On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
However I am interested in whether you have a specific
idea of what you
would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is
a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and false negatives. I
can't think of a better test off the top of my head, but that doesn't
mean it's defects are somehow not gross and obvious. No-one who's ever
been quoted by the media could ever hear them being called a "reliable
source" and keep a straight face.
- d.