bestbarcoder.com

Disinformation and Misinformation in .NET Create PDF417 in .NET Disinformation and Misinformation

3.1 Disinformation and Misinformation generate, create pdf417 none for .net projects Microsoft Office Official Website The distinction .net vs 2010 PDF 417 between disinformation and misinformation arises from different expectations. If one expects all information to be consistently true, then one will believe the occasional information that is false misinformation.

If, however, one has a correct sense of how much is likely to be true, then one will act more tentatively on all information, be it good or bad; this reduction in the usability of information is disinformation.. Information Warfare as Noise The trick is nd pdf417 2d barcode for .NET ing a balance between gullibility, and therefore susceptibility to deception, and cynicism, and therefore resistance to all information. Those who achieve a correct balance will still suffer from false positives believing erroneous information to be correct.

They will also suffer from false negatives discarding good and true information in the belief that it may have been tainted. But striking a balance means they will not suffer from too much of either. And they can design alternatives as described in this chapter to increase the signal and decrease the noise.

A balanced approach converts misinformation into disinformation. It does not eliminate the problem or the advantages of giving such a problem to others. When Winston Churchill during World War I proposed dragging battleship silhouettes in the water, skeptics replied that the Germans would eventually realize they were being tricked; he responded that henceforth they would doubt their eyes whenever they saw any such silhouette, whether real or fake.

If information warfare leads not to doubt but excessive deception, the fault may lie in the victim s a prioris expectations of a condition prior to its being validated. The basis for this difference lies in Bayesian logic a way to convert evidence into judgment2 and thus the cornerstone of. Consider the fol lowing problem of Bayesian mathematics. Two urns both have three balls. In one urn, call it redmore, two balls are red and the other is green.

In the other urn, call it greenmore, only one ball is red and the other two are green. Knowing this fact a priori (but being unable to differentiate the redmore urn from the greenmore urn based on inspection), you draw out the red ball from one of the urns. How likely, therefore, was it that you removed the ball from the redmore urn Answer: two-thirds, the a posteriori probability.

Why Before pulling the ball out, there were six equally likely possibilities: that you pulled (1) red ball number 1 from the redmore urn, (2) red ball number 2 from the redmore urn, (3) the green ball from the redmore urn, (4) green ball number 1 from the greenmore urn (the other one), (5) green ball number 2 from the greenmore urn, or (6) the red ball from the greemore urn. Pulling out a red ball leaves one of only three equally likely possibilities: (1), (2), and (6). Of the three possibilities, two of them indicate that the redmore urn was chosen and one of them indicates that the greenmore urn was chosen hence the two-thirds odds.

To rede ne the problem slightly, assume there is only one urn, with a 50:50 chance that it has more red balls than green balls. You pull out a red ball. The odds that this urn did, in fact, have two red balls and one green ball is the same: two-thirds.

Now change the problem. Again, there is only one urn, but you are assured that there is a only a one-in- ve chance (20:80) that it has two red balls and one green ball in it.You are told that these odds come from the fact that the one urn was randomly pulled from the back room, where there are four urns with two green balls and one urn with only one green ball.

Here.
Copyright © bestbarcoder.com . All rights reserved.