Visualizing where to draw the standard deviation line

[Onion Knight]

There has been a debate in COLA as to if the distance from the mean to
the inflection point is where the standard deviation should be. One
person is saying that this distance is where the line should always be
drawn while one other is saying the distance from the mean is
irrelevant and it is only the area under the curve that matters. The
first agrees the area under the curve is also always the same but
insists the inflection point is where the line should be drawn. He
even produced a video to show his ideas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoW3hMq-eIc
and he showed what he claimed was an incorrectly depicted image and
showed where he says it should be http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png

I admit this goes over my head. Is he correct? Is it really that easy
that you can just look at the inflection point and see where the
standard deviation should be drawn? I was never taught that in school.
He did provide other examples where he says the depictions are wrong.
I will quote him.

<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif> From:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the
graph to the right.

<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif> From: <http://
www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.

<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
Lines clearly shown at way too far a distance from the mean (this is
the one I use in my example).


Those of you who know math and statistics better can you help me to
know who to believe? Seems a Linux based group might not be the best
place to get this type of information. I do have them included in the
list of newsgroups so the people in the debate can see the answers.

[Ray Koopman]

On Jun 14, 8:29 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been a debate in COLA as to if the distance from the mean to
> the inflection point is where the standard deviation should be. One
> person is saying that this distance is where the line should always be
> drawn while one other is saying the distance from the mean is
> irrelevant and it is only the area under the curve that matters. The
> first agrees the area under the curve is also always the same but
> insists the inflection point is where the line should be drawn. He

> even produced a video to show his ideashttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoW3hMq-eIc

> and he showed what he claimed was an incorrectly depicted image and

> showed where he says it should behttp://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png

>
> I admit this goes over my head. Is he correct? Is it really that easy
> that you can just look at the inflection point and see where the
> standard deviation should be drawn? I was never taught that in school.
> He did provide other examples where he says the depictions are wrong.
> I will quote him.
>
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif> From:
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
> Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the
> graph to the right.
>
> <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
> Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.
>
> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
> Lines clearly shown at way too far a distance from the mean (this is
> the one I use in my example).
>
> Those of you who know math and statistics better can you help me to
> know who to believe? Seems a Linux based group might not be the best
> place to get this type of information. I do have them included in the
> list of newsgroups so the people in the debate can see the answers.

If a distribution is normal (Gaussian) then the standard deviation
will be at the inflection points. If the distribution is not normal
then the standard deviation may or may not be at the inflection points.

[Kaba]

15.6.2012 6:29, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
> There has been a debate in COLA as to if the distance from the mean to
> the inflection point is where the standard deviation should be. One
> person is saying that this distance is where the line should always be
> drawn while one other is saying the distance from the mean is
> irrelevant and it is only the area under the curve that matters. The
> first agrees the area under the curve is also always the same but
> insists the inflection point is where the line should be drawn. He
> even produced a video to show his ideas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoW3hMq-eIc
> and he showed what he claimed was an incorrectly depicted image and
> showed where he says it should be http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png

> I admit this goes over my head. Is he correct? Is it really that easy
> that you can just look at the inflection point and see where the
> standard deviation should be drawn? I was never taught that in school.

Hi,

That's correct. We are given the probability density function of the
normal distribution

f : R --> R : f(x) = C exp(-(x - m)^2 / (2s^2)),

where C in R is the normalization constant which makes f integrate to 1,
m is the mean, and s is the standard deviation. The claim is that the
inflection points of f are exactly at a distance of one standard
deviation from the mean, i.e. at m +- s. To prove this claim, compute
the first and second derivative of f:

f'(x) = C exp(-(x - m)^2 / (2s^2)) (-(x-m)/s^2), and

f''(x) = (C / s^2) exp(-(x - m)^2 / (2s^2)) [(x - m)^2 / s^2 - 1].

Then the inflection points of f are given by solving the equation

f''(x) = 0.

This simplifies to

(x - m)^2 / s^2 - 1 = 0
<=>
(x - m)^2 = s^2
<=>
|x - m| = s.

QED :)

--
http://kaba.hilvi.org

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 4:43 AM, in article jrf75k$q0i$1...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

Thanks. :)

I am the one who produced the media and was in the "debate" (if you have
ever visited an "advocate" group you know the debates there can be rather
silly). I noted the sigma should be depicted a specific distance from the
mean and was told:

cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
-----
| The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve -
| which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when
| they do so really badly, like in some of the ones I showed
| you.
They are not wrong.
------
LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines
cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE.
-----
If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links
you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound
an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I
would like to see it.
-----
Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious.
Please, post more on this subject.
------

And even:

cc:
-----
Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect.
Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond belief.
-----
Snit:
-----
You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the
area of the curve - which is easy to see when the images
screw it up, esp. when they do so really badly, like in some
of the ones I showed you.
But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
-----
cc:
-----
They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has
everything to do with the dataset and shape of the bell
curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here, and it's
hysterical.
-----

cc was never able to admit to his ignorance about having the sigma lines be
at the inflection points. And - remember, this debate took place in an
"advocacy" group - he never will. What is sad is he has people who are
backing him.

So thank you for giving a correct and detailed answer. Maybe it will help
him (and his friend) to understand they were wrong - not that they will ever
admit to it.


--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 12:24 AM, in article
b6ff2116-5f6d-4e4f...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Ray

For the sake of the discussion it was assumed a normal curve (though we
generally referred to it as a "bell curve" and someone else did point out
that there are other possible bell curves... the general meaning is the one
made from a normal distribution).

[White Spirit]

On Jun 15, 3:55 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> I am the one who produced the media

...and also the person posting as 'Onion Knight', a sock puppet he set
up using an anonymous proxy posting through Google Groups.

Do yourselves a favour and don't waste any more time on the serial
troll.

[Frederick Williams]

Normality is soooooooo boring. Don't forget the Cauchy distribution
that has no mean and an infinite variance, though it is bell shaped.

--
The animated figures stand
Adorning every public street
And seem to breathe in stone, or
Move their marble feet.

[Kaba]

15.6.2012 17:55, Snit kirjoitti:
> Thanks. :)
>
> I am the one who produced the media and was in the "debate" (if you have
> ever visited an "advocate" group you know the debates there can be rather
> silly). I noted the sigma should be depicted a specific distance from the
> mean and was told:

> So thank you for giving a correct and detailed answer. Maybe it will help
> him (and his friend) to understand they were wrong - not that they will ever
> admit to it.

For the mathematically inclined, the proof still needs to be added a
detail to be valid; Having a zero second derivative is necessary for an
inflection point, but not sufficient (the second derivative needs to
change sign!). Let's patch that up.

We already computed that the points of zero second derivative are at
m +- s. Computing the third derivative of f at these points give

f'''(m +- s) = +- (2 * C)/(s^3 * exp(1/2)).

Since these are both non-negative, the points m +- s must be inflection
points (that is, the second derivative moves through the zero either
from positive to negative or negative to positive).

--
http://kaba.hilvi.org

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 15, 11:43 am, Kaba <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 15.6.2012 6:29, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
>
> > There has been a debate in COLA as to if the distance from the mean to
> > the inflection point is where the standard deviation should be. One
> > person is saying that this distance is where the line should always be
> > drawn while one other is saying the distance from the mean is
> > irrelevant and it is only the area under the curve that matters. The
> > first agrees the area under the curve is also always the same but
> > insists the inflection point is where the line should be drawn. He

> > even produced a video to show his ideashttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoW3hMq-eIc

> > and he showed what he claimed was an incorrectly depicted image and

> > showed where he says it should behttp://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png

> > I admit this goes over my head. Is he correct? Is it really that easy
> > that you can just look at the inflection point and see where the
> > standard deviation should be drawn? I was never taught that in school.
>
> Hi,
>
> That's correct. We are given the probability density function of the
> normal distribution
>
> f : R --> R : f(x) = C exp(-(x - m)^2 / (2s^2)),
>
> where C in R is the normalization constant which makes f integrate to 1,
> m is the mean, and s is the standard deviation. The claim is that the
> inflection points of f are exactly at a distance of one standard
> deviation from the mean, i.e. at m +- s. To prove this claim, compute
> the first and second derivative of f:
>
> f'(x) = C exp(-(x - m)^2 / (2s^2)) (-(x-m)/s^2), and
>
> f''(x) = (C / s^2) exp(-(x - m)^2 / (2s^2)) [(x - m)^2 / s^2 - 1].
>
> Then the inflection points of f are given by solving the equation
>
> f''(x) = 0.
>
> This simplifies to
>
> (x - m)^2 / s^2 - 1 = 0
> <=>
> (x - m)^2 = s^2
> <=>
> |x - m| = s.
>
> QED :)
>
> --http://kaba.hilvi.org

While a lot of that still goes over my head, if I get the gist of it,
the person who said you can visualize the standard deviation based on
the distance from the mean (to the inflection point) was correct at
least in the case of a normal distribution. That is what I assumed
but wanted a different opinion.

Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of the standard
deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov

Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
is just fine. What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
other input from people who are not involved.

[Kaba]

15.6.2012 19:01, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
> Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
> drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of the standard
> deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
> http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>
> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> is just fine. What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> other input from people who are not involved.

I gather there are two questions here:

1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?

2) Is the trendline useful in some way?

Answering question 1, there are many ways to a line to data. These go
under the umbrella term of linear regression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

It is possible to choose it differently how to measure the goodness of a
fit. No doubt in the video the lines are fitted using ordinary least
squares. Least absolute deviations, for example, would give something
similar.

Answering question 2, no. The trendline is attempting to build a model
for the data. Models are created to summarize and to predict the future
(think of physics). In this case the line has no summarization value,
since _all_ of the data can be seen at glance. Since there is so small
amount of data, and so much fluctuation, the line probably does not have
any prediction value either.

--
http://kaba.hilvi.org

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 8:44 AM, in article jrfl96$vtq$1...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

If I understand correctly, though, for a normal distribution the inflection
points will always be at the points where the second derivative is zero -
and there will always be two and only two of those points. And it is at
those points where the first sigma line should be drawn. If you know this
you can see where standard deviation lines are often drawn incorrectly, such
as this one:

<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>

Which is the example I used for showing how you can make a decent
approximation visually: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>.

I also pointed to some other examples which at least appear incorrect to me
(though they are not as far off as the above example):

<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif> From:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>

Sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the

graph to the right.

<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif> From:
<http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>

Sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.

You would think that such sites would be made by people who knew better. I
openly admit I am not a math wiz (you are clearly far more knowledgeable
than I am) but it is rather silly when sites claiming to be teaching such
things get their depictions wrong (of course, one of the sites above is from
"Footballguys"... and you might not expect them, by stereotype, to be the
most knowledgeable in such areas anyway). :)

Then again, the "Environmental Surveillance, Education and Research Program"
sounds like a group that should know better, and the one that is just
grossly wrong was from the University of Delaware - and while the class is
in the Political Sciences department, the same instructor apparently teaches
classes in the Applied and Social Statistics department
(<http://www.udel.edu/htr>). He certainly should know better!

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 9:01 AM, in article
f011e6ae-88bc-4763...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, "Onion

And to be clear, as the name of the video suggests, the goal here was to
create a linear trend line in Excel (and Numbers). It was not to do other
forms of analysis or create other forms of trend lines... which I do know
exist.

> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> is just fine. What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> other input from people who are not involved.

I clearly missed no steps - but the folks arguing against us on this will
never admit they were wrong to claim I did.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 8:34 AM, in article 4FDB55F8...@btinternet.com, "Frederick

Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>>
>> On 6/15/12 12:24 AM, in article
>> b6ff2116-5f6d-4e4f...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Ray
>> Koopman" <koo...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If a distribution is normal (Gaussian) then the standard deviation
>>> will be at the inflection points. If the distribution is not normal
>>> then the standard deviation may or may not be at the inflection points.
>>
>> For the sake of the discussion it was assumed a normal curve (though we
>> generally referred to it as a "bell curve" and someone else did point out
>> that there are other possible bell curves... the general meaning is the one
>> made from a normal distribution).
>
> Normality is soooooooo boring.

No argument here... but for the context of the idiotic debate that is what
was being discussed. :)

> Don't forget the Cauchy distribution that has no mean and an infinite
> variance, though it is bell shaped.

To prove your point, can you show an image depicting each of the infinite
Cauchy distributions? :)

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 9:23 AM, in article jrfnh3$17a$1...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

<ka...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 15.6.2012 19:01, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
>> Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
>> drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of the standard
>> deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
>> http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>>
>> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
>> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
>> is just fine. What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
>> other input from people who are not involved.
>
> I gather there are two questions here:
>
> 1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
>
> 2) Is the trendline useful in some way?

Not quite: the question was merely if the process of creating the trend line
was correct - did it follow the process of creating a linear trend line that
is supported by the build in "linear trend line" properties of the program.

I am well aware that there are other forms of analysis... and also aware
that their is a great deal of volatility in the stats, in part because we
are talking such a small percentage of a whole and there is bound to be
plenty of "noise" that enters the data, but also because the usage itself
seems to go up and down quite a bit... though mostly staying between 1% and
2% of desktop usage.

The question was more about *had* there been an increase and less about if
the increase will continue. I did not expect such an increase to
continue... so the fact that it did not was not contrary to my views...
though the drop in 2012 was something I did not predict and did go against
my predictions. But at no time did I say the upward trend of the latter
half of 2011 (or 20111 as a whole) was likely to continue.

As far as the questions asked in the video, *clearly* the trend line, as
created with the built in linear trend line function of Excel, was going up
- but nobody said this meant that you could follow such a line to make good
future predictions. Just looking at the last couple of months of data
showed that trying to use the trend line for that purpose was not likely to
be successful. :)

> Answering question 1, there are many ways to a line to data. These go
> under the umbrella term of linear regression:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
>
> It is possible to choose it differently how to measure the goodness of a
> fit. No doubt in the video the lines are fitted using ordinary least
> squares. Least absolute deviations, for example, would give something
> similar.
>
> Answering question 2, no. The trendline is attempting to build a model
> for the data. Models are created to summarize and to predict the future
> (think of physics). In this case the line has no summarization value,
> since _all_ of the data can be seen at glance. Since there is so small
> amount of data, and so much fluctuation, the line probably does not have
> any prediction value either.

Part of the challenge is that the trend changed from the first half of 2011
to the second half and then again at the start of 2012. I show this here:

2011: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2011.png>
2012: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>

And all sorts of other breakdowns here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png>

The point, however, was not to predict the future past where I first created
the line. I had noted that the desktop Linux distros were clearly focusing
on improving their usability - and I predicted that an increase in usability
would lead to an increase in users.

For 2011, esp. the latter half, this was shown to be true - based on the
data we have. While the data set is small (only six months / data points),
the trend fit very well there:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. So it at
least seemed as though the real world data was fitting with my prediction
(which, to be clear, does not prove cause and effect).

In 2012, as shown in the above link, the trend reversed itself and my
prediction of an increase of users has been shown to *not* be the case, at
least based on the data we have.

But the graph was initially made to show that the then-current data fit with
my past predictions - not to make any specific prediction about the future
(such as that the same level of upward trend would be seen). The fact that
the trend reversed itself and usage went *down* and did not at least stay
stable, however, is contrary to my claims that there would be an increase in
users (I think it is fair to say there was an unstated assumption that the
increase would remain - not increasing forever but the number of users would
not drop).

All of this is confounded by the stats being based off of only one source
(there are many that measure such things and not all agree) and that this is
based on web usage - which while it serves as a reasonable approximate of
usage (and is likely the best we have) it is not the same. Also, the
percentages include both desktop and non-desktop usage, so to try to be more
accurate in terms of desktop usage, things such as Android and iOS would
have to be removed from the stats and the percentages would have to be
adjusted accordingly (though at this time the difference is so small as to
likely be statistically insignificant... I suspect that will change with
time).

[Onion Knight]

The question more is just if the process of creating a linear trend
line was done correctly. I do not believe anyone was saying it was the
best way to predict the future. This is more of a question of how to
use Excel than how to best predict future usage.

[Kaba]

15.6.2012 19:24, Snit kirjoitti:
> If I understand correctly, though, for a normal distribution the inflection
> points will always be at the points where the second derivative is zero -
> and there will always be two and only two of those points. And it is at
> those points where the first sigma line should be drawn.

Correct. For the mathematically inclined, since the normal distribution
is infinitely differentiable, being an inflection point implies having
zero second derivative. Therefore we have shown that there are exactly
two inflection points and they are m +- s.

> If you know this
> you can see where standard deviation lines are often drawn incorrectly, such
> as this one:
>
> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
>
> Which is the example I used for showing how you can make a decent
> approximation visually: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>.

The examples you give are good examples of wrongly drawn pictures.

> You would think that such sites would be made by people who knew better.

Heh:) But it is understandable though. The images are trying convey a
qualitative idea, not a quantitatively precise image. Most of the time,
the qualitative ideas are the important ones. As you have noticed,
sometimes this means that the images actually end up internally
inconsistent. But if the inconsistency does not block the main idea from
getting through, it does not matter.

On the other hand, having inconsistent images is the default, not the
exception. This is just a consequence of drawing things by hand (not
having the resources, i.e. time, to do the proper computations).

It is of course desirable that the images we draw are accurate. In the
current case you have identified a quick way to find the deviation
distance. This allows you to draw accurate pictures provided that the
normal curve itself is drawn accurately. This is ideal, since you have
at the same accuracy and a fast drawing time. It is an interesting
observation. I will try to remember this the next time I draw a normal
distribution on the blackboard:)

--
http://kaba.hilvi.org

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 15, 4:27 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/12 9:01 AM, in article

> f011e6ae-88bc-4763-9670-3b5f86395...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Of course they will not. Just as they will never admit they were
wrong about the standard deviation being drawn at a specific distance
from the mean on a bell curve.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 9:57 AM, in article jrfpht$21i$1...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

<ka...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 15.6.2012 19:24, Snit kirjoitti:
>> If I understand correctly, though, for a normal distribution the inflection
>> points will always be at the points where the second derivative is zero -
>> and there will always be two and only two of those points. And it is at
>> those points where the first sigma line should be drawn.
>
> Correct. For the mathematically inclined, since the normal distribution
> is infinitely differentiable, being an inflection point implies having
> zero second derivative. Therefore we have shown that there are exactly
> two inflection points and they are m +- s.

Fair enough.

>> If you know this
>> you can see where standard deviation lines are often drawn incorrectly, such
>> as this one:
>>
>> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
>> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
>>
>> Which is the example I used for showing how you can make a decent
>> approximation visually: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>.
>
> The examples you give are good examples of wrongly drawn pictures.

Good to hear from someone who clearly knows *far* more about this stuff that
I do... even if I was in the "right" here it is good to have it verified for
myself and others.

>> You would think that such sites would be made by people who knew better.
>
> Heh:) But it is understandable though. The images are trying convey a
> qualitative idea, not a quantitatively precise image. Most of the time,
> the qualitative ideas are the important ones. As you have noticed,
> sometimes this means that the images actually end up internally
> inconsistent. But if the inconsistency does not block the main idea from
> getting through, it does not matter.
>
> On the other hand, having inconsistent images is the default, not the
> exception. This is just a consequence of drawing things by hand (not
> having the resources, i.e. time, to do the proper computations).

But if you know the facts, even on the pretty basic level that I do (LINE BE
AT INFLECTION POINT. GRUNT.) you should be able to have depictions that are
at least better than these.

> It is of course desirable that the images we draw are accurate. In the
> current case you have identified a quick way to find the deviation
> distance. This allows you to draw accurate pictures provided that the
> normal curve itself is drawn accurately. This is ideal, since you have
> at the same accuracy and a fast drawing time. It is an interesting
> observation. I will try to remember this the next time I draw a normal
> distribution on the blackboard:)

Wait... are you saying I actually taught you something on this? If so I am
shocked... you clearly know math in general far better than I do (I have not
taken a statistics class since the mid 1990s and even then it was hardly a
high level class).

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 9:54 AM, in article
2fe263d0-0234-4b73...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Exactly correct. A group of Excel users would likely be the ones to ask
about this... not math folks. Nobody is claiming that using the linear
trend line on such data was the best way to predict the future.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 9:56 AM, in article
38cba071-0f2c-4ae0...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
>>> drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of the standard
>>> deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
>>> http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>>
>> And to be clear, as the name of the video suggests, the goal here was to
>> create a linear trend line in Excel (and Numbers).  It was not to do other
>> forms of analysis or create other forms of trend lines... which I do know
>> exist.
>>
>>> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
>>> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
>>> is just fine.  What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
>>> other input from people who are not involved.
>>
>> I clearly missed no steps - but the folks arguing against us on this will
>> never admit they were wrong to claim I did.
>
> Of course they will not. Just as they will never admit they were
> wrong about the standard deviation being drawn at a specific distance
> from the mean on a bell curve.

I am curious if cc will comment on his views in the depictions of the sigma
lines or on the creation of the linear trend line. So far his views have
only been expressed by others. In full fairness to him I welcome him
"defending" his views. At the same time, I do not want to see the absurd
debates of COLA taking over other forums... and there is that risk if cc
jumps in and repeats his attacks.

[Steve Carroll]

Why don't you ask Snit *why* he's talking about standard deviation.
LOL!

> Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
> drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of  the standard

> deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov

>
> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps

What "others"? Stop lying. I insisted that Snit's trend line, while
technically a trend line (this is a thing I had an initial
disagreement with cc about) is not good as far as being accurate for
predictions compared to the one cc did. Even cc's line his has
questionable predictive value... which is why I told Snit to question
using a line like this for this data period when I wrote: "You should
have been questioning the line". At least one other poster pointed
this out (Chris Ahlstrom, I believe). The argument between Snit and cc
was who had a more accurate line and Snit lost.

> but if you look
> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> is just fine.

Not if the goal is being accurate for a prediction, Snit's line does
not fit the data as well as cc's line.

> What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> other input from people who are not involved.

Like Snit was told many times... there are a ton of videos on Youtube
showing this.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 15, 10:23 am, Kaba <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 15.6.2012 19:01, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
>
> > Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
> > drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of  the standard
> > deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
> >http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>
> > Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
> > at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> > is just fine.  What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> > other input from people who are not involved.
>
> I gather there are two questions here:
>
> 1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
>
> 2) Is the trendline useful in some way?

These two are being totally dishonest (Snit and Onion Knight). This
ruckus came from Snit's initial claim that there was a "correlation"
between UI improvements in Linux and an "upward tick" in Linux' market
share. Snit failed to support this allegation when another poster, cc,
asked Snit to support the "correlation", notably, Snit replied:

"The correlation fits with my prediction.

Snit's "prediction" and his allegation of a correlation were the
reason that the topic of a trend line even came up. As you can see if
you bother to look at it, given the data used, Snit stood no chance of
supporting the correlation he claimed.

> Answering question 1, there are many ways to a line to data. These go
> under the umbrella term of linear regression:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
>
> It is possible to choose it differently how to measure the goodness of a
> fit. No doubt in the video the lines are fitted using ordinary least
> squares. Least absolute deviations, for example, would give something
> similar.
>
> Answering question 2, no. The trendline is attempting to build a model
> for the data. Models are created to summarize and to predict the future
> (think of physics). In this case the line has no summarization value,
> since _all_ of the data can be seen at glance. Since there is so small
> amount of data, and so much fluctuation, the line probably does not have
> any prediction value either.

Agreed, which is why I previously told Snit he should be questioning
the use of a line at all... but the argument was really a dick
measuring contest based on which line was a better fit and Snit's line
lost.

Onion Kinight is a Snit sock puppet or shill who has never posted to
usenet prior to this debate... Snit has done things like this for
years. He is one of the biggest liars you'll probably ever see on
usenet, there are scores and scores of posters who have all labeled
him a liar, troll or worse because of his online antics:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6e8fd0b61d327d78

My suggestion: Don't get sucked into his BS.

[Kaba]

15.6.2012 20:15, Snit kirjoitti:
> Wait... are you saying I actually taught you something on this? If so I am
> shocked... you clearly know math in general far better than I do (I have not
> taken a statistics class since the mid 1990s and even then it was hardly a
> high level class).

Yes, that's what I am saying. But it is not actually that shocking. Pick
any mathematician in the world, say Terence Tao:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_tao

Then dig yourself deep in some subject of mathematics, and state some
random theorem. Then it is very probable that the mathematician hasn't
heard that theorem before. Actually, he might not have heard of the
subject at all. The reason is simple: mathematics branches endlessly to
different topics (it starts from set theory). For a given person it is
only possible to master a tiny fraction of everything available in
his/her lifetime. Of course, this is not just mathematics, it's any subject.

In summary, it is a fallacy to think that an interested individual
wouldn't know more about some specialized subject than an 'expert' on a
wider subject which contains the former.

--
http://kaba.hilvi.org

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 15, 10:52 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/12 9:23 AM, in article jrfnh3$17...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > 15.6.2012 19:01, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
> >> Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
> >> drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of  the standard
> >> deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
> >>http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>
> >> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
> >> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> >> is just fine.  What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> >> other input from people who are not involved.
>
> > I gather there are two questions here:
>
> > 1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
>
> > 2) Is the trendline useful in some way?
>
> Not quite:

Not quite?! The obvious question: Why bother to produce a trend line
at all, then?

> the question was merely if the process of creating the trend line
> was correct - did it follow the process of creating a linear trend line that
> is supported by the build in "linear trend line" properties of the program.
>
> I am well aware that there are other forms of analysis... and also aware
> that their is a great deal of volatility in the stats, in part because we
> are talking such a small percentage of a whole and there is bound to be
> plenty of "noise" that enters the data, but also because the usage itself
> seems to go up and down quite a bit... though mostly staying between 1% and
> 2% of desktop usage.
>
> The question was more about *had* there been an increase and less about if
> the increase will continue.

No, the question was about whether or not the increase could be
attributed to UI improvements (as you admit to below).

> I did not expect such an increase to
> continue... so the fact that it did not was not contrary to my views...

Your "view" here was based on something that had no way to be
supported using the given data. As for this being contrary to your
view, it most certainly was contrary. Your prediction, which you said
was supported by your allegation of a correlation (that doesn't
provably exist), was that UI improvements lead to an increase in
marketshare. That any increase went back down only serves to teach you
not to make absolute statements like this (a thing you have a penchant
for doing).

> though the drop in 2012 was something I did not predict and did go against
> my predictions.  But at no time did I say the upward trend of the latter
> half of 2011 (or 20111 as a whole) was likely to continue.

But it proves cc's point, there really was no increase to speak of and
all this talk of your "predictions" is BS.

> As far as the questions asked in the video, *clearly* the trend line, as
> created with the built in linear trend line function of Excel, was going up
> - but nobody said this meant that you could follow such a line to make good
> future predictions.  Just looking at the last couple of months of data
> showed that trying to use the trend line for that purpose was not likely to
> be successful.  :)

As cc pointed out to you:

"If there was a correlation between focusing on usability issues and
an increase in Linux usage, then it would a clear roadmap on how to
get more users to Linux." - cc

And let's recall some of the unsubstantiated garbage that you wrote...
in a thread entitled "Disturbing Anomalies in Desktop Linux
Statistics" you stated:

"Hopefully as Ubuntu and others continue to focus on usability which
will lead to this trend continuing, but let us not pretend that there
is huge news now. There is, however, a good sign - and yet another
example of where the herd has been clueless as they disagree with me."
- Snit

Notably, you're talking about 'clueless herds' of people who
rightfully pointed out how your fat-headed BS *was* just BS.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Answering question 1, there are many ways to a line to data. These go
> > under the umbrella term of linear regression:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
>
> > It is possible to choose it differently how to measure the goodness of a
> > fit. No doubt in the video the lines are fitted using ordinary least
> > squares. Least absolute deviations, for example, would give something
> > similar.
>
> > Answering question 2, no. The trendline is attempting to build a model
> > for the data. Models are created to summarize and to predict the future
> > (think of physics). In this case the line has no summarization value,
> > since _all_ of the data can be seen at glance. Since there is so small
> > amount of data, and so much fluctuation, the line probably does not have
> > any prediction value either.
>
> Part of the challenge is that the trend changed from the first half of 2011
> to the second half and then again at the start of 2012.  I show this here:
>
> 2011: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2011.png>
> 2012: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>
>
> And all sorts of other breakdowns here:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png>
>
> The point, however, was not to predict the future past where I first created
> the line.  I had noted that the desktop Linux distros were clearly focusing
> on improving their usability - and I predicted that an increase in usability
> would lead to an increase in users.

Yup... and as is the same for predictive purposes... there is no way
the data you used was ever going to show a correlation between
improved UI and marketshare (which, as you finally admit here below,
is the reason you produced the trend line. This story now has an
ending).

> For 2011, esp. the latter half, this was shown to be true - based on the
> data we have.  While the data set is small (only six months / data points),
> the trend fit very well there:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>.  So it at
> least seemed as though the real world data was fitting with my prediction

No, it didn't seem that way, you only mistakenly believed it. That
data could have been based on *any* number of reasons, none of which
necessarily have to do with UI improvements. That's a fact and, until
you look a *much* better data you're flying blind.

> (which, to be clear, does not prove cause and effect).

Exactly right. So how do you claim above that it 'seemed' otherwise?
You're obviously very confused.

> In 2012, as shown in the above link, the trend reversed itself and my
> prediction of an increase of users has been shown to *not* be the case, at
> least based on the data we have.
>
> But the graph was initially made to show that the then-current data fit with
> my past predictions

Which you just talked about above:

"The point, however, was not to predict the future past where I first
created the line.  I had noted that the desktop Linux distros were
clearly focusing on improving their usability - and I predicted that

an increase in usability would lead to an increase in users." - Snit

And you created your trend line to show evidence of your prediction

"that an increase in usability would lead to an increase in users."

And you were unable to show this correlation with the data that you
used (as expected).

(note to anyone reading: If all this isn't proof that Snit is a TOTAL
whack job... nothing is)

> - not to make any specific prediction about the future
> (such as that the same level of upward trend would be seen).  The fact that
> the trend reversed itself and usage went *down* and did not at least stay
> stable,

Fact: There *was* no "trend" that was unequivocally attributable to
your alleged "correlation".

> however, is contrary to my claims that there would be an increase in
> users (I think it is fair to say there was an unstated assumption that the
> increase would remain - not increasing forever but the number of users would
> not drop).

To be more fair, as you *finally* admit to here up above, you created
your media to show a correlation that you were never going to be able
to show using the data you used.

> All of this is confounded by the stats being based off of only one source
> (there are many that measure such things and not all agree) and that this is
> based on web usage

Not really as that has little to do with why your correlation stood no
chance of being supported. It's the limitation of the data as based
solely on percentage rise and fall over time (regardless of where you
obtained, unless it was a UI 'study').

> - which while it serves as a reasonable approximate of
> usage (and is likely the best we have) it is not the same.  Also, the
> percentages include both desktop and non-desktop usage, so to try to be more
> accurate in terms of desktop usage, things such as Android and iOS would
> have to be removed from the stats and the percentages would have to be
> adjusted accordingly (though at this time the difference is so small as to
> likely be statistically insignificant... I suspect that will change with
> time).
>

No, limiting the data to rising and falling percentage over time won't
ever produce the kind of correlation you've suggested, it's simply the
wrong kind of data for that.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 10:54 AM, in article jrfsrs$3i3$1...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

<ka...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 15.6.2012 20:15, Snit kirjoitti:
>> Wait... are you saying I actually taught you something on this? If so I am
>> shocked... you clearly know math in general far better than I do (I have not
>> taken a statistics class since the mid 1990s and even then it was hardly a
>> high level class).
>
> Yes, that's what I am saying.

Well good to hear - seriously, I felt a bit bad seeing this idiotic debate
spread other forums (though I think Onion Knight had only good intentions as
he did so). Glad I could not only get information but share.

You speak of doing this on a blackboard... does this mean you teach? I
teach computer classes for colleges - a local community college and some
online colleges. I think most online classes are pretty bad (and that is
being kind), so I try to add as many visuals and videos as I can. For the
schools which actually allow instructors to create their own syllabus and
not just teach pre-made stuff, I start from scratch - four hours of videos
for my Dreamweaver class (have to redo them with CS6 now being out). That
is why it was pretty trivial for me to put together the images and videos I
used to show what I did... lots of experience and decent tools to do such.

With that said, I think this is my most popular video:
<http://youtu.be/mfycQJrzXCA>. Yeah, ten minutes of static. Odd how many
people seem to look for that. My next most common on YouTube is a bit more
informative: <http://youtu.be/NvrpuBAMddw> (basic relational database
concepts).

> But it is not actually that shocking. Pick
> any mathematician in the world, say Terence Tao:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_tao
>
> Then dig yourself deep in some subject of mathematics, and state some
> random theorem. Then it is very probable that the mathematician hasn't
> heard that theorem before. Actually, he might not have heard of the
> subject at all. The reason is simple: mathematics branches endlessly to
> different topics (it starts from set theory). For a given person it is
> only possible to master a tiny fraction of everything available in
> his/her lifetime. Of course, this is not just mathematics, it's any subject.

Absolutely agree.

> In summary, it is a fallacy to think that an interested individual
> wouldn't know more about some specialized subject than an 'expert' on a
> wider subject which contains the former.

Very true - I just did not think that this was very "specialized"
information. Then again, I know it is not taught in a lot of intro stats
classes. I think it should be. But so be it.

[Onion Knight]

My apologies for any action of mine that lead to Steve posting such
trash to the non Linux groups. Also sorry if you just got a similar
post as it seems Google Groups ate my first one. Maybe it is just
taking time?

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 12:38 PM, in article
f76505dc-792a-405c...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com, "Onion

I did not see an earlier post so I think it was just lost. Odd.

In any case, Carroll will follow me around from forum to forum - not your
fault. In any case, above and in his other post Carroll shows he does not
understand:

* I had predicted that the improvements in Linux usability would lead to an
increase in users. This was supported by the upward trend at the latter
half of 2011: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>.
The trend for 2012, though, has changed and the usage is now dropping. Had
it even stayed the same it would have fit my rather vague predictions. I
never predicted the trend could continue to move upwards like that.

* Steve shows he does not understand the difference between causation and a
correlation. I noted the data supported my prediction; I never said it
proved my reasoning was correct. It correlating well with my vague
prediction does not mean that this proves causation, and I have been very
clear with this. I also have been very clear that the 2012 data has gone
contrary to my prediction.

* When Carroll says there was no increase at all he is wrong. For the
latter half of 2011 there clearly was... and this whole silliness began
shortly after that time. Again, there is no disagreement it has since
dropped in 2012.

In short: I made a rather vague prediction and the data from the latter half
of 2011 supported the prediction well (correlated with it - it did not show
anything about the cause and effect I talked about... nor did I ever say it
did). Had the usage stayed the same or continued to go up then my initial
prediction would have been shown to be correct (though, again, the cause and
effect relationship would not be shown by the data). A continuation of the
upward trend, however, was not required for my prediction to have been shown
to be correct. My prediction was shown to be incorrect, however, with the
drop of usage. So I was wrong to make the prediction that it would roughly
stay at that higher level or go up... but the fact I was wrong is not
sufficient for Carroll - he feels the need to lie about me and my views.

And that is the last I will say about him and his BS in this thread unless a
non-COLA person asks or looks to be taking anything my stalker (Carroll)
says with any level of credibility. He has been following me around from
forum to forum trolling me with his own name and socks since 2004 for
reasons which are completely irrelevant to any of this.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 15, 5:53 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 10:23 am, Kaba <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > 15.6.2012 19:01, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
>
> > > Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
> > > drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of  the standard
> > > deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
> > >http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>
> > > Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look
> > > at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> > > is just fine.  What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> > > other input from people who are not involved.
>
> > I gather there are two questions here:
>
> > 1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
>
> > 2) Is the trendline useful in some way?
>
> These two are being totally dishonest (Snit and Onion Knight). This
> ruckus came from Snit's initial claim that there was a "correlation"
> between UI improvements in Linux and an "upward tick" in Linux' market
> share. Snit failed to support this allegation when another poster, cc,
> asked Snit to support the "correlation", notably, Snit replied:
>
> "The correlation fits with my prediction.
>
> Snit's "prediction" and his allegation of a correlation were the
> reason that the topic of a trend line even came up. As you can see if
> you bother to look at it, given the data used, Snit stood no chance of
> supporting the correlation he claimed.

He already showed where it did for 2011 but not for 2012. Stop making
a mess on your keyboard as you realize his prediction failed to be
supported by the 2012 data.

> > Answering question 1, there are many ways to a line to data. These go
> > under the umbrella term of linear regression:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
>
> > It is possible to choose it differently how to measure the goodness of a
> > fit. No doubt in the video the lines are fitted using ordinary least
> > squares. Least absolute deviations, for example, would give something
> > similar.
>
> > Answering question 2, no. The trendline is attempting to build a model
> > for the data. Models are created to summarize and to predict the future
> > (think of physics). In this case the line has no summarization value,
> > since _all_ of the data can be seen at glance. Since there is so small
> > amount of data, and so much fluctuation, the line probably does not have
> > any prediction value either.
>
> Agreed, which is why I previously told Snit he should be questioning
> the use of a line at all... but the argument was really a dick
> measuring contest based on which line was a better fit and Snit's line
> lost.

Please quote where Snit say his line was a 'better fit'? I know his
line for 2012 was a great fit but not all of his lines were. Snit has
gone into this in more detail elsewhere.

> Onion Kinight is a Snit sock puppet or shill who has never posted to
> usenet prior to this debate... Snit has done things like this for
> years. He is one of the biggest liars you'll probably ever see on
> usenet, there are scores and scores of posters who have all labeled
> him a liar, troll or worse because of his online antics:
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6e8fd0b61d...

>
> My suggestion: Don't get sucked into his BS.

My suggestion: understand Steve attacks Snit no matter what Snit says
or does. Snit can you share the PDF which shows how much Steve and his
girlfriend harassed you.

[Onion Knight]

My apologies to the groups outside of COLA for having this idiot post
with his attacks and lies.

[Kaba]

15.6.2012 22:27, Snit kirjoitti:
> You speak of doing this on a blackboard... does this mean you teach?

I am primarily a post-grad student (in mathematics), but I have also
been keeping exercises on certain courses on mathematics.

> I teach computer classes for colleges - a local community college and some
> online colleges. I think most online classes are pretty bad (and that is
> being kind), so I try to add as many visuals and videos as I can. For the
> schools which actually allow instructors to create their own syllabus and
> not just teach pre-made stuff, I start from scratch - four hours of videos
> for my Dreamweaver class (have to redo them with CS6 now being out). That
> is why it was pretty trivial for me to put together the images and videos I
> used to show what I did... lots of experience and decent tools to do such.

I see. I especially noticed that the videos were done well.

> With that said, I think this is my most popular video:
> <http://youtu.be/mfycQJrzXCA>. Yeah, ten minutes of static. Odd how many
> people seem to look for that. My next most common on YouTube is a bit more
> informative: <http://youtu.be/NvrpuBAMddw> (basic relational database
> concepts).

An excellent video the latter one. The students are surely happy to have
this material. Keep up the good work!:)

--
http://kaba.hilvi.org

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 1:03 PM, in article
6b747784-6b5e-4de3...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> Snit's "prediction" and his allegation of a correlation were the
>> reason that the topic of a trend line even came up. As you can see if
>> you bother to look at it, given the data used, Snit stood no chance of
>> supporting the correlation he claimed.
>
> He already showed where it did for 2011 but not for 2012. Stop making
> a mess on your keyboard as you realize his prediction failed to be
> supported by the 2012 data.

My prediction did not hold true for 2012. I was wrong. The level of
pleasure Carroll finds in my not correctly predicting the 2012 data is
absurd.

...

>> Agreed, which is why I previously told Snit he should be questioning
>> the use of a line at all... but the argument was really a dick
>> measuring contest based on which line was a better fit and Snit's line
>> lost.
>
> Please quote where Snit say his line was a 'better fit'? I know his
> line for 2012 was a great fit but not all of his lines were. Snit has
> gone into this in more detail elsewhere.

Not only did I never say that my original linear trend lines fit the data
well, I have gone into detail as to why they do not - the trend changed at
the start of 2012! A linear trend line does not represent non-linear data
well. How amazing!

>
>> Onion Kinight is a Snit sock puppet or shill who has never posted to
>> usenet prior to this debate... Snit has done things like this for
>> years. He is one of the biggest liars you'll probably ever see on
>> usenet, there are scores and scores of posters who have all labeled
>> him a liar, troll or worse because of his online antics:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6e8fd0b61d...
>>
>> My suggestion: Don't get sucked into his BS.
>
> My suggestion: understand Steve attacks Snit no matter what Snit says
> or does. Snit can you share the PDF which shows how much Steve and his
> girlfriend harassed you.

See my other post to COLA where I go into great detail on this. Not
spreading his endless stalking BS to other forums.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 1:20 PM, in article jrg5ec$7co$1...@news.cc.tut.fi, "Kaba"

<ka...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 15.6.2012 22:27, Snit kirjoitti:
>> You speak of doing this on a blackboard... does this mean you teach?
>
> I am primarily a post-grad student (in mathematics), but I have also
> been keeping exercises on certain courses on mathematics.

I recently earned my Masters in IT. Best of luck to you as you work toward
yours.

>> I teach computer classes for colleges - a local community college and some
>> online colleges. I think most online classes are pretty bad (and that is
>> being kind), so I try to add as many visuals and videos as I can. For the
>> schools which actually allow instructors to create their own syllabus and
>> not just teach pre-made stuff, I start from scratch - four hours of videos
>> for my Dreamweaver class (have to redo them with CS6 now being out). That
>> is why it was pretty trivial for me to put together the images and videos I
>> used to show what I did... lots of experience and decent tools to do such.
>
> I see. I especially noticed that the videos were done well.

Thank you. :)

As I said, I find most online classes to be really bad and I work to try to
make mine better. Some colleges are more or less open to allowing the
"instructors" to add or replace materials. Those that do not really are
having people work as "proctors" more than real "instructors", though there
is a range. I generally work for the colleges which allow for greater
flexibility and allow me to actually teach.

>> With that said, I think this is my most popular video:
>> <http://youtu.be/mfycQJrzXCA>. Yeah, ten minutes of static. Odd how many
>> people seem to look for that. My next most common on YouTube is a bit more
>> informative: <http://youtu.be/NvrpuBAMddw> (basic relational database
>> concepts).
>
> An excellent video the latter one. The students are surely happy to have
> this material. Keep up the good work!:)

Again, thanks.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 15, 2:20 pm, Kaba <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 15.6.2012 22:27, Snit kirjoitti:
>
> > You speak of doing this on a blackboard... does this mean you teach?
>
> I am primarily a post-grad student (in mathematics), but I have also
> been keeping exercises on certain courses on mathematics.
>
> > I teach computer classes for colleges - a local community college and some
> > online colleges.  I think most online classes are pretty bad (and that is
> > being kind), so I try to add as many visuals and videos as I can.  For the
> > schools which actually allow instructors to create their own syllabus and
> > not just teach pre-made stuff, I start from scratch - four hours of videos
> > for my Dreamweaver class (have to redo them with CS6 now being out).  That
> > is why it was pretty trivial for me to put together the images and videos I
> > used to show what I did... lots of experience and decent tools to do such.
>
> I see. I especially noticed that the videos were done well.

Snit's rat just got a lot bigger and a lot smellier...

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 15, 8:28 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/12 1:03 PM, in article

> 6b747784-6b5e-4de3-bf29-58107c3a1...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Onion
>
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (non-COLA groups removed... no need to pull Carroll's BS into those forums)

>
> >> Onion Kinight is a Snit sock puppet or shill who has never posted to
> >> usenet prior to this debate... Snit has done things like this for
> >> years. He is one of the biggest liars you'll probably ever see on
> >> usenet, there are scores and scores of posters who have all labeled
> >> him a liar, troll or worse because of his online antics:
>
> >>https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6e8fd0b61d...
>
> >> My suggestion: Don't get sucked into his BS.
>
> > My suggestion: understand Steve attacks Snit no matter what Snit says
> > or does. Snit can you share the PDF which shows how much Steve and his
> > girlfriend harassed you.
>

> <http://www.badongo.com/file/26885422>
>
> In that, fully linked, you will see evidence that she:
>
> * Tracked down when my mother passed away within 5 days of her passing,
>   seemingly using information from a newspaper of the town my mother
>   lived in (available online, I think).
>
> * Posted information about my oldest child that was, as far as I know
>   and she could show, only available in the *print* edition of my
>   local paper.  She at first would not say where she got this info,
>   but when it I noted the source she became clearly angry.  She does not
>   live in the same state as me, no less the same city where it would
>   be reasonable for her to have a subscription to my small town paper.
>
> * Bragged about tracking down where I worked "But no one here knows
>   your place of employment! I figured it out after looking at your
>   bookmark page though."  I had a private page with my bookmarks
>   posted to my site... I do not know how she found it.  Since that
>   time Carroll has repeatedly accused me of impersonating this
>   person his girlfriend bragged about tracking me down to being.
>
> * Posted information about an employer and what classes I was
>   teaching, noting she had found the times and types of classes.
>   She then commented about how she wanted people at the college
>   to be informed of her views on me.
>
> * Followed me around from thread to thread demanding I tell her
>   how "incest" made me feel.
>
> * Complained heavily and repeatedly about how with her the choice
>   my wife and I made to have a child.
>
> * She posted about me almost exclusively (by her own admission,
>   96% of her posts) and then tried to excuse this because Steve
>   Carroll, at the time, was posting about me in an even higher
>   percentage of his posts.
>
> And more.  All of that is proved, with links, in the PDF I linked to.
> Carroll has since denied that he ever was in a relationship with her, but he
> used to post about his "road trips" to her house, how she lived only 59
> minute away, and later about how she moved to live right around his house so
> they could spend more time together (I believe six minutes away is what he
> claimed).  He also admitted that when his wife found out about her that she
> became angry.  Additionally, as his then girlfriend notes quotes I show in
> the PDF (also fully linked to original sources), Carroll was then posting
> about me with a higher percentage than her admitted 96%.  He clearly was
> involved with her.
>
> His defense has been that at one time, early on in the debates, I gave her
> the benefit of the doubt and said I may have jumped to an incorrect
> conclusion about her obsession and reasons for it.  The fact I was fair to
> her is something Carroll uses *against* me.
>
> Carroll has also accused me of contacting his family members and repeated
> many of the attacks that his then-girlfriend accuse me of.
>
> The "incident" ended when she went far enough to threaten to contact my
> local police and make false accusations against me.  I brought these posts
> to the police and they contacted her local police.  I will not go into
> details of the results, but as far as I know she stopped posting and has
> never posted since (though someone - likely Carroll - has posted using her
> name on occasion).
>
> I have seen no "cyberstalking" incident in COLA or CSMA that has ever come
> close to the level that Carroll's friend and he went to.  Since that time
> Carroll has claimed he was going to contact my employer and spread many of
> the same lies he talks about in that PDF (plus many others).  Carroll, along
> with Sandman and later HPT, also have been collecting quotes about me (and
> forging them through the use of socks and the like) to try to discredit me
> (though, oddly enough, with all his obsession he cannot find examples of my
> actually doing as he claims... it is all from "observers" who he claims saw
> my posts which he bizarrely cannot find now).  When this is noted, however,
> Carroll pulls up ancient quotes ­ from 2004-2006 and claims that unless I
> engage in debating him *again* this must mean I am saying there is an
> expiration date on my "bad" behavior... as if I owe it to him to prove him
> wrong *again*.  If he does this again, I encourage you to prompt him to post
> the original source of his quotes and look at the discussions we had then -
> in each case I show why his "interpretation" is absurd and dishonest.  I
> shall not engage in debating with him, again, about incidents that happened
> well over half a decade ago.

Since Steve will be trolling you in these other groups I think they
should see this. My apologies if it offends you but I am sharing it
with them.

I have been posting to usenet for many years though I used to go by a
different name. A large part of the reason I am using a different
name now is because of Steve and his gang from comp.sys.mac.advocacy
as they tracked me down and contacted my family and tried to contact
my boss though they got the information wrong and contacted a coworker
who shared the emails with me. Steve is now trying to track me down
again and has repeatedly emailed me with threats that he will find my
employer and who I really am. When Steve is on the attack as he is now
people should know how fucked up he is. I suggest people report Steve
to COMCAST as he posts things which are inappropriate. I did so but
have not yet heard back from them. Maybe if they get enough complaints
they will cancel his account and it will be harder for him to attack
people as he does.

[Onion Knight]

Steve will attack anyone who speaks well of Snit. You will soon be
called his 'sock' or 'shill'. He is a vindictive bastard who hates
being proved wrong and hates even more when Snit is shown to be right
or skilled.

[Onion Knight]

Can you quote where Snit said this is what he was arguing? Even in
this thread he has made it clear it was not.

> > but if you look
> > at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
> > is just fine.
>
> Not if the goal is being accurate for a prediction, Snit's line does
> not fit the data as well as cc's line.

Read this thread where Snit talks about the purpose of creating his
line and about his predictions.

> > What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
> > other input from people who are not involved.
>
> Like Snit was told many times... there are a ton of videos on Youtube
> showing this.

But you can't find any examples. Snit's process as he showed in his
video was perfectly fine.

[Steve Carroll]

You should be apologizing for intentionally crossposting your trolling
from COLA, which is a clear breach of netiquette. That you came in
with a lie to these good people (as you have now tacitly admitted)
doesn't help your case much. Of course, that you believe people are as
stupid as you need them to be is reason enough for you to continue
this charade underestimating *another* group of people's intelligence
where your BS is concerned should be expected.

No matter, reality shows that they have now all seen how you (Snit)
used a sock puppet (Onion Knight). They have seen how you lied in an
effort to support something that was unsupportable because you cannot
admit when you are wrong and how you tried to drag them into it
(committing the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority). Not bad
for a day's work, troll.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 1:47 PM, in article
2a3c9d58-4c2a-4f26...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion

I would have preferred to not have this posted elsewhere but I can see your
point.

Steve is now running around claiming he has "proved" you and I are the same
person though he cannot say what this proof is (he thinks your post was by
me? WTF? He is paranoid and sees me everywhere).

> I have been posting to usenet for many years though I used to go by a
> different name. A large part of the reason I am using a different
> name now is because of Steve and his gang from comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> as they tracked me down and contacted my family and tried to contact
> my boss though they got the information wrong and contacted a coworker
> who shared the emails with me. Steve is now trying to track me down
> again and has repeatedly emailed me with threats that he will find my
> employer and who I really am. When Steve is on the attack as he is now
> people should know how fucked up he is. I suggest people report Steve
> to COMCAST as he posts things which are inappropriate. I did so but
> have not yet heard back from them. Maybe if they get enough complaints
> they will cancel his account and it will be harder for him to attack
> people as he does.

I suspect I know what name you used to post under - and it was in CSMA. I
will not make any public guesses. I might be right. I might be wrong. It
really does not matter to me. You are posting opinions and views... many of
which I agree with and some of which I do not. So be it. What your real
name is, where you work, etc. is irrelevant. Your life is your own... and
you are wise to keep it private... the info I list above is absolute proof
of how bat-shit crazy Carroll and his ex are.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 1:55 PM, in article
3d811f45-041c-4b61...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "Onion

He thinks both you and Kaba are me. He sees me everywhere when someone
makes sense. He is completely paranoid.

[Snit]

On 6/15/12 2:25 PM, in article
a8415a59-28eb-4853...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>>> Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps
>>
>> What "others"? Stop lying. I insisted that Snit's trend line, while
>> technically a trend line (this is a thing I had an initial
>> disagreement with cc about) is not good as far as being accurate for
>> predictions compared to the one cc did. Even cc's line his has
>> questionable predictive value... which is why I told Snit to question
>> using a line like this for this data period when I wrote: "You should
>> have been questioning the line".  At least one other poster pointed
>> this out (Chris Ahlstrom, I believe). The argument between Snit and cc
>> was who had a more accurate line and Snit lost.
>
> Can you quote where Snit said this is what he was arguing? Even in
> this thread he has made it clear it was not.

I never argued about who had the "more accurate" line... though I did not
where cc's method lead to him missing changes in the trend and my method
lead to making them more clear. But my claims was always that the process
for creating a linear trend that I used was a completely correct one.

And it was. Flawlessly using the tools as designed.

>>> but if you look
>>> at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process
>>> is just fine.
>>
>> Not if the goal is being accurate for a prediction, Snit's line does
>> not fit the data as well as cc's line.
>
> Read this thread where Snit talks about the purpose of creating his
> line and about his predictions.

Steve cannot accept that I was not making a prediction of the trend
continuing... even though he cannot find a quote where I said it would...
and there are many times I said I did not expect it to (esp. once I started
talking about how it had changed... how can it both continue the same *and*
have changed? Steve cannot understand even simple concepts).

>>>  What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some
>>> other input from people who are not involved.
>>
>> Like Snit was told many times... there are a ton of videos on Youtube
>> showing this.
>
> But you can't find any examples. Snit's process as he showed in his
> video was perfectly fine.

There is no video that shows my process was wrong being that my process was
flawless.

Believe me, if Steve had found one that showed otherwise he would not just
speak of it he would link to it. He *never* will... none exist.

[Frederick Williams]

Follow-up set.

Onion Knight wrote:
>
> [...]

>
> My apologies to the groups outside of COLA for having this idiot post
> with his attacks and lies.

Rather than apologizing, why not just trim the list of groups?


--
The animated figures stand
Adorning every public street
And seem to breathe in stone, or
Move their marble feet.

[Frederick Williams]

Snit wrote:
>
> [...] You are posting opinions and views... many of

> which I agree with and some of which I do not. So be it. What your real

> name is, where you work, etc. is irrelevant. [...]

Hence follow up set.

[Frederick Williams]

Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 1:38 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> >
> > My apologies for any action of mine that lead to Steve posting such
> > trash to the non Linux groups. Also sorry if you just got a similar
> > post as it seems Google Groups ate my first one. Maybe it is just
> > taking time?
>
> You should be apologizing for intentionally crossposting your trolling
> from COLA, which is a clear breach of netiquette.

For which reason I have set follow ups to COLA.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Frederick Williams wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> Ray Koopman wrote:
>>> If a distribution is normal (Gaussian) then the standard deviation
>>> will be at the inflection points. If the distribution is not normal
>>> then the standard deviation may or may not be at the inflection points.
>>
>> For the sake of the discussion it was assumed a normal curve (though we
>> generally referred to it as a "bell curve" and someone else did point out
>> that there are other possible bell curves... the general meaning is the
>> one made from a normal distribution).
>
> Normality is soooooooo boring. Don't forget the Cauchy distribution that
> has no mean and an infinite variance, though it is bell shaped.

That is only if you don't take normal distributions to the limit. Then it
gets less boring.

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/cyAAACgkQGQjO2ccW76r/YQEAgzjPWHTisyLK67vTmc4Nbmyh
jwd4lWlyjYcHkmPQR7MA/39+IoXe8Y1IUX4D2zjx2M2zWY8fcwIOQCyZ1I2VrXWw
=w4LV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 16, 2:33 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> Follow-up set.
>
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > My apologies to the groups outside of COLA for having this idiot post
> > with his attacks and lies.
>
> Rather than apologizing, why not just trim the list of groups?

The reason I started this thread was to make sure that the
visualizations Snit talked about and his movie were correct. I also
wanted to see if people who were focused on this area were in
agreement with him that the images he showed were depicted poorly.
What he said made sense and was supported elsewhere but there was some
strong disagreement in the other group.

Some from other groups did respond. This included Kaba who was very
helpful and verified what I already thought was correct. Specifically
that Snit was right in his claims. But by doing this I admit it was
not hard to predict that those who troll him and attack him would do
so. They do not like being proved wrong and this is just one more
example of them being proved wrong.

Their reaction has been to increase their attacks and call him names
and make accusations. Some of these accusations are against myself and
Kaba who have now both been accused of being Snit's socks. This is
done to try to change the topic. The one making these accusations is
named Steve Carroll and he uses socks often. I have asked him to list
the names he has used online and he can't do so. Apparently there are
too many for him to remember or he is just embarrassed by his own
actions. As for the other troll even though it is now clear Snit was
right to call the depictions he showed as being poorly done the troll
cc will not admit to this. Again he is ashamed of his own past claims
and denials. Instead of dealing with the fact he was wrong he will
attack people. It is what these idiots do. I suppose you might have
some people like that in your forum as well.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 17, 9:43 am, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2:33 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Follow-up set.
>
> > Onion Knight wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > My apologies to the groups outside of COLA for having this idiot post
> > > with his attacks and lies.
>
> > Rather than apologizing, why not just trim the list of groups?
>
> The reason I started this thread

is the same reason you are *still* crossposting even after being
reminded that it's poor netiquette and had a poster reset the groups.

(snip a bunch of whining and outright lies, the usual fare of the
troll)

[Snit]

On 6/17/12 8:43 AM, in article
09db9c1e-22d5-4007...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2:33 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> Follow-up set.
>>
>> Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> My apologies to the groups outside of COLA for having this idiot post
>>> with his attacks and lies.
>>
>> Rather than apologizing, why not just trim the list of groups?
>
> The reason I started this thread was to make sure that the
> visualizations Snit talked about and his movie were correct. I also
> wanted to see if people who were focused on this area were in
> agreement with him that the images he showed were depicted poorly.
> What he said made sense and was supported elsewhere but there was some
> strong disagreement in the other group.

The "visualizations" I spoke about:

<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>

Where the sigma lines are clearly drawn at too far of a distance from the
mean (more info here: <http://goo.gl/AqFlD>)

<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>

In those examples the sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from
the mean (esp. in the right-most image on the top link)

Once you know the sigma lines should be drawn at a specific distance from
the mean (the distance from the mean to the inflection points), it is easy
to see why those depictions are done poorly. But here are just some of
those statements of "strong disagreement":

cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
-----
| The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve -
| which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when
| they do so really badly, like in some of the ones I showed
| you.
They are not wrong.
------
LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines
cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE.
-----
If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links
you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound
an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I
would like to see it.
-----
Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious.
Please, post more on this subject.
------

On and on. And Carroll jumped into the "debate" to back cc and never spoke
of how wrong cc was here. And cc, of course, never admitted to his error.

> Some from other groups did respond. This included Kaba who was very
> helpful and verified what I already thought was correct. Specifically
> that Snit was right in his claims.

And Carroll responded by claiming Kaba was also my sock - anyone who
disagrees with him and agrees with me is, in his head, my sock. He is not
an honest or reasonable person... as you note (and am snipping to keep the
focus on the above information dealing with the visualization of sigma lines
and comments about that specific topic). If people want to know more, which
is unlikely, they can click the links in my .sig.

...

[Steve Carroll]

Here is what Snit was originally arguing, the red herring BS came when
he realized he was wrong:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/edd65e9dcec15bd2

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 18, 4:32 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:19 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Unquestionably, irrefutably... Snit's "prediction"  that the alleged
> correlation between rising Linux marketshare and UI improvements were
> something he labeled as a "trend", another term widely used in
> statistical analysis. Given the context his numerous statements are
> being made in (Statistics), a few obvious questions are:
>
> 1 - Did Snit create a statistical model to make his prediction (an
> alleged correlation) and to claim this alleged "trend"?

Snit showed there was an increase in 2011 and a decrease in 2012. He
has admitted that he did not predict the decrease in 2012.

> 2 - Was Snit aware that the word 'prediction' is a term widely used in
> statistical analysis, one that has a specific meaning which involves
> the use of statistical modeling?

Can you be specific with what you thought his predictions were?

> 3 - Despite his claim that he took a class on statistics, was Snit
> even aware that statistical modeling exists?

You will insist no because you are a liar. Who cares.

> 4 - If 'yes' to point 3, was Snit aware that if a model encompasses
> the right kind of data it could provide evidence of a "correlation",
> another term widely used in statistical analysis and one that Snit
> utilized in his prediction.

Snit did show the correlation in 2011 with his prediction of an
increase.

> 5 - Did Snit believe that evidence of a "correlation" could be shown
> by using *any* data?

Whatever he believed he did show the correlation.

> 6 - Was Snit aware the the word "trend" (aka trend analysis) has a
> specific meaning in a discussion involving statistics?

What trend of his are you speaking of?

> One could go on and on but you get the drift...

Of course we get the drift. You are an obsessive liar who has been
following Snit around for a decade.

> Notably, the poster 'cc' asked Snit for evidence of his allegation of
> a correlation and Snit replied with no evidence, just a re-assertion
> (this is typical for Snit):
>
> "The correlation fits with my prediction." - Snit

Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?

> Snit then asserted that it was cc who didn't know what a "correlation"
> is, a statement that was proven to be erroneous. The facts show it's
> Snit who proved he doesn't know what a correlation is, as shown here:

You are a liar.

> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f206d56f7b...
>
> Snit's "prediction", which he *subsequently* claimed was backed by a
> portion of the data but not by the rest, was built on his pressing
> need to save face and be right about *something* (anything!). In
> statistics... how can a "correlation" that has no evidence for its
> existence fit with a "prediction"? Logically, of course, there is no
> connection between his 'prediction" and the data, as evidenced by his
> failure to show the correlation he alleged exists. Don't forget, as
> shown above, Snit's "prediction *was* that there was a correlation.
> Period.

Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?

> Snit tried to sprinkle red herring powder all over the discussion
> throughout numerous threads and posts. He lied when he believed it
> would help him, he went off topic when he believed it would help him
> and he used a sock pupptet/shill when he believed it would help him.

You have accused at least three people of being socks or shills of
Snit. Can you back any of your lies?

> Snit tried an appeal to authority (notably, he  lied about what the
> real topic was) and his response to that person was his admission that
> he had no serious goals for his trend line with respect to the data
> used to create it.
>
> In others words... business as usual for Snit.

You follow Snit around lying about him. Yes. Business as usual.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 18, 6:58 pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/18/12 10:22 AM, in article
> > 20120618192151....@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
> > <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> >>> On 6/18/12 4:15 AM, in article jrn2l1$rv...@dont-email.me,
> >>> "Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>
> >> 8<
>
> >>>> You are the stupid one if you think your sock puppet show is
> >>>> fooling anyone!
>
> >>> Boring accusation / insult.  Ah, the best you can do.
>
> >> He's right though.
>
> > Nope.
>
> He absolutely is.
>
> --
> There is hardly a thing in the world that some man can not make a little
> worse and sell a little cheaper.

Go fuck yourself.

[Frederick Williams]

Onion Knight wrote:

> You follow Snit around lying about him. Yes. Business as usual.

Please fuck off. Follow up set.

[Frederick Williams]

Onion Knight wrote:
>
> [...]

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 18, 6:09 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/12 10:22 AM, in article 20120618192151....@usenet.drumscum.be,
>
> "TomB" <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> >> On 6/18/12 4:15 AM, in article jrn2l1$rv...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
> >> <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>
> > 8<
>
> >>> You are the stupid one if you think your sock puppet show is
> >>> fooling anyone!
>
> >> Boring accusation / insult.  Ah, the best you can do.
>
> > He's right though.
>

> Nope.  But, hey, why not back this accusation.  Of course there is no
> support because it is not true - but when I am right this is what trolls do
> - they attack me and make absurd accusations.  On the facts of the "debate"
> I was almost completely right:
>
> 1)  cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
> line in Excel.  I did no such thing.

Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

> 2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
> lines were, in fact, incorrect.  But they were.

Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

> 3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
> of the causation I had spoken of earlier.  I did no such thing.

Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

> 4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
> distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
> based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
> mean to the inflection points).

Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

> And Carroll, a cc sock, jumped in to back him.

I do not think anyone doubts Steve and cc are the same person posting
with multiple names. It is why when Steve is asked what names he has
posted under he runs away.

> For the latter half of 2011, I was also right in my prediction of an
> increase in Linux usage (though this does not prove my reasoning as to why
> was correct).
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>

Steve denies this fits your claim there would be an increase. Steve
is a liar.

> My stalker, cc's sock (apparently, based on the usage of the word they have
> presented), has claimed that since lines go on forever it can be assumed
> that trends will go on forever and a reasonable person would assume that
> trend from the latter half of 2011 would go on forever (esp. given the very
> high R^2 value).  Of course, only an idiot would interpret a trend line in
> such a way, but so be it.  cc and his sock are stupid and dishonest... and
> so what they say should be taken with a very, very tiny grain of salt.

Steve and cc are both idiots.

> In any case, while I did not buy into Carroll's idiotic claims about trend
> lines, I did believe *some* upward trend would continue or, at least, the
> usage would not significantly drip.  In this I was wrong:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>
>
> The data shows the usage has plummeted.  That is the *one* significant place
> I was wrong in this stupid, never ending debate.  Because I was right abitu
> so much, cc and his sock started making false accusations against me...
> accusations they have no backing for.  And now you are backing them in their
> BS accusations.  Accusations you will *never* show support for given how it
> is impossible to show that which is not so.

This is what happens when fools know they have been proved wrong. They
make up accusations to change the topic.

> And they (and I bet you) will never admit to the four points, above, even
> though I have proved myself correct repeatedly.

Steve and cc will forever run from the above four facts.

> --
> The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
> cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
> 7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
> cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.

I see no flaw with your claims there and neither do Steve and cc.
This makes sense given how they are the same person.

[Snit]

On 6/18/12 12:26 PM, in article
2455309a-29d5-441c...@t8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 18, 4:32 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 7:19 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unquestionably, irrefutably... Snit's "prediction"  that the alleged
>> correlation between rising Linux marketshare and UI improvements were
>> something he labeled as a "trend", another term widely used in
>> statistical analysis. Given the context his numerous statements are
>> being made in (Statistics), a few obvious questions are:
>>
>> 1 - Did Snit create a statistical model to make his prediction (an
>> alleged correlation) and to claim this alleged "trend"?
>
> Snit showed there was an increase in 2011 and a decrease in 2012. He
> has admitted that he did not predict the decrease in 2012.

Absolutely correct.

>> 2 - Was Snit aware that the word 'prediction' is a term widely used in
>> statistical analysis, one that has a specific meaning which involves
>> the use of statistical modeling?
>
> Can you be specific with what you thought his predictions were?

Of course he cannot be. He is making things up.

My prediction was that there would be an increase in usage - and for the
latter half of 2011 I was right. For the first half of 2012 I was wrong.

There really was no more specific "prediction". Carroll just likes to make
things up.

>> 3 - Despite his claim that he took a class on statistics, was Snit
>> even aware that statistical modeling exists?
>
> You will insist no because you are a liar. Who cares.

Carroll is back to theorizing about my life - he does this to change the
topic.

>> 4 - If 'yes' to point 3, was Snit aware that if a model encompasses
>> the right kind of data it could provide evidence of a "correlation",
>> another term widely used in statistical analysis and one that Snit
>> utilized in his prediction.
>
> Snit did show the correlation in 2011 with his prediction of an
> increase.

And I have talked about there being all sorts of forms of analysis.
Carroll's admission that he did not know this shows he is ignorant of what
is being discussed - or he is lying.

I go with the latter.

>> 5 - Did Snit believe that evidence of a "correlation" could be shown
>> by using *any* data?
>
> Whatever he believed he did show the correlation.

Of course I did... though I also showed where the data went against my
statement that Linux usage would increase (while I did not state it that I
recall, the assumption was that it would not then decrease right after...
but I suppose I could play silly games like Carroll and say I never did deny
that... LOL!)

>> 6 - Was Snit aware the the word "trend" (aka trend analysis) has a
>> specific meaning in a discussion involving statistics?
>
> What trend of his are you speaking of?

The one he made up in his head. Carroll cannot understand what he reads so
he makes things up and plays word games.

>> One could go on and on but you get the drift...
>
> Of course we get the drift. You are an obsessive liar who has been
> following Snit around for a decade.

Absolutely correct. Ever since his then-girlfriend dumped him and he blamed
me.

>> Notably, the poster 'cc' asked Snit for evidence of his allegation of
>> a correlation and Snit replied with no evidence, just a re-assertion
>> (this is typical for Snit):
>>
>> "The correlation fits with my prediction." - Snit
>
> Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?

Carroll will run from that question. But I did:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>

>> Snit then asserted that it was cc who didn't know what a "correlation"
>> is, a statement that was proven to be erroneous. The facts show it's
>> Snit who proved he doesn't know what a correlation is, as shown here:
>
> You are a liar.

Of course Carroll is a liar. I made it very clear I knew what was a
correlation and that such did not prove causation. Carroll and his sock
could not understand that (amazing how they both are ignorant in the same
ways).

>> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f206d56f7b...
>>
>> Snit's "prediction", which he *subsequently* claimed was backed by a
>> portion of the data but not by the rest, was built on his pressing
>> need to save face and be right about *something* (anything!). In
>> statistics... how can a "correlation" that has no evidence for its
>> existence fit with a "prediction"? Logically, of course, there is no
>> connection between his 'prediction" and the data, as evidenced by his
>> failure to show the correlation he alleged exists. Don't forget, as
>> shown above, Snit's "prediction *was* that there was a correlation.
>> Period.
>
> Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?

Carroll will run from that question. But I did:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>

>> Snit tried to sprinkle red herring powder all over the discussion
>> throughout numerous threads and posts. He lied when he believed it
>> would help him, he went off topic when he believed it would help him
>> and he used a sock pupptet/shill when he believed it would help him.
>
> You have accused at least three people of being socks or shills of
> Snit. Can you back any of your lies?

Carroll claims all topics where not even he can find good lies to back his
hatred are "off topic". But the facts stay the same:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

>> Snit tried an appeal to authority (notably, he  lied about what the
>> real topic was) and his response to that person was his admission that
>> he had no serious goals for his trend line with respect to the data
>> used to create it.
>>
>> In others words... business as usual for Snit.
>
> You follow Snit around lying about him. Yes. Business as usual.

Exactly correct.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 18, 1:26 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:32 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 7:19 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Unquestionably, irrefutably... Snit's "prediction"  that the alleged
> > correlation between rising Linux marketshare and UI improvements were
> > something he labeled as a "trend", another term widely used in
> > statistical analysis. Given the context his numerous statements are
> > being made in (Statistics), a few obvious questions are:
>
> > 1 - Did Snit create a statistical model to make his prediction (an
> > alleged correlation) and to claim this alleged "trend"?
>
> Snit showed there was an increase in 2011

Correction, the data showed there was a temporary increase in usage.

> and a decrease in 2012. He
> has admitted that he did not predict the decrease in 2012.

Snit didn't "predict" anything at any point in time. The place where
he used the term is where he alleged there was a correlation between
UI improvements and a rise in market share:

"While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit

As anyone who can comprehend what they've read can plainly see, Snit's
"prediction" is nothing more than an allegation of a "correlation".

Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to UI
improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data to
tie it to. Snit even admitted to this at one point... not that he
needed to, it's blatantly obvious to anyone that understands what
they're looking at.

> > 2 - Was Snit aware that the word 'prediction' is a term widely used in
> > statistical analysis, one that has a specific meaning which involves
> > the use of statistical modeling?
>
> Can you be specific with what you thought his predictions were?

Why would anyone need to give their thoughts on it? Snit clearly
stated it and I just posted it for like the 5th time in the thread:

"While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit

> > 3 - Despite his claim that he took a class on statistics, was
Snit
> > even aware that statistical modeling exists?
>
> You will insist no

Every sane reader has reason to believe "no"... because Snit proved he
had no clue that terms like "prediction", "correlation", "trend", etc,
are commonly used terms in statistical analysis when he kept tossing
them around in a thread centered on statistics. Snit even admitted
that the goal for his trend line had nothing to do with it
appropriately fitting the data and being somewhat useful; it certainly
didn't back Snit's unsubstantiated allegation of a correlation... the
reason he even produced his trend line in the first place.

> > 4 - If 'yes' to point 3, was Snit aware that if a model encompasses
> > the right kind of data it could provide evidence of a "correlation",
> > another term widely used in statistical analysis and one that Snit
> > utilized in his prediction.
>
> Snit did show the correlation in 2011 with his prediction of an
> increase.

Again... Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to
UI improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data
to tie it to.

> > 5 - Did Snit believe that evidence of a "correlation" could be shown
> > by using *any* data?
>
> Whatever he believed he did show the correlation.

We don't need to guess here, Snit stated what he believed. Again:

"While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit

Snit did not "show the correlation" as this wasn't possible... there
was simply no way for him to do that using the data he used.

> > 6 - Was Snit aware the the word "trend" (aka trend analysis) has a
> > specific meaning in a discussion involving statistics?
>
> What trend of his are you speaking of?

If you read this post and comprehended what you read you know the
answer:

"Hopefully as Ubuntu and others continue to focus on usability which

will lead to this trend continuing..." - Snit

Will you be asking me to repost every statement you can't face over
and over... ad infinitum?

> > One could go on and on but you get the drift...
>
> Of course we get the drift.

You are not a part of any "we" who understands what Snit did or the
realities I have laid out that proves Snit is a pathetic, lying word
weasel who will do and/or say anything to avoid be shown in what he
believes is a negative light.

> > Notably, the poster 'cc' asked Snit for evidence of his allegation of
> > a correlation and Snit replied with no evidence, just a re-assertion
> > (this is typical for Snit):
>
> > "The correlation fits with my prediction." - Snit
>
> Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?

Again... the data showed there was a temporary increase in usage...
Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to UI
improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data to
tie it to.

> > Snit then asserted that it was cc who didn't know what a "correlation"
> > is, a statement that was proven to be erroneous. The facts show it's
> > Snit who proved he doesn't know what a correlation is, as shown here:
>
> You are a liar.

Apparently you didn't read the link that followed (directly below)...
either that... or you were unable to comprehend what you read. That
link clearly proves Snit is wrong about cc not knowing what a
correlation is... and it's "strong support" for the idea that it's
Snit who doesn't know what a correlation is. Here it is again, just
for you... maybe you should have someone read and explain it to you...

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f206d56f7b14a7d1

> >https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f206d56f7b...
>
> > Snit's "prediction", which he *subsequently* claimed was backed by a
> > portion of the data but not by the rest, was built on his pressing
> > need to save face and be right about *something* (anything!). In
> > statistics... how can a "correlation" that has no evidence for its
> > existence fit with a "prediction"? Logically, of course, there is no
> > connection between his 'prediction" and the data, as evidenced by his
> > failure to show the correlation he alleged exists. Don't forget, as
> > shown above, Snit's "prediction *was* that there was a correlation.
> > Period.
>
> Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?

Again... the data showed there was a temporary increase in usage...
Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to UI
improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data to
tie it to.

> > Snit tried to sprinkle red herring powder all over the discussion
> > throughout numerous threads and posts. He lied when he believed it
> > would help him, he went off topic when he believed it would help him
> > and he used a sock pupptet/shill when he believed it would help him.
>
> You have

... pointed out that Snit was unable to provide any evidence for his
"predictions"... which were nothing more than an unsubstantiated
allegation of a correlation between UI improvements and a rise in
Linux market share... a thing Snit also referred to as a "trend" and
the reason he created a "trend line" at all.

> > Snit tried an appeal to authority (notably, he  lied about what the
> > real topic was) and his response to that person was his admission that
> > he had no serious goals for his trend line with respect to the data
> > used to create it.
>
> > In others words... business as usual for Snit.
>
> You follow Snit

... and call him on his lies and trolling... which sends Snit into a
narcissistic rage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

[Snit]

On 6/18/12 12:32 PM, in article
fc0bfca8-77d1-4e12...@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> Nope.  But, hey, why not back this accusation.  Of course there is no
>> support because it is not true - but when I am right this is what trolls do
>> - they attack me and make absurd accusations.  On the facts of the "debate"
>> I was almost completely right:
>>
>> 1)  cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
>> line in Excel.  I did no such thing.
>
> Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right about this. But they both
know I am.

>> 2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
>> lines were, in fact, incorrect.  But they were.
>
> Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right about this. But they both
know I am.

>> 3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
>> of the causation I had spoken of earlier.  I did no such thing.
>
> Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right about this. But they both
know I am.

>> 4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
>> distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
>> based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
>> mean to the inflection points).
>
> Steve calls your noting of this fact a 'red herring'.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right about this. But they both
know I am.

>> And Carroll, a cc sock, jumped in to back him.
>
> I do not think anyone doubts Steve and cc are the same person posting
> with multiple names. It is why when Steve is asked what names he has
> posted under he runs away.

They are as much the same person as you and I are.

>> For the latter half of 2011, I was also right in my prediction of an
>> increase in Linux usage (though this does not prove my reasoning as to why
>> was correct).
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
>
> Steve denies this fits your claim there would be an increase. Steve
> is a liar.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right about this. But they both
know I am.

>> My stalker, cc's sock (apparently, based on the usage of the word they have
>> presented), has claimed that since lines go on forever it can be assumed
>> that trends will go on forever and a reasonable person would assume that
>> trend from the latter half of 2011 would go on forever (esp. given the very
>> high R^2 value).  Of course, only an idiot would interpret a trend line in
>> such a way, but so be it.  cc and his sock are stupid and dishonest... and
>> so what they say should be taken with a very, very tiny grain of salt.
>
> Steve and cc are both idiots.

Absolutely correct.

>> In any case, while I did not buy into Carroll's idiotic claims about trend
>> lines, I did believe *some* upward trend would continue or, at least, the
>> usage would not significantly drip.  In this I was wrong:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>
>>
>> The data shows the usage has plummeted.  That is the *one* significant place
>> I was wrong in this stupid, never ending debate.  Because I was right abitu
>> so much, cc and his sock started making false accusations against me...
>> accusations they have no backing for.  And now you are backing them in their
>> BS accusations.  Accusations you will *never* show support for given how it
>> is impossible to show that which is not so.
>
> This is what happens when fools know they have been proved wrong. They
> make up accusations to change the topic.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right. But they both know I am.

>> And they (and I bet you) will never admit to the four points, above, even
>> though I have proved myself correct repeatedly.
>
> Steve and cc will forever run from the above four facts.

Neither Carroll nor cc will ever admit I am right about this. But they both
know I am.

>> --
>> The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
>> cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
>> 7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
>> cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
>
> I see no flaw with your claims there and neither do Steve and cc.
> This makes sense given how they are the same person.

If they thought I was wrong they would find reasoned arguments to counter
the facts I have noted:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.

[Onion Knight]

> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f206d56f7b...

Your project your rage.

[Snit]

On 6/18/12 1:48 PM, in article
5fc81028-c533-422e...@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 18, 8:30 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 1:26 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 4:32 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 7:19 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Unquestionably, irrefutably... Snit's "prediction"  that the alleged
>>>> correlation between rising Linux marketshare and UI improvements were
>>>> something he labeled as a "trend", another term widely used in
>>>> statistical analysis. Given the context his numerous statements are
>>>> being made in (Statistics), a few obvious questions are:
>>
>>>> 1 - Did Snit create a statistical model to make his prediction (an
>>>> alleged correlation) and to claim this alleged "trend"?
>>
>>> Snit showed there was an increase in 2011
>>
>> Correction, the data showed there was a temporary increase in usage.

It showed an increase in the latter half of 2012. Good to see you accept
this. But cc claimed this was not the case and his statistical modeling
somehow proved that this data was less accurate than the rest of the data we
were using.

In other words: cc took his statistical model and assumed facts he cannot
support. His specific claim:

cc:
-----
... over 50% of the small number of points were determined to be
erroneous based on further examination against the full data set.
-----

At least you show you do not fall for cc's absurd "determination" here where
he made assumptions he has no *logical* backing for.

But do not worry, I do not expect you to actually admit you two are now
arguing different things... just as neither of you will admit to the facts
in the ongoing and asinine debate:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.

There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.

>>> and a decrease in 2012. He
>>> has admitted that he did not predict the decrease in 2012.
>>
>> Snit didn't "predict" anything at any point in time.

Well, I made only vague predictions... I noted I expected their to be an
increase in Linux usage based on the increased focus on UI / usability
issues.

And for the latter half of 2011 this prediction of an increase turned out to
be correct. As discussed, I did not predict the drop in 2012.

What I did not do, of course, was show that this increase was based on the
*causative* factors I spoke of - I was very clear the data merely correlated
with the prediction I made based on those factors. You got confused between
causation and correlation... as did cc.

You two share a broken brain. :)

>> The place where
>> he used the term  is where he alleged there was a correlation between
>> UI improvements and a rise in market share:
>>
>> "While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
>> Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit

And they did... until the start of 2012. Yup... the 2012 data has gone
against my prediction. But above you denied I even made a prediction... and
here you are quoting it.

>> As anyone who can comprehend what they've read can plainly see, Snit's
>> "prediction" is nothing more than an allegation of a "correlation".

The data fit my prediction... it correlated with it. It did not prove the
cause and effect relationship I spoke of... nor did I ever suggest
otherwise.

How many times do you need to be told this same thing? Are you really as
stupid as you are acting? Remember:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.

There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.

>> Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to UI
>> improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data to
>> tie it to. Snit even admitted to this at one point... not that he
>> needed to, it's blatantly obvious to anyone that understands what
>> they're looking at.

I never said the increase was proved to be from what I had predicted would
lead to the increase. When you say otherwise you are lying.

>>>> 2 - Was Snit aware that the word 'prediction' is a term widely used in
>>>> statistical analysis, one that has a specific meaning which involves
>>>> the use of statistical modeling?
>>
>>> Can you be specific with what you thought his predictions were?
>>
>> Why would anyone need to give their thoughts on it? Snit clearly
>> stated it and I just posted it for like the 5th time in the thread:
>>
>> "While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
>> Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit

And that was true - until the start of 2012 when the trend changed.

Again, none of this goes against the facts you run from:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.

There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.

>>  > > 3 - Despite his claim that he took a class on statistics, was
>> Snit
>>
>>>> even aware that statistical modeling exists?
>>
>>> You will insist no
>>
>> Every sane reader has reason to believe "no"... because Snit proved he
>> had no clue that terms like "prediction", "correlation", "trend", etc,
>> are commonly used terms in statistical analysis when he kept tossing
>> them around in a thread centered on statistics.  Snit even admitted
>> that the goal for his trend line had nothing to do with it
>> appropriately fitting the data and being somewhat useful; it certainly
>> didn't back Snit's unsubstantiated allegation of a correlation... the
>> reason he even produced his trend line in the first place.

Absolute rubbish insults and accusations. No backing. Yawn.

>>>> 4 - If 'yes' to point 3, was Snit aware that if a model encompasses
>>>> the right kind of data it could provide evidence of a "correlation",
>>>> another term widely used in statistical analysis and one that Snit
>>>> utilized in his prediction.
>>
>>> Snit did show the correlation in 2011 with his prediction of an
>>> increase.
>>
>> Again... Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to
>> UI improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data
>> to tie it to.

I made it clear there was a correlation... not proof of causation.

You cannot keep these straight! You get yourself confused by these concepts
time and time again!

>>>> 5 - Did Snit believe that evidence of a "correlation" could be shown
>>>> by using *any* data?
>>
>>> Whatever he believed he did show the correlation.
>>
>> We don't need to guess here, Snit stated what he believed. Again:
>>
>> "While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
>> Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit
>>
>> Snit did not "show the correlation" as this wasn't possible... there
>> was simply no way for him to do that using the data he used.

See: you confuse correlation with causation.

They are *not* the same. Please, Carroll, try to figure this out!

...

>> You are not a part of any "we" who understands what Snit did or the
>> realities I have laid out that proves Snit is a pathetic, lying word
>> weasel who will do and/or say anything to avoid be shown in what he
>> believes is a negative light.

You say this as you run from the facts:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.

There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.


>>

>>>> Notably, the poster 'cc' asked Snit for evidence of his allegation of
>>>> a correlation and Snit replied with no evidence, just a re-assertion
>>>> (this is typical for Snit):
>>
>>>> "The correlation fits with my prediction." - Snit
>>
>>> Are you denying that Snit showed an increase of usage in 2011?
>>
>> Again... the data showed there was a temporary increase in usage...

Right... even though cc denied this.

>> Snit didn't show that any increase was ever attributable to UI
>> improvements, as he claimed, because there is nothing in the data to
>> tie it to.

I never made the claim of causation you are claiming. *AGAIN*: causation
and correlation are *NOT* the same.

You really are an idiot, Carroll, if you are as lost on this concept as you
present yourself.

...

>> ... and call him on his lies and trolling... which sends Snit into a
>> narcissistic rage.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_ragehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na
>> rcissism
>
> Your project your rage.

Exactly correct: Carroll is consumed by his hatred. But, again, while he
will deny this, it is this utter consumption which will make him *always*
run from the facts:

1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.

2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.

3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.

4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).

5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 18, 3:11 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> What I did not do, of course, was show that this increase was based on the
> *causative* factors I spoke of

Bullsh*t... the facts show that you even called it an "overall
claim" (which clearly places it in the realm of causation) that UI
improvements **will** (this one word highlights your lie here) bring
new users:

"Now I have theories and reasons for this - and, frankly - it would
not really be contrary to my overall claims that focus on the UI, if
successful, will bring new users." - Snit

That's clearly a 'cause and effect' statement if there ever was one.
That you have the nerve to say you're speaking outside the realm of
causation is absurd.

> - I was very clear the data merely correlated
> with the prediction I made based on those factors.  You got confused between
> causation and correlation... as did cc.

You're confused and you're lying... and no one is falling for it.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 18, 10:45 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:

You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. Even your own
quotes show Snit making a prediction based on causes he thinks will
lead to a change. Then he showed that the change correlated with the
prediction. In 2011. He admitted it did not in 2012.

You are too fucking stupid to understand causation and correlation.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 15, 5:53 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 15, 10:23 am, Kaba <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 15.6.2012 19:01, Onion Knight kirjoitti:
>

> > > Do you know much about linear trendlines? The same debate included the
> > > drawing of those in Excel. The same person who spoke of  the standard
> > > deviation also showed how to make a linear trendline,
> > >http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov
>

> > > Others in the same group insisted he was missing steps but if you look

> > > at the Microsoft site it offers instructions and it seems his process

> > > is just fine.  What steps if any did he skip? Would love to get some

> > > other input from people who are not involved.
>

> > I gather there are two questions here:
>
> > 1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
>
> > 2) Is the trendline useful in some way?
>

> These two are being totally dishonest (Snitand Onion Knight). This
> ruckus came fromSnit'sinitial claim that there was a "correlation"
> between UI improvements in Linux and an "upward tick" in Linux' market
> share.Snitfailed to support this allegation when another poster, cc,
> askedSnitto support the "correlation", notably,Snitreplied:

>
> "The correlation fits with my prediction.
>

> Snit's"prediction" and his allegation of a correlation were the
> reason that the topic of a trend line even came up. As you can see if
> you bother to look at it, given the data used,Snitstood no chance of
> supporting the correlation he claimed.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Answering question 1, there are many ways to a line to data. These go
> > under the umbrella term of linear regression:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
>
> > It is possible to choose it differently how to measure the goodness of a
> > fit. No doubt in the video the lines are fitted using ordinary least
> > squares. Least absolute deviations, for example, would give something
> > similar.
>
> > Answering question 2, no. The trendline is attempting to build a model
> > for the data. Models are created to summarize and to predict the future
> > (think of physics). In this case the line has no summarization value,
> > since _all_ of the data can be seen at glance. Since there is so small
> > amount of data, and so much fluctuation, the line probably does not have
> > any prediction value either.
>

> Agreed, which is why I previously toldSnithe should be questioning
> the use of a line at all... but the argument was really a dick
> measuring contest based on which line was a better fit andSnit'sline
> lost.
>
> Onion Kinight is aSnitsock puppet or shill who has never posted to
> usenet prior to this debate...Snithas done things like this for

> years. He is one of the biggest liars you'll probably ever see on
> usenet, there are scores and scores of posters who have all labeled
> him a liar, troll or worse because of his online antics:
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6e8fd0b61d...
>
> My suggestion: Don't get sucked into his BS.

Snit predicted an increase in Linux usage and he showed where the data
supported this for 2011 but not 2012. You the confused him showing a
correlation with a claim of causation and have since proved you can't
understand the difference.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 15, 3:29 am, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been a debate in COLA as to if the distance from the mean to
> the inflection point is where the standard deviation should be.  One
> person is saying that this distance is where the line should always be
> drawn while one other is saying the distance from the mean is
> irrelevant and it is only the area under the curve that matters.  The
> first agrees the area under the curve is also always the same but
> insists the inflection point is where the line should be drawn.  He
> even produced a video to show his ideashttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoW3hMq-eIc
> and he showed what he claimed was an incorrectly depicted image and

> showed where he says it should be http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png

>
> I admit this goes over my head. Is he correct? Is it really that easy
> that you can just look at the inflection point and see where the
> standard deviation should be drawn? I was never taught that in school.

> He did provide other examples where he says the depictions are wrong.
> I will quote him.
>
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif> From:
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
> Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the
> graph to the right.
>
> <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
> Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.
>
> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
> <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
> Lines clearly shown at way too far a distance from the mean (this is
> the one I use in my example).
>
> Those of you who know math and statistics better can you help me to
> know who to believe? Seems a Linux based group might not be the best
> place to get this type of information. I do have them included in the
> list of newsgroups so the people in the debate can see the answers.

Thanks to all who contributed. The answer has become clear that Snit
was right and Steve and his sock puppet CC are both just trolling
Snit. After dozens of posts of idiotic attacks they can't find flaw
with his claims.

[Snit]

On 6/18/12 9:27 PM, in article
7734b3d3-d09f-48c9...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Correct. And sadly Carroll and cc cannot admit they are wrong so they turn
all discussions into endless attacks. They cannot just be honest and admit
they goofed.

[Snit]

On 6/18/12 9:21 PM, in article
a83c0ba6-fcb0-412a...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Agreed, which is why I previously toldSnithe should be questioning
>> the use of a line at all... but the argument was really a dick
>> measuring contest based on which line was a better fit andSnit'sline
>> lost.
>>
>> Onion Kinight is aSnitsock puppet or shill who has never posted to
>> usenet prior to this debate...Snithas done things like this for
>> years. He is one of the biggest liars you'll probably ever see on
>> usenet, there are scores and scores of posters who have all labeled
>> him a liar, troll or worse because of his online antics:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6e8fd0b61d...
>>
>> My suggestion: Don't get sucked into his BS.
>
> Snit predicted an increase in Linux usage and he showed where the data
> supported this for 2011 but not 2012. You the confused him showing a
> correlation with a claim of causation and have since proved you can't
> understand the difference.

Carroll claims my method did not have as good of a fit... bit it showed
better results:

* The increase in usage in the second half of 2011
* The decrease in 2012

cc admitted his method missed these trends... he screwed up and assumed the
data was wrong because it did not fit his model... even though it was data
he asked us to use!

[Snit]

On 6/18/12 9:15 PM, in article
708534c3-a8f3-462b...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion

As noted elsewhere: Steve confuses the concepts of showing a correlation,
which I did (my vague prediction correlated well with the data of the latter
half of 2011) and proof of causation (something I never said the data
proved).

It really is not a hard concept... Carroll simply screwed up based on his
own ignorance and is now lying. Oh well. That is what Carroll does.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jun 19, 12:02 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/12 9:15 PM, in article

> 708534c3-a8f3-462b-924c-c6a41f686...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Wrong. But it matters not... your argument was buried with the
following... when you told a poster named kaba that you had no
statistical reason for creating your trend line, you said the reason
was *not* to have the line appropriately fit the data and it was *not*
for it to be useful with respect to that data in some way... kaba
wrote:

"I gather there are two questions here:

1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?

2) Is the trendline useful in some way? " - kaba

Logical questions by kaba... and, of course, they highlight the 2 most
important reasons for even bothering to create a trend line at all.

You then dishonestly changed your claimed reason for creating your
trend line to this ridiculous reason:

"Not quite: the question was merely if the process of creating the
trend line was correct - did it follow the process of creating a
linear trend line that is supported by the build in "linear trend
line" properties of the program." - Snit

It's not hard at all to see what you tried to do as you abandoned all
statistical goals for your trend line.