YOYIZIT 9:19PM. I respectfully disagree with your contention about the effectiveness of AFCIs!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...hts=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
:thumbsup:
The problem seems to be in the signature analysis software.
I think patents have more credibility because the applicant is literally putting his money where his mouth is.
Also, at least one forum post showed that AFCIs respond to nearby radio stations.
And,
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=97059
From the book Unspun
-To evaluate a dramatic factual claim: Who stands behind the info, does the source have an ax to grind, by what method was the info obtained, how old is the data, what data collecting assumptions were made, how much guesswork was involved?
-While everyone has a bias, disinterested people are more likely to be trustworthy than advocates.
-Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
-Even a good study from a reliable source can be wrong.
-Testing evidence: is the source highly regarded and widely accepted, is the source an advocate, what is their track record, what method is used, does the source show its work, is the sample random, is there a control group, does the source have the necessary skill, have the results been replicated or contradicted?
-correlation may not mean causality.
Summary:
-#1, you can't be completely certain.
-#2, you can be certain enough; preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt.
-#3, look for general agreement among experts (but consensus is not proof).
-#4, check primary sources.
-#5, know what's really being counted.
-#6, know who's talking.
-#7, seeing is not necessarily believing.
-#8, crosscheck everything that matters.
Be skeptical but not cynical.
