.5 billion and Burger King trailed at $8.4 billion.</a> McDonald's crushed both of them with $34 billion in sales last year. [<a href="http://m.gawker.com/5895081/wendys-overthrows-burger-king-rivers-run-red-with-the-blood-of-burger-nobles">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-17" href="http://econ.st/JT101u">The US consumed almost 38 million tons of meat in 2007 (at 125.4 kg per person), but Luxembourg is the country with the highest meat consumption per capita (136.5 kg per person).</a> Obviously, population figures into <a href="http://www.scribd.com/EconomistDailychart/d/91840616-Meat-Consumption-Per-Person">Luxembourg's bragging rights</a> -- and likewise China's population makes its consumption of 54.1kg of meat per person an impressive total of around 77 million tons. [<a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-17">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/19304018792/dailydirt-meaty-metrics.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/19304018792/dailydirt-meaty-metrics.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/19304018792/dailydirt-meaty-metrics.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120504/19304018792</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 May 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Fooling Some Of The People Some Of The Time...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's a sucker born every minute -- if you like to believe unverifiable statistics. Usually, if it's too good to be true, it ain't true. But as technology gets better, sometimes it's hard to distinguish sufficiently advanced algorithms from magic. Here are a few scams that successfully fooled some folks for a while.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577355980891225456.html" href="http://on.wsj.com/II1lCu">A stock-picking robot named Marl convinced thousands of investors that it could identify penny stocks that were about to soar in price.</a> The SEC is looking to impose a fine and force the creators of Marl to repay their duped investors... but with claims on a website like: "The longer Marl is allowed to run on a computer &#8230; The More Advanced He Becomes!" How could anyone go wrong?  [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577355980891225456.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/labscam.html" href="http://bit.ly/Iqbt0y">Penn and Teller don't usually do pranks, but when it comes to tricking Nobel prize laureate, Arno Penzias, they apparently make exceptions.</a> Creating a fake computer with voice recognition in the late 1980s fooled this brilliant physicist, but nowadays Apple's Siri is in TV ads all the time doing nearly the same routine. [<a href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/labscam.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1574" href="http://bit.ly/IvyNPo">Baron Wolfgang von Kempelen built a mechanical chess-playing machine (shaped like a Turk...) that gained widespread fame in 1769.</a> This mechanical turk was actually controlled by a hidden human being, but only a few hundred years later, we actually could build a chess playing robot with grandmaster skills. [<a href="http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1574">url</a>]</li>


<li><b>To discover more interesting AI-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29" href="http://bit.ly/h0iGmR">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100420/1005249107</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Taxes On The Mathematically Challenged</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100408/1323598942/dailydirt-taxes-mathematically-challenged.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100408/1323598942/dailydirt-taxes-mathematically-challenged.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Every so often, a lottery jackpot reaches such an insane amount that everyone starts to wonder if it's worthwhile to thrown down a couple bucks on a ticket. If you haven't heard yet, it's that time again, and the Mega Millions multi-state lottery drawing could hand a lucky winner over half a billion dollars. Here are just a few reality checks if you're thinking about playing.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/lottery-math-101-801/" href="http://on.wsj.com/HtsOHP">There are some interesting coincidences in the history of lottery drawings. For example, in one Bulgaria lottery, the same numbers were chosen twice in the same week.</a> Lightning actually does strike twice... [<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/lottery-math-101-801/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2001/08/is_powerball_a_mugs_game.single.html" href="http://slate.me/HnA60m">If you want to see some math on expected values of lottery tickets and what the odds are for someone to win a given lottery, check out this advice from a mathematician.</a> "<i>If you play Powerball every day, stop playing Powerball every day.</i>" [<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2001/08/is_powerball_a_mugs_game.single.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://sbronars.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/why-a-mega-millions-ticket-is-a-good-bet/" href="http://bit.ly/H4vyYq">It's likely that there will be multiple winners (2.5 according to the math), but even so, the expected value of a Mega Millions ticket is greater than the cost of the ticket ($1.23).</a> Still, the probability of zero winners is about 10%. [<a href="http://sbronars.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/why-a-mega-millions-ticket-is-a-good-bet/">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more stuff related to economics, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:137" href="http://bit.ly/mPvUHR">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:137">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100408/1323598942/dailydirt-taxes-mathematically-challenged.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100408/1323598942/dailydirt-taxes-mathematically-challenged.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100408/1323598942/dailydirt-taxes-mathematically-challenged.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100408/1323598942</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Build It And They Will Come...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Moneyball (the movie) has recently popularized the concept of sabermetrics, but for a while now, real sports fans (and mathletes) have been applying rigorous analysis to just about every sport. There still aren't any sure bets, but forecasting player performance has gotten a lot better in the last decade or so. Here are just a few examples of math geeks taking some shots at jocks.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225562995441868.html?mod=e2fb" href="http://on.wsj.com/wIc6FF">Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, Ed Weiland -- for being a bit less surprised than most about Linsanity.</a> Weiland wrote in 2010: "<i>... Jeremy Lin is a good enough player to start in the NBA and possibly star.</i>" [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225562995441868.html?mod=e2fb">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2659" href="http://bit.ly/wJ9pw5">Nate Silver called himself a forecaster, explained how he looked at baseball stats, and created the PECOTA system for evaluating MLB players.</a> Baseball Prospectus bought the PECOTA system in 2003 and publishes its forecasts for all kinds of baseball fans and fantasy baseball leagues. [<a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2659">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/_/id/4691/mit-sloan-conference-paper-previews" href="http://es.pn/wsnGhb">The annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference has picked its top ten finalists for its Research Paper of the Year.</a> These papers discuss various stats like "15% of basketball rebounds hit the floor before being collected." [<a href="http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/_/id/4691/mit-sloan-conference-paper-previews">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To find some other online challenges and games, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:117" href="http://bit.ly/ifsJE4">check out what StumbleUpon has found to play.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:117">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100209/1104298096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:43:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>Recording Industry Can't Wait To Start Kicking People Offline In France For Listening To Their Favorite Songs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/04324917828/recording-industry-cant-wait-to-start-kicking-people-offline-france-listening-to-their-favorite-songs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/04324917828/recording-industry-cant-wait-to-start-kicking-people-offline-france-listening-to-their-favorite-songs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120214/02450717753/hadopi-sends-info-those-accused-not-convicted-repeat-infringement-to-prosecutors.shtml">reported</a> last week, the French agency in charge of scaring internet users with the threat of potentially losing their internet connections based on accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement has finally started passing on "third strike" notices to prosecutors, to see if they choose to start kicking people offline.  The NY Times has an article <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/technology/20iht-piracy20.html?_r=2" target="_blank">discussing this latest step</a> in a manner that repeats a bunch of the record labels' favorite talking points, and seems to accept a number of the industry's claims without question (a practice that is becoming way too common in the pages of the NY Times lately).
<blockquote><i>
Studies show that the appeal of piracy has waned in France since the so-called three-strikes law, hailed by the music and movie industries and hated by advocates of an open Internet, went into effect. Digital sales, which were slow to get started in France, are growing. Music industry revenues are starting to stabilize.
</i></blockquote>
These are all stated as if it's clear that the three things are connected, even though the evidence there is lacking.
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;I think more and more French people understand that artists should get paid for their work,&#8221; said Pascal Negre, president of Universal Music France. &#8220;I think everybody has a friend who has received an e-mail. This creates a buzz. There is an educational effect.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
This is wishful thinking on the part of Negre.  Multiple studies have shown that piracy is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/02354213395/massive-research-report-piracy-emerging-economies-released-debunks-entire-foundation-us-foreign-ip-policy.shtml">almost never</a> an educational issue.  It's not about people needing to "understand that artists should get paid for their work."  As we've seen time and time again, if you give fans a good reason to buy, fans have no problem spending (and spending big) on artists.  As for "the buzz" created by Hadopi emails, from what the various reports we've heard out of France are saying, much of that "buzz" is around how to make use of VPNs and other tools... as well as how to use cyberlockers and such tools that are not (yet) covered by Hadopi.
<blockquote><i>
Eric Walter, the secretary general of Hadopi, said that the relatively low number of third-stage offenders showed that the system had succeeded.
<br /><br />
&#8220;Our work is to explain to people why piracy is a bad thing and why they should stop,&#8221; he said during an interview in the agency&#8217;s nondescript headquarters behind the Montparnasse train station in Paris. &#8220;When the people understand that, they stop. Of course, some people don&#8217;t want to understand. Then we have to transfer their dossiers to the justice system.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
Again, this assumes that piracy is merely an educational issue, and people would just stop infringing if they only knew that it was illegal.  Yet there's little evidence to support that claim.  Most kids understand that it's illegal, but it doesn't make a difference to them.
<blockquote><i>
A report commissioned by Hadopi, which has a budget of &euro;11 million and employs 70 people, showed a sharp decline in file-sharing since the system was put in place.
<br /><br />
A separate study by researchers at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh suggests that Hadopi has given a lift to legal downloads via the Apple iTunes music store. Since the spring of 2009, when the debate over the measure was raging, through mid-2011, iTunes sales rose much more strongly in France than in other European countries.
</i></blockquote>
Oddly, the NY Times fails to name the study or its authors, or link to the actual study.  But we will.  It's <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989240" target="_blank">The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from an Event Study in France</a>, by Brett Danaher, Michael D. Smith, Rahul Telang and Siwen Chen.  If this study sounds familiar, it's because it's the one the IFPI has been hyping in support of similar laws.  It's also the report that isn't nearly as strong as the IFPI (or the NY Times) insists and has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/06152417600/iphone-data-debunks-recording-industrys-report-how-french-three-strikes-law-increased-sales.shtml">pretty thoroughly debunked</a> for anyone who uses it to claim that Hadopi's notice system educated people into buying from iTunes.  As some have pointed out, the actual data shows the "change" in sales behavior (relative to other countries) happened <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-no-effect-on-itunes-sales-120124/" target="_blank">way before Hadopi</a> came into effect.  And... when Hadopi actually started sending out its notices?  No noticeable impact.
<br /><br />
That kind of takes the wind out of the sales of the two folks quoted above who insist that it's the educational nature of the notices that leads to the increase in sales.  And, as we reported last month, when Le Monde took the same data and plotted it against announcements about new iPhones or Christmas, it found a <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/01/24/hadopi-source-de-la-croissance-d-itunes_1633919_651865.html" target="_blank">much stronger connection</a>, suggesting the increase in sales had little to do with Hadopi and much more to do with more people having iPhones.
<br /><br />
These are the kinds of things that you would think the NY Times might note.  But it does not.
<blockquote><i>
There is other evidence in Europe that tougher online copyright enforcement can lift media industry revenues, at least briefly. Music sales rose 10 percent in Sweden in 2009, for example, after the country tightened up its copyright laws, bringing previously lax standards into line with E.U. norms.
<br /><br />
Mr. Negre, at Universal Music, said it was probably no coincidence that Sweden and France had produced the two big European success stories in the legitimate digital music market: the streaming services Spotify and Deezer. These companies &#8212; the former was founded in Sweden, the latter in France &#8212; resemble pirate sites in that they give users access to millions of songs free, at least for their basic services.
</i></blockquote>
This may be the most ridiculous claim of all.  First off, Deezer, in France, launched back in <i>2007</i>, or about four years before Hadopi went into effect.  Similarly, Spotify launched in Sweden in 2008.  The IPRED law in Sweden?  Went into effect in 2009.  In other words, both of these services <i>pre-dated</i> the laws, rather than post-dated them as Negre from Universal Music implies.  And, perhaps that also has a lot more to do with the rebound of some parts of the recording business in both of those countries.  After finally allowing services to offer fans what they wanted, should it be any surprise that they actually are happy with that?  Oh, as for the claim that IPRED reduced file sharing in Sweden?  Reports had the amount of sharing traffic surprassing pre-IPRED numbers within months.  It may have suppressed infringement briefly, but not for long.  Of course, it's worth noting that much of the effort has been focused on movies.  With music, thanks to Spotify, the reasons to infringe are almost gone.
<br /><br />
And, really, <i>that</i> should be the key lesson we're talking about here.  If the industry stops meddling and starts letting companies treat their customers right and provide them with more and better ways to consume, they will do so.  Playing wac-a-mole, kicking people offline and scaring them is no way to build a long term business.
<br /><br />
There are two other really interesting bits later down in the article.  The first is that Sarkozy's opponents in the upcoming election all seem to want to dump Hadopi, demonstrating just how unpopular the law really is in France.  Then there's the fact that Hadopi appears to have been caught sending notices to the wrong people:
<blockquote><i>
Mr. Thollot argued that someone had pirated his log-on to a nationwide Wi-Fi network and downloaded the material while he was in class. After interviewing him, Hadopi dropped his case.
<br /><br />
&#8220;It&#8217;s like when someone steals your bank card number,&#8221; said Renaud Veeckman, co-founder of SOS Hadopi, an organization that offers legal help to people who have received warnings from the anti-piracy agency. &#8220;Are you responsible, or are you the victim?&#8221;
<br /><br />
SOS Hadopi has worked with five people whose dossiers have reached the third stage, including Mr. Thollot; <b>all five have been cleared before going to court</b>. This suggests that the actual number of cases that have been forwarded to the justice system may be considerably lower than the 165 third-strike offenders cited by Hadopi. Mr. Walter at Hadopi declined to provide a specific figure.
</i></blockquote>
This part especially should raise significant questions about the quality of the information being used.  Because, so far, it sounds like a big joke... other than the fact that some people might lose their internet connections over it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/04324917828/recording-industry-cant-wait-to-start-kicking-people-offline-france-listening-to-their-favorite-songs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/04324917828/recording-industry-cant-wait-to-start-kicking-people-offline-france-listening-to-their-favorite-songs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/04324917828/recording-industry-cant-wait-to-start-kicking-people-offline-france-listening-to-their-favorite-songs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah-that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120221/04324917828</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:16:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/13463316198/france-continues-mass-processing-infringement-accusations-60-people-get-third-strike-notice-650000-get-first-strike.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/13463316198/france-continues-mass-processing-infringement-accusations-60-people-get-third-strike-notice-650000-get-first-strike.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The latest stats coming out of France's HADOPI "three strikes" (really three <i>accusations</i>) policy are really quite stunning.  Most of the focus is on the fact that <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/60-french-isp-account-holders-on-their-third-strike-for-internet-piracy-111003/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed: Torrentfreak (Torrentfreak)&#038;utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">60 ISP account holders have received their third strike</a>, and now await to see if they'll be fined and/or kicked off the internet without ever having actually been convicted of copyright infringement.  But, to me, the much more interesting numbers are the first and second strike numbers.  An astounding 650,000 people have received "first strike" notices, with 44,000 of those receiving a second strike as well.  Those are huge numbers.  It makes you wonder, at what point do those in power begin to recognize that if so many people are engaging in this, there must be some sort of better solution.
<br /><br />
The entertainment industry loves to call infringement "theft," but I don't think anyone would argue that 650,000 people are running around France stealing things out of stores.  And that's because people inherently recognize that there's a massive difference between stealing a physical product, such that there's one less of it, and listening to a song that they like, where nothing is removed for anyone else.  When a huge percentage of your population is accused of breaking the law, the problem is not with the people... but with the law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/13463316198/france-continues-mass-processing-infringement-accusations-60-people-get-third-strike-notice-650000-get-first-strike.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/13463316198/france-continues-mass-processing-infringement-accusations-60-people-get-third-strike-notice-650000-get-first-strike.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/13463316198/france-continues-mass-processing-infringement-accusations-60-people-get-third-strike-notice-650000-get-first-strike.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>crimininalizing-an-entire-country</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111004/13463316198</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:04:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How One Unverified Claim Of A $7,500 'Loss' From Cybercrime Translates To $1.5 Billion In Losses In The Press</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12320215469/how-one-unverified-claim-7500-loss-cybercrime-translates-to-15-billion-losses-press.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12320215469/how-one-unverified-claim-7500-loss-cybercrime-translates-to-15-billion-losses-press.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I think we should just admit that there's a "cyber-" inflation factor.  That is, for anything in which someone puts a prefix of "cyber-" before a word, we can assume that reports of the "impact" are going to be massively inflated.  Cyberwar?  Totally overhyped.  Cyberbullying? Not nearly as crazy as you hear.  And now we've got a new report saying that reports of "losses" from "cybercrime" <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/cybercrime_losses_overestimated_say_researchers/" target="_blank">appears to be greatly overestimated</a> as well.
<blockquote><i>
First, losses are extremely concentrated, so that representative sampling of the population does not give representative sampling of the losses. Second, losses are based on unverified self-reported numbers. Not only is it possible for a single outlier to distort the result, we find evidence that most surveys are dominated by a minority of responses in the upper tail (i.e., a majority of the estimate is coming from as few as one or two responses). Finally, the fact that losses are confined to a small segment of the population magnifies the difficulties of refusal rate and small sample sizes. Far from being broadly-based estimates of losses across the population, the cyber-crime estimates that we have appear to be largely the answers of a handful of people extrapolated to the whole population. A single individual who claims $50,000 losses, in an N = 1000 person survey, is all it takes to generate a $10 billion loss over the population. One unverified claim of $7,500 in phishing losses translates into $1.5 billion
</i></blockquote>
And yet, of course, such claims of massive losses will still be regularly repeated in the press and by politicians.  I've always said that it would be great if we could force feed politicians and journalists economics lessons, but I'd like to propose adding statistics to the required curriculum as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12320215469/how-one-unverified-claim-7500-loss-cybercrime-translates-to-15-billion-losses-press.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12320215469/how-one-unverified-claim-7500-loss-cybercrime-translates-to-15-billion-losses-press.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12320215469/how-one-unverified-claim-7500-loss-cybercrime-translates-to-15-billion-losses-press.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lies,-damned-lies</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110810/12320215469</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 04:19:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>France Three Strikes Law Suggests A Huge Percentage Of French Citizens At Risk Of Losing Internet Access</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16091415096/france-three-strikes-law-suggests-huge-percentage-french-citizens-risk-losing-internet-access.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16091415096/france-three-strikes-law-suggests-huge-percentage-french-citizens-risk-losing-internet-access.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When you have a law that a huge percentage of the population violates, you have to wonder if the law is just.  The first data is out about the French 3-strikes HADOPI program, and apparently copyright holders have sent in <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/france-tracks-down-18-million-file-sharers-110714/" target="_blank">notices claiming 18 million incidents of unauthorized file sharing</a>.  The Torrentfreak article suggests that it's 18 million individuals, but I think that they really mean 18 million incidents, which could include some repeat offenders.  Still, it suggests a large number of people in France have engaged in file sharing... Of course, HADOPI, much to the chagrin of the entertainment industry, only sent out 470,000 "first strike" notices, 20,000 second strike notices, and just ten third strike notices (which are being reviewed by judges, but no one has been disconnected yet).  It'll be interesting to see if there's any noticeable impact on purchases in France.  Other reports have already suggested that a <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/french-anti-piracy-law-doesnt-stop-pirates-110117/" target="_blank">mere 4% of unauthorized file sharers in France</a> said they were changing their behavior because of this.  Many others were simply shifting to encryption to keep their activities away from prying eyes.  Still, the bigger point is that when you have so many people violating the law, perhaps the problem is with the law, and not the people violating it...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16091415096/france-three-strikes-law-suggests-huge-percentage-french-citizens-risk-losing-internet-access.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16091415096/france-three-strikes-law-suggests-huge-percentage-french-citizens-risk-losing-internet-access.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16091415096/france-three-strikes-law-suggests-huge-percentage-french-citizens-risk-losing-internet-access.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that's-not-going-to-play-well</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110714/16091415096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 04:49:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How To Lie With Statistics: France Pretends HADOPI Law Is Working</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/02444214261/how-to-lie-with-statistics-france-pretends-hadopi-law-is-working.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/02444214261/how-to-lie-with-statistics-france-pretends-hadopi-law-is-working.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The French government was one of the first to push for a three strikes policy to kick people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement.  So, I guess it should be no surprise that they feel like lying with statistics to make the program sound better.  The government and various agencies are running around touting the claim that, according to their survey the HADOPI law has convinced more than 50% of users to stop file sharing.  Problem is, that's not what the data really says.  The <i>real data</i> shows that of people surveyed <a href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93430/french-three-strikes-survey-less-than-3-5-have-quit-p2p/?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">only 7% said either they "or someone close" had received a warning letter</a>.  Now, of those 7%, 50% claimed that they would stop infringing.
<br /><br />
Now, if you're playing along with the home game, you should have quickly realized that the actual percentage of people surveyed is more like 3.5% -- and I could argue that it's even lower for a few key reasons:
<ul><li>The key question asked wasn't whether the individual would stop file sharing, but whether or not they <b>or</b> someone close to them had.  Suddenly you have a big statistical problem, because -- to take an extreme example -- let's say that everyone in a town knows the one big file sharer who shares content online, but no one else in the town does.   And, that guy knows and makes it clear that if he gets an injunction, he'll stop.  Now, since everyone knows this guy, the reports from that town would be that 100% of people receive letters and 100% of those recipients would stop using P2P, even if that wasn't true at all.  Including the "or someone close to you" makes the effective data pretty close to useless, because there's no way to separate out the overlap.
</li><li>The whole thing is based on a survey, which is notoriously unreliable in getting accurate data.  People quite frequently answer what they think others want them to say, rather than what they're really thinking.  And, when asking them if they'll stop engaging in illegal activity, many are simply going to <i>say</i> yes, even if they have no intention to follow through.
</li></ul>
So, if you add that all up, suddenly we're talking about a very tiny fraction of users claiming that they'll actually change their behavior based on a notice, but with a little fun and games, people can pretend that the numbers are much higher than they really are.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/02444214261/how-to-lie-with-statistics-france-pretends-hadopi-law-is-working.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/02444214261/how-to-lie-with-statistics-france-pretends-hadopi-law-is-working.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/02444214261/how-to-lie-with-statistics-france-pretends-hadopi-law-is-working.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>doing-the-math</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110513/02444214261</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:13:17 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How To Create A Survey That Makes A Problem Seem Bigger Than It Is: 'Do You Know Anyone...'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/18554113294/how-to-create-survey-that-makes-problem-seem-bigger-than-it-is-do-you-know-anyone.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/18554113294/how-to-create-survey-that-makes-problem-seem-bigger-than-it-is-do-you-know-anyone.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are all sorts of ways to lie with stats and surveys.  One of the more obnoxious ones is used in a new "study" about "mobile etiquette" which claims <a href="http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2011/02/electronic-etiquette-going-dow.php" target="_blank">the problem is reaching epidemic levels</a> mainly based on an online survey.  The accuracy of online surveys are already suspect enough, but this form of survey is done in a sneaky way that makes the problem look potentially much worse than it is:
<blockquote><i>
Nine out of ten people who responded to the online survey said they have seen people misuse their mobile devices, according to the survey.
</i></blockquote>
Right.  It didn't ask people about their own activities, but just if they've <i>seen</i> other people.  That's almost meaningless. Taken to an extreme version, say there was one (highly visible) mobile jackass, and 99 other people surveyed saw that one guy.  Well, based on this survey, you could claim that mobile etiquette is in a terrible state.
<br><br>
I'm not arguing that there isn't necessarily a problem with how some people handle mobile etiquette.  There could very well be just such a problem, but a study that sets out to investigate the issue with a survey like this one really tells you nothing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/18554113294/how-to-create-survey-that-makes-problem-seem-bigger-than-it-is-do-you-know-anyone.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/18554113294/how-to-create-survey-that-makes-problem-seem-bigger-than-it-is-do-you-know-anyone.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/18554113294/how-to-create-survey-that-makes-problem-seem-bigger-than-it-is-do-you-know-anyone.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lying-with-stats</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110226/18554113294</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Mind And Body Interactions</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/13410312517/dailydirt-mind-body-interactions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/13410312517/dailydirt-mind-body-interactions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The mind works in mysterious ways.  There are all sorts of studies that try to connect how the mind can affect its surroundings.  Bending spoons probably won't fool too many people these days, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions about placebos and other "mind-controlled" effects.  Perhaps the fundamental problem is that people in general are just inherently bad at statistics and interpreting data and correlations.  Whatever the case may be, here are some quick links about mind-over-matter topics. 
<blockquote>
<li> <a href="http://bit.ly/hxllzR">Stress might be able to affect your genes.</a>  So far, just yeast cells have been shown to have genes changed by stress.  Maybe larger organisms' genes are affected by stress, too? [<a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/stress-can-rewire-your-genes-says-study/13450/">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/hwwF5z">In a 1997 survey, 18 million Americans reported having a near death experience (NDE)... and neurologists are studying the states of consciousness that can "blend" during an NDE.</a>  They might figure out how Inception really works while they're at it. [<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/01/near-death-neurologist-dreams-on-the-border-of-life.html">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/fSdQO5">Conquer your fears and self-doubts with acceptance.</a>  Easier said than done! [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059823679423598.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_lifeStyle">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/gdTKxb">Does ESP exist for predicting sexy pictures?</a>  Statistics don't lie... err, yes they do all the time. Guessing something right 53% of the time doesn't sound like ESP. [<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/some-science-for-esp-at-least-when-sex-is-involved/6189/">url</a>]
</li> 
</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/13410312517/dailydirt-mind-body-interactions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/13410312517/dailydirt-mind-body-interactions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/13410312517/dailydirt-mind-body-interactions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110104/13410312517</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:50:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>California Continues Protecting Hollywood: Imposes Greater Fines On Infringement Based On Faulty Reasoning</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/12002011895/california-continues-protecting-hollywood-imposes-greater-fines-infringement-based-faulty-reasoning.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/12002011895/california-continues-protecting-hollywood-imposes-greater-fines-infringement-based-faulty-reasoning.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://law.es" target="_blank">Paul Keating</a> sent this one over a few weeks back, but just got around to going through the details.  It appears that, as of January 1st, California (rather quietly) greatly increased (mostly doubled) the fines for "piracy" and "counterfeiting," while expanding the definitions of what qualifies for these new fines, by <a href="http://www.calbar.org/ipsection/2010-11_anti-piracy.pdf" target="_blank">passing two laws</a> (pdf) late last year, based on questionable reasoning:
<blockquote><i>
According to its provisions, 
AB 819 was intended to increase the state's tax base and stimulate the economy by safeguarding 
the legitimate sale of intellectual property, and to send a strong signal that California is 
committed to protecting the intellectual property created by innovation and entertainment 
industries in the state.
</i></blockquote>
In other words, here's a gift to Hollywood so that it will pay more taxes.  As for the specific reasoning behind these bills, it gets more laughable the deeper you dig into the <a href="http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/60570" target="_blank">specific text of the bill</a> which is summarized in the document above.  However, let's go through the full findings:
<blockquote><i>
   (a) According to a 2007 study by the Institute for Policy
Innovation, intellectual property piracy, meaning the theft of
movies, music, software, and video games, costs the United States
economy $58,000,000,000 each year.
</i></blockquote>
This one is just sad.  The IPI's "methodology" for calculating such numbers has been debunked over and over and over again -- most thoroughly by Tim Lee <a href="http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/" target="_blank">years ago</a>, in which he highlighted how their methodology involved double, triple, quadruple counting of the same exact dollars to come up with their ridiculous sums.  Of course, rather than improve their methodology, IPI's response was to try to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22104711785/the-fine-line-between-legitimate-think-tank-and-industry-shills.shtml">get Tim fired from his job</a>.  That the State of California would base significant legal changes on such a methodology is downright scary.
<blockquote><i>
   (b) The problem of intellectual property piracy continues to grow
worse. A 2005 Gallup study found that 5 percent of Americans had
purchased, copied, or downloaded counterfeit music in the preceding
year. By 2007, this number had jumped to 9 percent. The percentage of
respondents that admitted buying a pirated movie rose from 3 percent
in 2005, to 6 percent in 2007. At the same time, once robust DVD
sales have flattened over the past few years, while CD shipments to
retailers have plummeted.
</i></blockquote>
Correlation is not causastion.  Doesn't anyone in politics know this?
<blockquote><i>
   (c) The effect of intellectual property piracy on California and
its citizens is particularly dire. Intellectual property piracy
adversely affects the California economy, eliminates jobs, and
damages industry. According to the Business Software Alliance, in
2003, software piracy alone cost the California economy more than
13,000 jobs, over $802,000,000 in wages and salaries, over
$1,000,000,000 in retail sales of business software applications, and
roughly $239,000,000 in total tax losses.
</i></blockquote>
The BSA's numbers are even more ridiculous than the IPI's and have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/09113311061/bsa-again-lies-with-stats-idc-should-be-ashamed-to-put-its-name-on-pure-nonsense.shtml">debunked</a> over and over <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml">again</a>.  Even the company that put together the numbers for the BSA had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040719/034230_F.shtml">admitted</a> that the BSA clearly exaggerates what they mean.  For example, the BSA still insists on using a 1:1 unauthorized copy = lost sale argument, which anyone with an ounce of common sense knows is laughable.
<br /><br />
These are the kinds of stats that the GAO had specifically warned governments <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml">not to believe</a>.  So why are California politicians believing them?
<blockquote><i>
   (d) Intellectual property piracy poses a significant threat to
consumers, who, through no fault of their own, are often deceived or
deliberately misled, or both deceived and deliberately misled, as to
the nature of purchased products, whereby pirated goods are palmed
off, including in electronic form, as legitimate authorized goods.
</i></blockquote>
Citation needed.  Seriously.  A major citation is needed here, because the studies we've seen suggest something quite different.  They suggest that, quite rarely are consumers confused.  In fact, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100829/21095710809.shtml">multiple studies</a> have shown that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091202/1503337167.shtml">counterfeiting</a> usually isn't a problem, because people know what they're buying, know they're fake, and often use them as incentive to save up for the real version later.  Furthermore, many other studies have shown that the actual impact of counterfeiting is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/17431810439.shtml">a tiny fraction</a> of what the industry claims.

<blockquote><i>   (e) A growing number of criminal organizations worldwide are
involved in intellectual property piracy.</i></blockquote>
This is both questionable and misleading.  This claim has been tossed around for years with little in the way of actual evidence to back it up.  Yes, there are some organized crime groups involved in counterfeiting operations, but most of this bill is about infringement of digital goods.  This is an attempt to conflate the two issues since the actual reasons for such a legal change is so incredibly weak.

<blockquote><i>
   (f) This act will send a strong signal that California is
committed to protecting the intellectual property created by
California's innovation and entertainment industries.<br /><br />
   (g) Finally, by safeguarding the legitimate sale of intellectual
property, California will increase its tax base, and stimulate the
economy.  
</i></blockquote>
That one sort of speaks for itself.  Basically, here's a bill designed as a favor to our friends in Hollywood.  As for the claims that it protects the tax base, that's also <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/09/bsas-piracy-numbers-less-than-they-seem.html" target="_blank">been debunked</a>, as it's been shown that such infringement almost certainly helps other industries at a much greater rate -- and those industries pay more in taxes.  Plus, all the money not spent on these things doesn't just disappear, but still is spent in the economy (and taxes are paid on it).
<br /><br />
It's pretty sad to see California passing laws like this based on such ridiculously bad and debunked evidence.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/12002011895/california-continues-protecting-hollywood-imposes-greater-fines-infringement-based-faulty-reasoning.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/12002011895/california-continues-protecting-hollywood-imposes-greater-fines-infringement-based-faulty-reasoning.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/12002011895/california-continues-protecting-hollywood-imposes-greater-fines-infringement-based-faulty-reasoning.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>protectionism-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101116/12002011895</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Dec 2010 07:02:14 PST</pubDate>
<title>Terrorism And Risk Assessment In Comic Form</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/02273612090/terrorism-risk-assessment-comic-form.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/02273612090/terrorism-risk-assessment-comic-form.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Here's a quick one, via <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/normative/statuses/10216900978020352" target="_blank">Julian Sanchez</a>, who sums the following <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&#038;id=2080" target="_blank">Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic</a> up perfectly: "A short lesson on terrorism, risk assessment, &#038; the availability heuristic"
<center>
<a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&#038;id=2080">
<img src="http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101201.gif" width=560/></a>
</center>
There are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101124/14002512014/tsas-failure-based-myth-perfect-security.shtml">trade-offs</a> to everything we do, and we're still way too focused on this idea of perfect security, while at the same time ignoring the much higher risks in other areas of our lives.  This doesn't mean that you ignore risks such as terrorism, but you don't overreact to them.  You look for effective solutions, not theatrical solutions.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/02273612090/terrorism-risk-assessment-comic-form.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/02273612090/terrorism-risk-assessment-comic-form.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/02273612090/terrorism-risk-assessment-comic-form.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-funny-because...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101202/02273612090</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:29:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Would Attorney General Eric Holder Cite Debunked Stats About 'Piracy'?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/04081411522/why-would-attorney-general-eric-holder-cite-debunked-stats-about-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/04081411522/why-would-attorney-general-eric-holder-cite-debunked-stats-about-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As part of the latest effort by the US to get China to <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/102010-us-working-with-china-on.html" target="_blank">respect US patent, copyright and trademark laws</a>, it's apparently sent Attorney General Eric Holder to Asia to make speeches that are blatantly ridiculous.  You can <a href="http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-101018.html" target="_blank">read the text of the speech</a> that Holder recently gave in Hong Kong, and try not to gag at the claims he makes that are either blatantly misleading or simply outright falsehoods.  The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law -- not lie to protect the interests of a few companies.
<br><br>
After kicking it off with (yet another) conflation of serious counterfeiting issues (that actually put people's lives in danger) with file sharing of music, movies and software, he simply parrots the totally <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml">debunked</a> BSA's stats on unauthorized software:
<blockquote><i>
The global software industry is a prime example.
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  If you look at open source software and how they've been able to put together incredible businesses, and enable all sorts of innovation by being the core building blocks of the internet, the web, email and giant companies like Google and Facebook, it really is a prime example of how "piracy" isn't a legal issue, but a business model one.  Or wait, did you mean something different?
<blockquote><i>
According to recent industry reports, it is now estimated that, worldwide, more than 40 percent of all software installed on personal computers is obtained illegally -- with forgone revenues to the software industry topping $50 billion.
</i></blockquote>
Yes, according to industry reports.  But not according to reality.  The "foregone revenue" number is based on a simply laughable claim of a 1:1 ratio of unauthorized copies to "foregone revenue."  No intellectually honest person would suggest that number is accurate.
<blockquote><i>
These are funds that could have been invested in new jobs and next-generation technologies. 
</i></blockquote>
Right, except Holder ignores the fact that those funds <i>didn't disappear</i>.  It's just that rather than going to a few companies with gov't granted monopolies, they went into actual companies <i>doing stuff</i> with the software.  That means, those funds <i>did</i> get invested in new jobs and next-generation technologies.  In fact, some of the evidence suggests that the money went towards <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/09113311061/bsa-again-lies-with-stats-idc-should-be-ashamed-to-put-its-name-on-pure-nonsense.shtml">creating even more jobs</a> than it would have if it had gone towards paying for software.
<blockquote><i>
And software piracy affects more than just the software industry -- since, for every $1 of PC software sold, it's estimated that more than $3 of revenues are lost to local IT support and distribution services. Other IP and support industries are seeing the same ripple effect of losses -- and current trends are alarming.
</i></blockquote>
Oh, wait, so you do understand ripple effects.  It's just that Eric Holder seems to think ripple effects only go in one direction.  They don't.  And, um, you do realize that counting "ripple effects" is <a href="http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/" target="_blank">blatantly misleading in that it's really recounting the same dollars multiple times</a>.  Could it be that US Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't understand basic economics and math?  Or is he simply accepting widely-debunked claims from an industry that clearly benefits from folks like him repeating those claims?  Neither answer seems particularly flattering to Holder.
<br><Br>
He then goes on to scold China (without naming them directly) for not doing enough to prop up American businesses.  Well, that's not how he puts it, of course, but it's what he's basically saying.  Apparently, he hasn't realized that China has been a quick study in figuring out how to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/01111911319/once-again-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-china-learning-to-use-other-country-s-patent-systems.shtml">use intellectual property laws</a> to hold back foreign companies operating in China -- including many US companies.  Encouraging China to respect intellectual property laws is simply encouraging them to harm American companies and innovation, while giving the government more tools to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/21345411016.shtml">suppress free speech</a>.  This is really troubling and dangerous.  And, what's most upsetting is that folks like Holder don't even seem to have considered these sorts of reactions.
<br><br>
Next up, he simply makes stuff up to win political brownie points:
<blockquote><i>
As many of you know, last year, President Obama created a new leadership role in the White House -- Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator -- and appointed Victoria Espinel to fill this position.
</i></blockquote>
Except, um, that's not true.  President Obama did not create that role.  It was created by the (problematic) ProIP bill, which was <A href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/2256222533.shtml">signed by President Bush</a>, not Obama.  Now, Obama did hire the first IP czar, and figure out which department it would go in, but only in response to the law signed by his predecessor.  To claim he created the role is blatantly false.  This may be a minor point, but it highlights that Holder seems to have filled this entire speech with statements that seem to show a disconnect from reality.
<blockquote><i>
Last December, Vice President Biden convened the administration's first intellectual property summit, which brought together cabinet officials and industry leaders to discuss intellectual property rights and policies
</i></blockquote>
Right.  The "summit," which only brought in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091215/0200387354.shtml">one side of the debate</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091215/1307497368.shtml">kicked out the press</a>.  The Attorney General is supposed to uphold the law, right?  He must have learned at some point that the entire point of copyright and patent laws is to <i>benefit the public</i> by "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts," right?  So, if you're going to convene a "summit" about such intellectual property, wouldn't you expect that the <i>real</i> stakeholders should be present as well -- rather than just a few industry folks seeking regulatory capture and an increase in monopoly rents at the <i>expense</i> of the public?
<blockquote><i>
To build on the contributions and achievements of our prosecutors and investigators, in February of this year, I reestablished the Justice Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property. 
</i></blockquote>
Right, at the same time that you were <i>de-emphasizing</i> the importance of things like stopping <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1641018820.shtml">identity fraud</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/17262010563.shtml">finding missing persons</a>.  But helping prop up a few companies who contribute a lot to political campaigns?  We'll get right on that...
<Br><Br>
There's a lot more like that in the speech, but honestly, the whole thing is shameful.  It's a pure propaganda piece for a few industries, at the expense of the public good.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/04081411522/why-would-attorney-general-eric-holder-cite-debunked-stats-about-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/04081411522/why-would-attorney-general-eric-holder-cite-debunked-stats-about-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/04081411522/why-would-attorney-general-eric-holder-cite-debunked-stats-about-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can't-admit-the-truth?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101021/04081411522</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:50:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/0242169999.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/0242169999.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you get to define a "market" you can create all sorts of misleading results.  Take, for example, this recent blog post from Microsoft, where it tried to <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/06/25/microsoft-by-the-numbers.aspx" target="_blank">show off just how big the company was</a> using a variety of numbers.  Thankfully, Charles Arthur, over at The Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jun/28/microsoft-frank-shaw-numbers-analysed" target="_blank">went through the numbers in greater detail</a> to point out where and how they were misleading.  One example, <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=14&#038;entryid=3044" target="_blank">highlighted by Glyn Moody</a> is the claims of Linux server market share, and how it supposedly "failed" to live up to expectations.  Here's what Microsoft had in its blog post (which I recreated by hand, because, as Arthur notes, Microsoft's HTML is full of ridiculous crap):
<blockquote><i>
<b>24%</b><br />
Linux Server market share in 2005. [<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm" target="_blank">source</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>33%</b><br />
Predicted Linux Server market share for 2007 (made in 2005). [<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm" target="_blank">source</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>21.2%</b><br />
Actual Linux Server market share, Q4 2009. [<a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/15675/idc_windows_dominates_linux_in_servers_not_just_the_desktop" target="_blank">source</a>]
</i></blockquote>
Now, this might strikes some of you as not sounding right.  After all, most of have have noticed that Linux servers seem to be pretty damn common throughout the world.  Most of the biggest online companies in the world use Linux, and it's difficult to think of an online startup that doesn't use Linux.  Charles Arthur breaks down how incredibly misleading this is:
<blockquote><i>
This is a really interesting one, because it is a distortion of reality that would have Steve Jobs applauding at its subtlety. You look at those numbers and think: wow, Linux servers really aren't popular. How odd, because you'll notice that you come across Linux servers all over the place: <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=google.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">Google</a>, <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=facebook.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">Facebook</a> (which runs <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F5_Networks">F5's Big IP</a>, which is Linux), <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=yahoo.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">Yahoo</a>, <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=amazon.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">Amazon</a>, <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=wordpress.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">Wordpress.com</a> (which hosts millions of blogs), <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=twitter.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">Twitter</a>... so why such a small number? (The only major site I could quickly find that runs Windows Server is <a href="http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=ebay.com&#038;x=0&#038;y=0">eBay</a>.)
<br /><br />
Answer: because those "market share" figures are for Linux server licences <em>sold</em>. Microsoft doesn't count them - and because the market research companies can't count them - if money doesn't change hands. True, this indicates that companies selling Linux servers (principally hardware) aren't making headway against Windows Server. But what it doesn't tell you is what progress Linux is making overall on the web. For that, you need Netcraft. And that suggests that Linux has a really big market share.
</i></blockquote>
In other words, to make these numbers come out this way, Microsoft is pretending that "free" Linux servers are not competitors.  This is a silly sort of willful blindness.  Obviously, free Linux is a huge competitor to Microsoft's servers, and widely used in place of it.  To ignore those numbers to try to suggest Linux has less marketshare is to deny reality.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/0242169999.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/0242169999.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/0242169999.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let-me-write-the-definitions...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100629/0242169999</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:12:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Oh Look, UK Piracy Statistics Are Based On Nonsense Too</title>
<dc:creator>Karl Bode</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/1424349085.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/1424349085.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>A recent GAO study found claims of piracy's supposedly-devastating impact on the economy (shockingly) usually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml">aren't based on real science</a> -- despite the fact that such claims (which usually originate from the entertainment or software industries) are repeatedly parroted by government officials. The study also found that there were a few instances where file trading could actually be a good thing -- and could actually result in increased product sales. The GAO's overall conclusion? No government agency actually bothers to track piracy statistics, and instead just regurgitates scary industry claims without question. The study also found that there's so many moving parts involved -- that making broad claims about piracy's impact on the economy (for better or worse) may not even be possible.</p><p>In the UK, the recent Digital Economy Bill was <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100408/1003328938.shtml">rushed through without any real debate</a> -- but with plenty of typical claims of how piracy was going to lead to economic armageddon if the bill wasn't passed. Just like in the States, the UK government never actually bothered to study whether any of these claims were accurate. If they had, they would have found that -- also just like in the United States -- the claims weren't based on real science but on the usual combination of flawed logic (assuming a copy shared naturally equates to a lost sale) and skewed, industry-supplied data. <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2912&#038;blogid=14">Looking more closely at the most recent reports</a> that most heavily influenced Digital Economy Bill voting found that very little (if any) data originated with independent, scientific studies:</p><blockquote>&quot;<em>So the net result of this 68-page report, with all of its tables and detailed methodology, is that four out of the top five markets used for calculating the overall piracy loss in Europe draw on figures supplied by the recording industry itself. Those apparently terrifying new figures detailing the supposed loss of money and jobs due to piracy in Europe turn out to be little more than a *re-statement* of the industry's previous claims in a slightly different form. As a result, as little credence can be placed in the the report as in those criticized by the US GAO</em>.&quot;</blockquote>   <p>Of course none of this surprises anybody who watched the BPI <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1937547848.shtml">manipulate and massage reality</a> in order to get the bill passed. Meanwhile, the passage of the Digital Economy Bill has file traders heading further underground (where they'll be harder to track), with anonymous BitTorrent protection services seeing a <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/make-bittorrent-transfers-anonymous-with-btguard-100419/">pronounced spike</a> in new users. While the BPI waits for their pet legislation to kick in, they've meanwhile announced that they plan to &quot;<a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i33e34f97cdbeee3e393bbf3300f0bb5c">reluctantly</a>&quot; return to suing potential customers. </p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/1424349085.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/1424349085.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/1424349085.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fake-science-makes-the-world-go-round</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100419/1424349085</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>