On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'.

Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him.

OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain
means we didn't get 40% of what we could have.

This might explain your logic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

I'm surprised one of your intellectual prowess would have to resort to YouTube. Please, explain how
you interpret the comments. I am definitely not one who can't admit an error!