From the article: "Worldwide spam is now down to one in every 1.37 emails. In the United States, spam accounts for 73.7% of all emails." This is classic journa

From the article: "Worldwide spam is now down to one in every 1.37 emails. In the United States, spam accounts for 73.7% of all emails." This is classic journalism, putting two related facts in the same sentence, but in such a way as to make comparison really really hard. It's like saying that the average height of people world-wide is 1.8m, but in the US it's 6 foot. Huh? So - for the record, 1 in 1.37 is 72.99%. So this sentence could, and should read; "Worldwide spam is now down to 72.99% of all emails. In the United States, it accounts for 73.7% of all emails." I'm guessing that .7% is well within their margin of error, meaning that the paragraph overall is somewhat redundant. Then a bunch of graphs, with no Y-Axis scale showing vast up and down fluctuations further erode what credibility the author had left. In short - a fluff piece devoid of the really interesting information.