Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The "stats" debate.
63 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
Jun 18, 2012, 4:38:52 PM6/18/12
to
Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
around to the points. To help the, focus:
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. But Carroll and cc
are unable to stop lying to try to save face.
--
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.
around to the points. To help the, focus:
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. But Carroll and cc
are unable to stop lying to try to save face.
--
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.
cc
Jun 18, 2012, 5:43:37 PM6/18/12
to
On Monday, June 18, 2012 4:38:52 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> around to the points. To help the, focus:
"Hmmmm, renewed interest in usability and experimentation on the desktop...
> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> around to the points. To help the, focus:
and the usage numbers increase. Exactly what *I* have been saying would happen and the herd has been disagreeing with. For years."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/164db8575b99ff67?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"If an improved UI would bring in new users, then more people as a percentage would be using Linux. But they're not. So either the improved UI has no effect, or there is no improved UI."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98cc9c879d1c1986?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"Still, looking at the *trend* from the last year shows an increase:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxUsageTrendMar12.png>.
So, yes, desktop Linux usage share *seems*, based on our best data, to be
moving upward."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/efedf29b5d795efe?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"So I looked at your data. And showed it to you... including the upward trend line. And still you cannot find it in yourself to admit the trend line is moving upward, even based on your data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>"
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/77d7d142002afe12?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share"
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/92ddda2246c8f923?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bb1a3544d2f4c29c?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"I must say, it amuses me how much it pisses you off to have been proved so
wrong."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/654c4e035fc9c25?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"The ACTUAL trendline should be y = 0.0038x + 0.9702. You'll notice that is flatlined, as one would expect. That equation is using just Snit's data he posted at that link. I get an average of 1.06%, and a stddev of 0.168262. I set control limits to 1.5*sigma and did a linear trend (obviously)."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ace06ca1b8ebf342?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
"Well here are two inescapable facts:
My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different trend from yours."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6d276b40fdfddc5a?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
That is the focus. Everything else is superfluous stuff Snit was also incorrect about. The focus is: Snit had a data set. Snit tried to use said data set to prove his point. I showed Snit that he didn't prove his point using proper statistical analysis.
Snit's point and technique were so thoroughly beaten down that he's resorted to creating other data sets (which have their own problem) which were never in discussion, trying to create other arguments where none existed, and using a new nym, all to hide his beatdown.
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Snit
Jun 18, 2012, 5:53:14 PM6/18/12
to
On 6/18/12 2:43 PM, in article
ee7dd00a-e274-47bf...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
All of this linking and blathering from you and no comment on the facts of
the 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.
You did note, however, that in relation to point 5 the trend reversed itself
in 2012 and this went against my predictions. But I have been telling you
this now for dozens of posts... don't get too excited by it. :)
ee7dd00a-e274-47bf...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
the 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.
in 2012 and this went against my predictions. But I have been telling you
this now for dozens of posts... don't get too excited by it. :)
Steve Carroll
Jun 18, 2012, 7:14:48 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 2:38 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> around to the points. To help the, focus:
I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> around to the points. To help the, focus:
wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
causation you can't show:
"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
Say 'good night' to your "argument", Snit ... or better 'good
riddance' , the sucker is now dead an' buried ;)
Onion Knight
Jun 19, 2012, 12:13:04 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
now you are shocked you can't find him showing a causation. You are a
fucking idiot.
He did show the increase he predicted but it only was in 2011 and not
2012.
All of your trolling of Snit because your girlfriend dumped your ass
10 years ago. You are an asshole.
> On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> causation you can't show:
Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation and
>
> > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> causation you can't show:
now you are shocked you can't find him showing a causation. You are a
fucking idiot.
He did show the increase he predicted but it only was in 2011 and not
2012.
All of your trolling of Snit because your girlfriend dumped your ass
10 years ago. You are an asshole.
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 10:21:17 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> > causation you can't show:
>
> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> > causation you can't show:
>
> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
called it his "overall claim":
Hadron
Jun 19, 2012, 10:26:44 AM6/19/12
to
that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
tool.
--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 10:51:25 AM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:26:44 AM UTC-4, Snit's codpiece wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
> >>
> >> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >> > causation you can't show:
> >>
> >> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
> >
> > Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> > called it his "overall claim":
> >
> > "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
> >
>
> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> tool.
>
It certainly doesn't seem to be working for Linux. Only an idiot would deny that. But then again, you're the idiot who claimed, "I don't care what the numbers show."
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
> >>
> >> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >> > causation you can't show:
> >>
> >> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
> >
> > Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> > called it his "overall claim":
> >
> > "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
> >
>
> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> tool.
>
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 10:59:47 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 7:51 AM, in article
36669055-d2e9-4f63...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Ah, now you are back to making up quotes... really a form of ID forgery. Oh
well, you are going to freak out because you know the following are all
true:
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.
36669055-d2e9-4f63...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
well, you are going to freak out because you know the following are all
true:
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
Jun 19, 2012, 11:00:58 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 7:26 AM, in article 561ulbn...@news.eternal-september.org,
increase in users) did not prove causation.
Carroll and cc got that all mixed up in their heads.
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
>>>>> around to the points. To help the, focus:
>>>
>>>> I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
>>>> wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
>>>> causation you can't show:
>>>
>>> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>>
>> Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
>> called it his "overall claim":
>>
>> "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
>>
>
> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> tool.
This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
>>>>> around to the points. To help the, focus:
>>>
>>>> I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
>>>> wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
>>>> causation you can't show:
>>>
>>> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>>
>> Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
>> called it his "overall claim":
>>
>> "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
>>
>
> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> tool.
increase in users) did not prove causation.
Carroll and cc got that all mixed up in their heads.
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 2:00:15 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/18/12 9:13 PM, in article
fc1aa36f-5db3-4b90...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com, "Onion
This is not hard:
1) I made a prediction... and a vague one at that: Linux usage would
increase sometime after the open source community focused on usability / UI
issues.
2) I showed that the data correlated with this prediction... which, of
course, did not prove that the cause I spoke of was the reason for the
increase. It was merely a correlation with my vague prediction.
3) While I was never clear on this, I did believe the growth would continue
to grow (though not at the rate seen in the latter half of 2011) or at least
not significantly drop. The data went *against* my view here.
Based on this, Carroll made dishonest claims about me saying the data was
proving the cause I spoke about. He simply lied.
fc1aa36f-5db3-4b90...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com, "Onion
1) I made a prediction... and a vague one at that: Linux usage would
increase sometime after the open source community focused on usability / UI
issues.
2) I showed that the data correlated with this prediction... which, of
course, did not prove that the cause I spoke of was the reason for the
increase. It was merely a correlation with my vague prediction.
3) While I was never clear on this, I did believe the growth would continue
to grow (though not at the rate seen in the latter half of 2011) or at least
not significantly drop. The data went *against* my view here.
Based on this, Carroll made dishonest claims about me saying the data was
proving the cause I spoke about. He simply lied.
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 11:13:54 AM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:00:58 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
> increase in users) did not prove causation.
>
Funny, but you did neither. Repeating yourself won't change that fact. You're like the people who see record snowfall for three weeks and use it to "disprove" global warming. Three straight record high months for Linux usage, followed by a sharp drop back to normal is not a trend in either direction. It's an abnormality. It's useless data. This is common sense stuff. You showed no correlation (you can't even give a coeffificent, or any meaningful numbers at all, so by definition you showed no correlation), because there was no correlation, because there was no trend upward, no matter how much you and your butt buddy Hadron want there to be.
>
>
> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
> increase in users) did not prove causation.
>
Are you sure you two aren't Rex Ballard socks? I mean fuck, the difference between Rex claiming Linux is actually at 50% usage and you two crowing about UI fixes bringing in new Linux users is negligible at this point. Desktop Linux is 1%, and you're just going to have to deal with that fact.
Hadron
Jun 19, 2012, 11:16:42 AM6/19/12
to
continue and people like what they get they will migrate slowly IF the
systems provide the application SW they want and need.
The Gnome UI is simply and generally consistent : many of the gnome apps
are still be to "corrected" however.
I would like to see the context for that quote since clearly numbers, if
correctly collected, are meaningful. Numbers which show a seasonal blip
however are not indicators of major uptake.
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 11:23:03 AM6/19/12
to
>
> I would like to see the context for that quote since clearly numbers, if
> correctly collected, are meaningful. Numbers which show a seasonal blip
> however are not indicators of major uptake.
>
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 11:30:54 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 8:13 AM, in article
c8c913d5-2ab4-4b1c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
not be true. Remember, you are the one running from 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.
There is also no reasonable debate about the fact that in the latter half of
2011 there was an increase in desktop Linux usage:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Even your idiot friend in the debate has agreed to that. And then there was
a drop in 2012.
Your "better" model lead you to missing these things... you made up a story
about those data points being "erroneous", even though you never did find
any evidence of for *any* of the data points you asked us to use to be more
or less accurate than any others.
With your worship of R^2 values you *missed* facts... you looked at just
your trend lines and not at the data. If you look at the data, though, the
change of trend is easy to see:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
admitted this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But other times you denied it:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
> You're like the people who see record snowfall for three weeks and use it to
> "disprove" global warming.
Nope.
> Three straight record high months for Linux usage,
> followed by a sharp drop back to normal is not a trend in either direction.
LOL! So an increase and then a decrease shows no sign of a change in trends
for you. None. You just do not see it. Got it. LOL!
> It's an abnormality. It's useless data.
It is data you cannot make use of - not quite the same as it being useless.
> This is common sense stuff. You s howed no correlation (you can't even give a
> Are you sure you two aren't Rex Ballard socks?
That and Onion Knight and Kaba. Yeah, everyong who proves you wrong is the
same person.
> I mean fuck, the difference between Rex claiming Linux is actually at 50%
> usage and you two crowing about UI fixes bringing in new Linux users is
> negligible at this point. Desktop Linux is 1%, and you're just going to have
> to deal with that fact.
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
How about that guy... is he me, too? LOL!
You change your story more often than most change their socks. Wait...
maybe a bad analogy... given how you pal around with Carroll these days.
LOL!
c8c913d5-2ab4-4b1c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:00:58 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
>> increase in users) did not prove causation.
>>
>
> Funny, but you did neither. Repeating yourself won't change that fact.
You keep denying I did as though if you deny it just one more time it will
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:00:58 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
>> increase in users) did not prove causation.
>>
>
> Funny, but you did neither. Repeating yourself won't change that fact.
not be true. Remember, you are the one running from 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.
2011 there was an increase in desktop Linux usage:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Even your idiot friend in the debate has agreed to that. And then there was
a drop in 2012.
Your "better" model lead you to missing these things... you made up a story
about those data points being "erroneous", even though you never did find
any evidence of for *any* of the data points you asked us to use to be more
or less accurate than any others.
With your worship of R^2 values you *missed* facts... you looked at just
your trend lines and not at the data. If you look at the data, though, the
change of trend is easy to see:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
admitted this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But other times you denied it:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
> You're like the people who see record snowfall for three weeks and use it to
> "disprove" global warming.
> Three straight record high months for Linux usage,
> followed by a sharp drop back to normal is not a trend in either direction.
for you. None. You just do not see it. Got it. LOL!
> It's an abnormality. It's useless data.
> This is common sense stuff. You s howed no correlation (you can't even give a
> coeffificent, or any meaningful numbers at all, so by definition you showed no
> correlation), because there was no correlation, because there was no trend
> upward, no matter how much you and your butt buddy Hadron want there to be.
This has already been proved wrong. Why do you keep repeating your BS?
> correlation), because there was no correlation, because there was no trend
> upward, no matter how much you and your butt buddy Hadron want there to be.
> Are you sure you two aren't Rex Ballard socks?
same person.
> I mean fuck, the difference between Rex claiming Linux is actually at 50%
> usage and you two crowing about UI fixes bringing in new Linux users is
> negligible at this point. Desktop Linux is 1%, and you're just going to have
> to deal with that fact.
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
How about that guy... is he me, too? LOL!
You change your story more often than most change their socks. Wait...
maybe a bad analogy... given how you pal around with Carroll these days.
LOL!
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 11:45:59 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 8:26 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"correlation" mentioned above is related to the 'market share stats'.
With the proper context of these kind of stats in mind:
Where is the rising of the market share?
> Only an idiot would deny that.
Only an idiot would pop off while completely ignoring the context that
statements are made in. It's not like this is a new argument and you
haven't seen it plastered all over this newsgroup (and now others).
> Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> >> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >> > causation you can't show:
>
> >> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>
> > Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> > called it his "overall claim":
>
> > "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
>
> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users.
The topic is related to market share and statistics... i.e - the
> > On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> >> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >> > causation you can't show:
>
> >> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>
> > Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> > called it his "overall claim":
>
> > "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
>
> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users.
"correlation" mentioned above is related to the 'market share stats'.
With the proper context of these kind of stats in mind:
Where is the rising of the market share?
> Only an idiot would deny that.
statements are made in. It's not like this is a new argument and you
haven't seen it plastered all over this newsgroup (and now others).
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 11:58:59 AM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:30:54 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
> admitted this:
>
> cc:
> -----
> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
> -----
> And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
> is a downward trend.
> -----
>
> But other times you denied it:
>
> cc:
> -----
> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
> -----
>
> You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
There was never a flip flop, only me making fun of you.
>
> Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
> admitted this:
>
> cc:
> -----
> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
> -----
> And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
> is a downward trend.
> -----
>
> But other times you denied it:
>
> cc:
> -----
> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
> -----
>
> You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
> > You're like the people who see record snowfall for three weeks and use it to
> > "disprove" global warming.
>
> Nope.
> > Three straight record high months for Linux usage,
> > followed by a sharp drop back to normal is not a trend in either direction.
>
> LOL! So an increase and then a decrease shows no sign of a change in trends
> for you. None. You just do not see it. Got it. LOL!
> > It's an abnormality. It's useless data.
>
> It is data you cannot make use of - not quite the same as it being useless.
> > This is common sense stuff. You s howed no correlation (you can't even give a
> > coeffificent, or any meaningful numbers at all, so by definition you showed no
> > correlation), because there was no correlation, because there was no trend
> > upward, no matter how much you and your butt buddy Hadron want there to be.
>
> This has already been proved wrong.
> > Are you sure you two aren't Rex Ballard socks?
>
> That and Onion Knight and Kaba. Yeah, everyong who proves you wrong is the
> same person.
>
> > I mean fuck, the difference between Rex claiming Linux is actually at 50%
> > usage and you two crowing about UI fixes bringing in new Linux users is
> > negligible at this point. Desktop Linux is 1%, and you're just going to have
> > to deal with that fact.
>
> cc:
> -----
> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
> -----
> And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
> is a downward trend.
> -----
>
> How about that guy... is he me, too? LOL!
>
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 11:59:23 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 9:00 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/19/12 7:26 AM, in article 561ulbnzrv....@news.eternal-september.org,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"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* causation. Apparently you're not aware that causation
is: if x, then y
You stated the following about your "predictions":
"While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit
You seen claiming that your predictions have come true and you are
obviously basing your "predictions" on your belief stated in your
causal statement... a statement that you referred to as your "overall
claims". You have an overall claim and you predicted it would come
true... and, in your mind, the prediction of your causal statement
came true... but only in your mind. Realistically, you showed neither
correlation or your claimed causation.
> On 6/19/12 7:26 AM, in article 561ulbnzrv....@news.eternal-september.org,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >>>>> around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> >>>> I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >>>> wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >>>> causation you can't show:
>
> >>> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>
> >> Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> >> called it his "overall claim":
>
> >> "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
>
> > Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> > that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> > their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> > tool.
>
> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
> increase in users) did not prove causation.
You stated the following causation:
>
> >> On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >>>>> around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> >>>> I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >>>> wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >>>> causation you can't show:
>
> >>> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>
> >> Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> >> called it his "overall claim":
>
> >> "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
>
> > Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> > that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> > their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> > tool.
>
> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
> increase in users) did not prove causation.
"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
is: if x, then y
You stated the following about your "predictions":
"While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit
You seen claiming that your predictions have come true and you are
obviously basing your "predictions" on your belief stated in your
causal statement... a statement that you referred to as your "overall
claims". You have an overall claim and you predicted it would come
true... and, in your mind, the prediction of your causal statement
came true... but only in your mind. Realistically, you showed neither
correlation or your claimed causation.
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 12:01:05 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 9:16 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
How do you account for the differences in your stories?
> cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:26:44 AM UTC-4, Snit's codpiece wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:26:44 AM UTC-4, Snit's codpiece wrote:
> >> Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> > On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >> >> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> >> >> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >> >> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >> >> > causation you can't show:
>
> >> >> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>
> >> > Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> >> > called it his "overall claim":
>
> >> > "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
>
> >> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> >> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> >> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> >> tool.
>
> > It certainly doesn't seem to be working for Linux. Only an idiot would
> > deny that. But then again, you're the idiot who claimed, "I don't care
> > what the numbers show."
>
> No it isnt working for Linux
But Snit insisted it did work for Linux, at least, for a short period.
>
> >> > On Jun 18, 10:13 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Jun 18, 2:38 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> >> >> > > around to the points. To help the, focus:
>
> >> >> > I was able to find a single line that proves your "overall claim"
> >> >> > wasn't merely a correlation you couldn't statistically show... it's a
> >> >> > causation you can't show:
>
> >> >> Snit has repeatedly said he showed correlation and not causation
>
> >> > Yet, he also made the following 'cause and effect' statement and
> >> > called it his "overall claim":
>
> >> > "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
>
> >> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
> >> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
> >> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
> >> tool.
>
> > It certainly doesn't seem to be working for Linux. Only an idiot would
> > deny that. But then again, you're the idiot who claimed, "I don't care
> > what the numbers show."
>
> No it isnt working for Linux
How do you account for the differences in your stories?
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 12:46:44 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 9:58 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:30:54 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
(snip)
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:30:54 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > It is data you cannot make use of - not quite the same as it being useless.
>
> No, it's data that when examined (average and standard deviation) is seen as erroneous by anyone with any stats background. So you're right, useless was an exagerration on my part, but upon close examination the data is revealed to be an anomaly. Therefore basing your entire argument on anomalous data is silly at best, and idiotic at worst.
know why he originally created it but that's not where I'm headed
here). Notably, in another forum Snit claimed his reason for creating
the trend line was something altogether different. A poster 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.
Snit then dishonestly changed his claimed reason for creating his
trend line to an absolutely 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
So, as you can see, Snit can claim you are wrong for stating the
reason was to examine the data or to use the resultant trend line in
*any* way. He is clearly seen denying that his reason for creating his
trend line is based on any statistical examination of data, to the
point where he is willing to forego the line appropriately fitting any
data or be useful at all to anyone for any purpose.
That's why I said this was a death warrant for his argument ;)
> That's why my trend line refutes your statements so incredibly accurately: because I know the basics of statistics.
>
> > > This is common sense stuff. You s howed no correlation (you can't even give a
> > > coeffificent, or any meaningful numbers at all, so by definition you showed no
> > > correlation), because there was no correlation, because there was no trend
> > > upward, no matter how much you and your butt buddy Hadron want there to be.
>
> > This has already been proved wrong.
>
> By who? Certainly not you.
all ;)
> > > Are you sure you two aren't Rex Ballard socks?
>
> > That and Onion Knight and Kaba.
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 1:20:44 PM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 8:16 AM, in article suwr33m...@news.eternal-september.org,
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
jump to 5% or more. But you might see an uptick if the open source
community (using that term very loosely) continues to focus on UI /
usability issues and - as you note - applications as well.
> The Gnome UI is simply and generally consistent : many of the gnome apps
> are still be to "corrected" however.
Agreed. And Gnome is not a Linux desktop distro... and while some distro
comes with Gnome only apps, once you start pulling things in from the
repository you get KDE and other UI paradigms mixed in. With no warning
(not that the general user would really understand the value of the
warning).
> I would like to see the context for that quote since clearly numbers, if
> correctly collected, are meaningful. Numbers which show a seasonal blip
> however are not indicators of major uptake.
This does not seem to be merely a seasonable blip. Here is the full set of
numbers:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
I first looked at one year's worth of data (12 months). To troll me, cc
claimed this was an "arbitrary" range and asked me to look at the full 24
months. So I did (shown in the same link). He continued to claim this was
an arbitrary range... which is weird given how it was the range he asked
for.
When the overall trend line still showed an uptick, he then complained that
the standard method suggested by MS and others was "missing steps" and that
he could make a trend line with a better R^2 value. The real problem,
though, is that we were both using linear trend lines to show non-linear
data. It happens - for reasons we have yet to discuss - that the trend
changed significantly at the start of 2012. The data is not linear. To
show this I split things up:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png>
With the big change in trends being shown from the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png> to the
first half of 2012 (missing June data for obvious reasons):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>.
While cc was striving to please the R^2 god he worships, his modeling lead
to him missing this pretty significant change in trends. Now this change
*might* be from "dirty" data... which is what cc claims... but there is no
evidence of this.
Worse than that, for cc, is his claims kept changing. Sometimes he
acknowledged the drop in 2012:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But other times he denied it:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
Both, of course, cannot be true. Either it is changing or it is not. But
cc will not admit to his change of heart...
In the midst of this debate, cc tried to show off his "superior" knowledge
of stats... and he talked about how he understood what a standard deviation
was and stipulated that I did not. Which is just weird. In any case, I
decided to test him on this... and noted that there are a lot of depictions
of standard deviations which are wrong. Here were my examples (there might
have been more):
<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
*cc's* statements of strong disagreement where he proved himself ignorant:
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 there were more. He went on and on about how these depictions are from
pro software so there must not be an error. In other words, his side issue
BS trolling back fired on him... he was clearly clueless about how the sigma
lines on a normal curve are at the distance from the mean to the inflection
points. Always. Does not matter how tall or short or wide or thin the
depiction is. It is *always* the case.
Given that this is cc we are talking about, though, he refused to admit to
the fact he was clearly ignorant about this. And, of course, Carroll runs
from this, too.
All of this, of course, has been well established - cc is just playing his
normal idiotic games of pretending to be knowledgeable about things he
clearly is ignorant about.
On my side, of course, I admit when I am wrong: I did not anticipate the
drop in usage in 2012 and have been very open about that. I was wrong to
think the usage would continue to have *some* level of increase (though not
at the level it had at the end of 2011) or at least stay steady. I have no
problem admitting when I was wrong. It happens - we are all wrong /
ignorant about things... it is how we handle it that shows our character. I
prove I am willing to admit to my areas where I am wrong... cc and Carroll
refuse to.
Oh, and one last thing, Carroll started accusing me of using socks right
after it was noted he uses so many he cannot even name them all. And he
cannot. Ask him to list the names he has used on Usenet... he has no clue
and just runs. He has had armies of socks... the names of many which appear
in his BS list of "quotes" about me which he and Sandman have been
collecting and forging since 2004.
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
>>> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
>>> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
>>> tool.
>>>
>>
>> It certainly doesn't seem to be working for Linux. Only an idiot would
>> deny that. But then again, you're the idiot who claimed, "I don't care
>> what the numbers show."
>
> No it isnt working for Linux because its too little too late. IF they
> continue and people like what they get they will migrate slowly IF the
> systems provide the application SW they want and need.
Right. You are not going to see desktop Linux any time in the near future
>>> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
>>> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
>>> tool.
>>>
>>
>> It certainly doesn't seem to be working for Linux. Only an idiot would
>> deny that. But then again, you're the idiot who claimed, "I don't care
>> what the numbers show."
>
> No it isnt working for Linux because its too little too late. IF they
> continue and people like what they get they will migrate slowly IF the
> systems provide the application SW they want and need.
jump to 5% or more. But you might see an uptick if the open source
community (using that term very loosely) continues to focus on UI /
usability issues and - as you note - applications as well.
> The Gnome UI is simply and generally consistent : many of the gnome apps
> are still be to "corrected" however.
comes with Gnome only apps, once you start pulling things in from the
repository you get KDE and other UI paradigms mixed in. With no warning
(not that the general user would really understand the value of the
warning).
> I would like to see the context for that quote since clearly numbers, if
> correctly collected, are meaningful. Numbers which show a seasonal blip
> however are not indicators of major uptake.
numbers:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
I first looked at one year's worth of data (12 months). To troll me, cc
claimed this was an "arbitrary" range and asked me to look at the full 24
months. So I did (shown in the same link). He continued to claim this was
an arbitrary range... which is weird given how it was the range he asked
for.
When the overall trend line still showed an uptick, he then complained that
the standard method suggested by MS and others was "missing steps" and that
he could make a trend line with a better R^2 value. The real problem,
though, is that we were both using linear trend lines to show non-linear
data. It happens - for reasons we have yet to discuss - that the trend
changed significantly at the start of 2012. The data is not linear. To
show this I split things up:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png>
With the big change in trends being shown from the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png> to the
first half of 2012 (missing June data for obvious reasons):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>.
While cc was striving to please the R^2 god he worships, his modeling lead
to him missing this pretty significant change in trends. Now this change
*might* be from "dirty" data... which is what cc claims... but there is no
evidence of this.
Worse than that, for cc, is his claims kept changing. Sometimes he
acknowledged the drop in 2012:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
cc will not admit to his change of heart...
In the midst of this debate, cc tried to show off his "superior" knowledge
of stats... and he talked about how he understood what a standard deviation
was and stipulated that I did not. Which is just weird. In any case, I
decided to test him on this... and noted that there are a lot of depictions
of standard deviations which are wrong. Here were my examples (there might
have been more):
<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
*cc's* statements of strong disagreement where he proved himself ignorant:
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 there were more. He went on and on about how these depictions are from
pro software so there must not be an error. In other words, his side issue
BS trolling back fired on him... he was clearly clueless about how the sigma
lines on a normal curve are at the distance from the mean to the inflection
points. Always. Does not matter how tall or short or wide or thin the
depiction is. It is *always* the case.
Given that this is cc we are talking about, though, he refused to admit to
the fact he was clearly ignorant about this. And, of course, Carroll runs
from this, too.
All of this, of course, has been well established - cc is just playing his
normal idiotic games of pretending to be knowledgeable about things he
clearly is ignorant about.
On my side, of course, I admit when I am wrong: I did not anticipate the
drop in usage in 2012 and have been very open about that. I was wrong to
think the usage would continue to have *some* level of increase (though not
at the level it had at the end of 2011) or at least stay steady. I have no
problem admitting when I was wrong. It happens - we are all wrong /
ignorant about things... it is how we handle it that shows our character. I
prove I am willing to admit to my areas where I am wrong... cc and Carroll
refuse to.
Oh, and one last thing, Carroll started accusing me of using socks right
after it was noted he uses so many he cannot even name them all. And he
cannot. Ask him to list the names he has used on Usenet... he has no clue
and just runs. He has had armies of socks... the names of many which appear
in his BS list of "quotes" about me which he and Sandman have been
collecting and forging since 2004.
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 1:23:44 PM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 8:58 AM, in article
6caed515-4527-48ad...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Yeah, that makes sense. LOL! So which are you denying you believe... the
drop of 2012: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg> or
your other claim?
I snipped your repeated bragging about your obviously ignorant view of
stats... you are merely running from the fact that you missed the obvious
change of trend that happened at the start of 2012:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
*no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
...
6caed515-4527-48ad...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:30:54 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
>> admitted this:
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
>> -----
>> And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
>> is a downward trend.
>> -----
>>
>> But other times you denied it:
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>>
>> You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
>
> There was never a flip flop, only me making fun of you.
You flip flop to make fun of people.
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:30:54 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
>> admitted this:
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
>> -----
>> And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
>> is a downward trend.
>> -----
>>
>> But other times you denied it:
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>>
>> You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
>
> There was never a flip flop, only me making fun of you.
Yeah, that makes sense. LOL! So which are you denying you believe... the
drop of 2012: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg> or
your other claim?
I snipped your repeated bragging about your obviously ignorant view of
stats... you are merely running from the fact that you missed the obvious
change of trend that happened at the start of 2012:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
*no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
...
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 2:21:05 PM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23:44 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
> Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
> *no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
>
You still don't get it. Really, this is basic stuff. When there are record lows in the winter, or record snowfall, or record Linux usage it does not mean that there were measurement errors, or that the records didn't actually happen. What it does mean is that these were blips or anomalies. So basing trends on global warming based on such a small sample size of outrageously anomalous numbers is fucking stupid. Same with Linux usage. Anyone with any basic knowledge of stats or even some decent common sense will tell you that. Since I can recognize these facts, and I know how to deal with them, that's why my trendline fit the data so much better and showed a different trend and blasted your asinine statements out of the water.
>
>
>
> Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
> *no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
>
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 3:16:21 PM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 11:21 AM, in article
0d2ef3f1-3015-4ba6...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
pointing it out:
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.
points which proved you were wrong were "erroneous".
> What it does mean is that these were blips or anomalies.
And now you finally show you figured out that the increase was temporary...
as I have been telling you. Of course, at times you showed before you
understood this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But then you back pedaled on that and claimed it had always been at 1% (you
confused your trend line with the actual data!):
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
temperature makes sense. And if you predicted the higher temperature based
on sun spots or El Nino or the number of socks Carroll uses, then it is fair
and correct to say that the data *correlated* with your prediction. This,
of course, would not prove causation.
And you are right: this is the same for Linux usage. If the usage goes up,
to note that the months that show higher usage makes sense (before you
called these data "erroneous", a claim you have backed away from). And if
you predicted the higher use based on UI improvements or better applications
or the number of socks Carroll uses, then it is fair and correct to say that
the data *correlated* with your prediction. This, of course, would not
prove causation.
> Anyone with any basic knowledge of stats or even some decent common sense will
> tell you that.
You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
trend should continue. This, of course, is not something that I ever said.
I noted, however, I did not expect there to be a drop... based on my
predictions, which were not from the trend lines, I had predicted a
continued increase (though not necessarily or even likely at the same level)
or a leveling off. As I have noted, the 2012 data showed a drop... going
against my prediction.
Of course, you and Carroll did not understand the topic well enough, nor my
views, to see where I was actually wrong. Instead you made up all sorts of
stories about me as you made absurd claims. Remember the following facts
you keep running 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. I have repeated them
so many times Hadron has thought it insane... but what is *really* insane is
that *EVERY TIME* you and Carroll have run from these facts.
You two are both such cowards that even when facts are posted an "insane"
number of times, the *best* you can do is snip and run from them. I mean,
really, why not actually comment on them and either try to refute them (you
will fail, given how they are all correct) or you could be honest and just
admit I am right.
But you will just run. You *know* you cannot refute them... so you snip and
run and "team up" with an obsessive whacko who has been harassing me and
trolling me and lying about me since 2004 when his girlfriend dumped him and
he stupidly blamed me.
> Since I can recognize these facts, and I know how to deal with them, that's
> why my trendline fit the data so much better and showed a different trend and
> blasted your asinine statements out of the water.
Honest question: are you just screwing around spewing nonsense to see how
many times I will respond? If so you have done a good job of yanking my
chain... but if you really believe the BS you spew you are *amazingly*
stupid and lost.
Which is it?
0d2ef3f1-3015-4ba6...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23:44 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
>> *no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
>>
>
> You still don't get it.
If I did not get how stupid and wrong you were I would not be able to keep
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23:44 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
>> *no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
>>
>
> You still don't get it.
pointing it out:
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.
> Really, this is basic stuff. When there are record lows in the winter, or
> record snowfall, or record Linux usage it does not mean that there were
> measurement errors, or that the records didn't actually happen.
Good to see you admit I am right on that... before you claimed those data
> record snowfall, or record Linux usage it does not mean that there were
> measurement errors, or that the records didn't actually happen.
points which proved you were wrong were "erroneous".
> What it does mean is that these were blips or anomalies.
as I have been telling you. Of course, at times you showed before you
understood this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
confused your trend line with the actual data!):
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
> So basing trends on global warming based on such a small sample size of
> outrageously anomalous numbers is fucking stupid. Same with Linux usage.
If the summer is hot, to note that the months that are hot have a higher
> outrageously anomalous numbers is fucking stupid. Same with Linux usage.
temperature makes sense. And if you predicted the higher temperature based
on sun spots or El Nino or the number of socks Carroll uses, then it is fair
and correct to say that the data *correlated* with your prediction. This,
of course, would not prove causation.
And you are right: this is the same for Linux usage. If the usage goes up,
to note that the months that show higher usage makes sense (before you
called these data "erroneous", a claim you have backed away from). And if
you predicted the higher use based on UI improvements or better applications
or the number of socks Carroll uses, then it is fair and correct to say that
the data *correlated* with your prediction. This, of course, would not
prove causation.
> Anyone with any basic knowledge of stats or even some decent common sense will
> tell you that.
analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
trend should continue. This, of course, is not something that I ever said.
I noted, however, I did not expect there to be a drop... based on my
predictions, which were not from the trend lines, I had predicted a
continued increase (though not necessarily or even likely at the same level)
or a leveling off. As I have noted, the 2012 data showed a drop... going
against my prediction.
Of course, you and Carroll did not understand the topic well enough, nor my
views, to see where I was actually wrong. Instead you made up all sorts of
stories about me as you made absurd claims. Remember the following facts
you keep running 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>.
so many times Hadron has thought it insane... but what is *really* insane is
that *EVERY TIME* you and Carroll have run from these facts.
You two are both such cowards that even when facts are posted an "insane"
number of times, the *best* you can do is snip and run from them. I mean,
really, why not actually comment on them and either try to refute them (you
will fail, given how they are all correct) or you could be honest and just
admit I am right.
But you will just run. You *know* you cannot refute them... so you snip and
run and "team up" with an obsessive whacko who has been harassing me and
trolling me and lying about me since 2004 when his girlfriend dumped him and
he stupidly blamed me.
> Since I can recognize these facts, and I know how to deal with them, that's
> why my trendline fit the data so much better and showed a different trend and
> blasted your asinine statements out of the water.
many times I will respond? If so you have done a good job of yanking my
chain... but if you really believe the BS you spew you are *amazingly*
stupid and lost.
Which is it?
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 3:27:13 PM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
> trend should continue.
Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or another. This is where you have fucked up. You took a tiny sample size of extremes compared to historical data to try and prove your point. Basic math and common sense both frown upon this.
>
>
> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
> trend should continue.
Here's an article making fun of people who are doing the exact same thing you are:
http://www.realsceptic.com/2011/02/02/watts-says-cold-weather-disproves-global-warming/
Read and learn.
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 3:33:14 PM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:27:13 PM UTC-4, cc wrote:
>
>
> Read and learn.
>
More info, and slightly more in depth on outliers as a whole:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=6
This paper basically outlines the entire problem with your original dataset, and smaller datasets you've been trying to use after I smacked down your original.
>
>
> Read and learn.
>
More info, and slightly more in depth on outliers as a whole:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=6
This paper basically outlines the entire problem with your original dataset, and smaller datasets you've been trying to use after I smacked down your original.
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 3:39:40 PM6/19/12
to
You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 3:41:24 PM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 12:27 PM, in article
51b553c1-c32a-4b67...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Interesting. And stupud.
> This is where you have fucked up. You took a tiny sample size of
> extremes compared to historical data to try and prove your point. Basic math
> and common sense both frown upon this.
>
> Here's an article making fun of people who are doing the exact same thing you
> are:
> http://www.realsceptic.com/2011/02/02/watts-says-cold-weather-disproves-global
> -warming/
>
> Read and learn.
I have been educating you as you run. Remember, you have been repeatedly
proved to be wrong:
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.
51b553c1-c32a-4b67...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
>> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
>> trend should continue.
>
> Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I
> was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new
> analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies
> (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or
> another.
In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
>> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
>> trend should continue.
>
> Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I
> was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new
> analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies
> (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or
> another.
Interesting. And stupud.
> This is where you have fucked up. You took a tiny sample size of
> extremes compared to historical data to try and prove your point. Basic math
> and common sense both frown upon this.
>
> Here's an article making fun of people who are doing the exact same thing you
> are:
> http://www.realsceptic.com/2011/02/02/watts-says-cold-weather-disproves-global
> -warming/
>
> Read and learn.
proved to be wrong:
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.
cc
Jun 19, 2012, 3:49:24 PM6/19/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:41:24 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/19/12 12:27 PM, in article
> 51b553c1-c32a-4b67...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
> >> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
> >> trend should continue.
> >
> > Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I
> > was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new
> > analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies
> > (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or
> > another.
>
> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>
> Interesting. And stupud.
"Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
> On 6/19/12 12:27 PM, in article
> 51b553c1-c32a-4b67...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
> >> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
> >> trend should continue.
> >
> > Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I
> > was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new
> > analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies
> > (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or
> > another.
>
> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>
> Interesting. And stupud.
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 4:23:08 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 1:49 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:41:24 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/19/12 12:27 PM, in article
> > 51b553c1-c32a-4b67...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:41:24 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/19/12 12:27 PM, in article
> > 51b553c1-c32a-4b67...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > >> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
> > >> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
> > >> trend should continue.
>
> > > Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I
> > > was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new
> > > analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies
> > > (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or
> > > another.
>
> > In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>
> > Interesting. And stupud.
>
> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
As if that matters to him. C'mon, dude... at this point it's obvious
>
> > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > >> You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
> > >> analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
> > >> trend should continue.
>
> > > Once again, you are wrong. Also, you're completely lying about the analogy I
> > > was using. But to humor you, I'll show you where you went wrong with your new
> > > analogy. Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme anomalies
> > > (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or
> > > another.
>
> > In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>
> > Interesting. And stupud.
>
> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
he'd cut off one of his legs if he thought it would help him save
face ;)
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 7:16:51 PM6/19/12
to
On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
-----
You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
a trend one way or the other". You are simply wrong. Face it, cc, there
*is* a trend for summers to be hotter than winters (this is even the premise
you started with!)
Now with Linux there is *not* as much of a seasonal change in usage - at
least not that I know of. Too many variables to make it likely. But you,
showing of your ignorance, got all mixed up with the idea of the trend for
summer to be hotter and with global warming. That is *not* what global
warming is about. Not even close.
With Linux, I made a prediction that turned out to be true for the latter
half of 2011 (though, again, this correlation with my prediction does not
prove causation - you and Carroll get confused by that repeatedly). At the
start of 2012, however, things changed and my prediction turned out to be
incorrect. I am mature enough to admit when I am wrong... you run when
faced with your errors:
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 cc will run from
them *forever*. You are a coward, cc... you simply cannot admit when you
are wrong.
cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>>
>> Interesting. And stupud.
>
> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
cc:
>>
>> Interesting. And stupud.
>
> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
-----
Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
indicate a trend one way or another.
-----
anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
indicate a trend one way or another.
You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
a trend one way or the other". You are simply wrong. Face it, cc, there
*is* a trend for summers to be hotter than winters (this is even the premise
you started with!)
Now with Linux there is *not* as much of a seasonal change in usage - at
least not that I know of. Too many variables to make it likely. But you,
showing of your ignorance, got all mixed up with the idea of the trend for
summer to be hotter and with global warming. That is *not* what global
warming is about. Not even close.
With Linux, I made a prediction that turned out to be true for the latter
half of 2011 (though, again, this correlation with my prediction does not
prove causation - you and Carroll get confused by that repeatedly). At the
start of 2012, however, things changed and my prediction turned out to be
incorrect. I am mature enough to admit when I am wrong... you run when
faced with your errors:
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>.
them *forever*. You are a coward, cc... you simply cannot admit when you
are wrong.
Onion Knight
Jun 19, 2012, 9:35:44 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 11:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>
> >> Interesting. And stupud.
>
> > "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>
> cc:
> -----
> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
> indicate a trend one way or another.
> -----
>
> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
> a trend one way or the other". You are simply wrong. Face it, cc, there
> *is* a trend for summers to be hotter than winters (this is even the premise
> you started with!)
What a fucking idiot Ste... CC is!
>
> ...
>
> >> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
>
> >> Interesting. And stupud.
>
> > "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>
> cc:
> -----
> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
> indicate a trend one way or another.
> -----
>
> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
> a trend one way or the other". You are simply wrong. Face it, cc, there
> *is* a trend for summers to be hotter than winters (this is even the premise
> you started with!)
> Now with Linux there is *not* as much of a seasonal change in usage - at
> least not that I know of. Too many variables to make it likely. But you,
> showing of your ignorance, got all mixed up with the idea of the trend for
> summer to be hotter and with global warming. That is *not* what global
> warming is about. Not even close.
>
> With Linux, I made a prediction that turned out to be true for the latter
> half of 2011 (though, again, this correlation with my prediction does not
> prove causation - you and Carroll get confused by that repeatedly). At the
> start of 2012, however, things changed and my prediction turned out to be
> incorrect.
and Mr. Impotent Steve who would go get laid if he could get it up.
https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=7510+W+57th+Ave,+Arvada,+CO+80002&daddr=10190+W+59th+Ave,+Arvada,+CO+80004&sll=39.803835,-105.110315&sspn=0.011457,0.027874&geocode=FUpNXwIdQpq8-Sn589aULIZrhzFW-cbuExAq1A%3BFbtbXwId1SS8-Q&t=m&z=15
Onion Knight
Jun 19, 2012, 9:34:16 PM6/19/12
to
your girlfriend again.
https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=7510+W+57th+Ave,+Arvada,+CO+80002&daddr=10190+W+59th+Ave,+Arvada,+CO+80004&sll=39.803835,-105.110315&sspn=0.011457,0.027874&geocode=FUpNXwIdQpq8-Sn589aULIZrhzFW-cbuExAq1A%3BFbtbXwId1SS8-Q&t=m&z=15
Five minutes and you would get laid if you only could get it up.
cc
Jun 20, 2012, 8:27:41 AM6/20/12
to
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
> >>
> >> Interesting. And stupud.
> >
> > "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>
> cc:
> -----
> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
> indicate a trend one way or another.
> -----
>
> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
> a trend one way or the other".
No moron. I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do not indicate a trend one way or another. Learn to read. Full quote below:
> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than winters?
> >>
> >> Interesting. And stupud.
> >
> > "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>
> cc:
> -----
> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
> indicate a trend one way or another.
> -----
>
> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
> a trend one way or the other".
"Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not indicate a trend one way or another."
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 11:36:59 AM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
And you are an idiot.
> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> not indicate a trend one way or another.
But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters. They do.
This is something so obvious that you are now clearly just saying stupid
things to beg for attention.
> Learn to read. Full quote below:
>
> "Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter).
> They do not indicate a trend one way or another."
Nobody said that an especially hot summer indicates a trend that, say, the
next summer will also be especially hot. But the idea that there is no
trend for summers to be hot is just stupid.
But you are just being stupid to change the topic.
The fact is I *predicted* a change in the usage of Linux (an increase)...
and then that change came to be. Now there are some problems with this:
1) My prediction was vague... I did not have numbers or specific times
set with it.
2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
Now given how (1) my prediction was vague and (2) my later predictions based
on the same reasoning did not pan out, it can easily be argued that the
reasons for the increase were not tied to the logic of my predictions and,
in fact, I have never claimed that the correlation between my (vague)
prediction and the data showed the cause-and-affect I spoke of.
If you were intelligent and actually understood stats and logic this is the
avenue of "attack" you would use against my claims. But you, being
completely ignorant of the topic, made up all sorts of BS just to attack and
troll me. Your newest off topic BS about there not being a trend for
summers to be hotter than other times of the year is just your latest in a
series of stupid claims.
Before that you looked at standard distributions on normal curves - and
notice now how you run from that topic. Unlike me who admits when he is
wrong, you will *never* admit you were wrong in at least two ways about
*your* topic of standard distributions on normal curves:
1) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly drawn
based on the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
2) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
you were, in fact, poorly done.
You just run from these things. Snip and run. And you will again in your
response to this message. You are a coward who cannot admit when he is
wrong.
You also made up stories about how I missed steps in my creation of a linear
trend line. You were wrong. Now what you perhaps could have argued is that
the trend line I made was not the best form of analysis... and given the
non-linear nature of the data you could have made a strong case for this.
But you did not understand the topic well enough to make this case, either.
So now when it is pointed out how I missed *no* steps and you claimed I had,
you run from that, too - or just repeat your claim but fail to mention what
steps I missed in the creation of a linear trend line. You, again, showed
off your ignorance.
Even in this debate when there were clear openings where an intelligent and
well informed person could find reasoned weaknesses with my comments, you
were not able to! You went on the attack and glommed on to the support of
my stalker, but you never were able to actually find the weaknesses in my
arguments - I am the one who pointed them out to you! And, given how you
never admit to your own errors, you just snip and run from all commentary on
your *obvious* errors.
Why will you not talk about your incorrect claims about sigma lines being
correctly depicted at the inflection points? Why won't you talk about your
incorrect claims about the poorly depicted sigma lines?
Why are you so afraid and cowardly? Why are you so afraid to admit when you
are wrong?
Ah: but it is useless to ask you - all you will do is run... and then hope
my stalker comes in to back you and helps you work to change the topic
again. You are not mature enough to actually speak of where you have been
a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
>> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than
>>>> winters?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. And stupud.
>>>
>>> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
>> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
>> indicate a trend one way or another.
>> -----
>>
>> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
>> a trend one way or the other".
>
> No moron.
I quoted you. Above. The quote is still there.
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
>> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than
>>>> winters?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. And stupud.
>>>
>>> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
>> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
>> indicate a trend one way or another.
>> -----
>>
>> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
>> a trend one way or the other".
>
> No moron.
And you are an idiot.
> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> not indicate a trend one way or another.
This is something so obvious that you are now clearly just saying stupid
things to beg for attention.
> Learn to read. Full quote below:
>
> "Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter).
> They do not indicate a trend one way or another."
next summer will also be especially hot. But the idea that there is no
trend for summers to be hot is just stupid.
But you are just being stupid to change the topic.
The fact is I *predicted* a change in the usage of Linux (an increase)...
and then that change came to be. Now there are some problems with this:
1) My prediction was vague... I did not have numbers or specific times
set with it.
2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
Now given how (1) my prediction was vague and (2) my later predictions based
on the same reasoning did not pan out, it can easily be argued that the
reasons for the increase were not tied to the logic of my predictions and,
in fact, I have never claimed that the correlation between my (vague)
prediction and the data showed the cause-and-affect I spoke of.
If you were intelligent and actually understood stats and logic this is the
avenue of "attack" you would use against my claims. But you, being
completely ignorant of the topic, made up all sorts of BS just to attack and
troll me. Your newest off topic BS about there not being a trend for
summers to be hotter than other times of the year is just your latest in a
series of stupid claims.
Before that you looked at standard distributions on normal curves - and
notice now how you run from that topic. Unlike me who admits when he is
wrong, you will *never* admit you were wrong in at least two ways about
*your* topic of standard distributions on normal curves:
1) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly drawn
based on the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
2) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
you were, in fact, poorly done.
You just run from these things. Snip and run. And you will again in your
response to this message. You are a coward who cannot admit when he is
wrong.
You also made up stories about how I missed steps in my creation of a linear
trend line. You were wrong. Now what you perhaps could have argued is that
the trend line I made was not the best form of analysis... and given the
non-linear nature of the data you could have made a strong case for this.
But you did not understand the topic well enough to make this case, either.
So now when it is pointed out how I missed *no* steps and you claimed I had,
you run from that, too - or just repeat your claim but fail to mention what
steps I missed in the creation of a linear trend line. You, again, showed
off your ignorance.
Even in this debate when there were clear openings where an intelligent and
well informed person could find reasoned weaknesses with my comments, you
were not able to! You went on the attack and glommed on to the support of
my stalker, but you never were able to actually find the weaknesses in my
arguments - I am the one who pointed them out to you! And, given how you
never admit to your own errors, you just snip and run from all commentary on
your *obvious* errors.
Why will you not talk about your incorrect claims about sigma lines being
correctly depicted at the inflection points? Why won't you talk about your
incorrect claims about the poorly depicted sigma lines?
Why are you so afraid and cowardly? Why are you so afraid to admit when you
are wrong?
Ah: but it is useless to ask you - all you will do is run... and then hope
my stalker comes in to back you and helps you work to change the topic
again. You are not mature enough to actually speak of where you have been
cc
Jun 20, 2012, 11:43:05 AM6/20/12
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:36:59 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> 2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
> continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
> half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
>
Again, you are basing increases and decreases for the second half of 2011 and the first half of 2012 based on anomalies:
>
> 2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
> continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
> half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
>
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=6
Once you understand this, you will understand why your statements don't make sense, and why you were so terribly wrong.
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 11:47:43 AM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 8:43 AM, in article
d60ce608-912f-42ad...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Come on, cc, stop being such a coward! Here is what you ran from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d60ce608-912f-42ad...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:36:59 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> 2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
>> continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
>> half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
>>
>
> Again
Again you snipped and ran. As predicted.
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:36:59 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> 2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
>> continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
>> half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
>>
>
> Again
Come on, cc, stop being such a coward! Here is what you ran from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 12:34:26 PM6/20/12
to
cc is *still* running from this!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 12:59:21 PM6/20/12
to
cc is *still* running from this! He cannot help but post time and time
again... making up more and more stories.
But he is waving his white flag and running. That is it. Even cc knows he
has proved himself to be an idiot. Again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
again... making up more and more stories.
But he is waving his white flag and running. That is it. Even cc knows he
has proved himself to be an idiot. Again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
Steve Carroll
Jun 20, 2012, 1:57:53 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 9:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
(snip)
> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> > not indicate a trend one way or another.
>
> But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
were unable to comprehend ;)
> > Learn to read. Full quote below:
>
> > "Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter).
> > They do not indicate a trend one way or another."
>
> Nobody said that an especially hot summer indicates a trend that, say, the
> next summer will also be especially hot. But the idea that there is no
> trend for summers to be hot is just stupid.
> The fact is I *predicted* a change in the usage of Linux (an increase)...
> and then that change came to be.
> Now there are some problems with this:
> 1) My prediction was vague... I did not have numbers or specific times
> set with it.
improvement, the core of your 'overal claim' (aka your
"prediction") , it cannot be said to have come true. Had you tied the
numbers to a given distro where you could demonstrably illuminate that
UI improvements had actually taken place you'd have stood a better
chance of showing evidence that an actual correlation exists. Even so,
showing the causation you said "will" occur (see below) is a bit more
difficult with the limitation of even that kind of data. That you used
a broad brush stroke to paint your narcissistic claim only serves to
underscore the realities you will overlook in drawing attention to
yourself.
> 2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
> continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
> half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
erroneous, causal "overall claims" statement, was not a prediction
at all. If the premise of your "prediction" is true for the data you
looked at, it would have been true for all historical data. This means
that you are, in a very real sense, arguing there have never been any
"successful" UI improvements to Linux. Notably, Linux market share has
hovered around ~1% for ~decade. You seem to forget that you made all
your statements in the context of rising market share and UI
improvements... but other people reading didn't forget what the
discussion was about. Notably, in one particular post where you stated
the following... to "keep the context clear":
"And let us keep the context clear, you got your panties in a bunch
when I noted that the greater focus on UI consistency and overall
quality is likely to lead to an increase in users. When it was noted
that reports were coming out that Linux desktop usage share were
increasing, I noted that this made sense to me - fit with my
predictions" - Snit
So... in that clear context, where you said that "desktop usage share
were increasing" (a statement you made as based on looking at market
share data) and where you said it "fit with" your "predictions",
where you are not just talking about new users but doing so in enough
numbers to actually raise the "share" and it all, as you claimed, FIT
WITH YOUR PREDICTIONS . In the same post and context you insisted be
made "clear" you wrote your causation statement:
"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
"When the increase in Linux usage was reported, you just were not
going to accept that my long-standing predictions are being
supported." - Snit
Clear as can be.
AGAIN... notably, the reported "increase in Linux usage" was based on
desktop market share stats you and others were looking at. So it's
clear that the context is a rising of market share stats... and it's
clear that, within that context, your "overal claims" are: if x, then
y... with x being" successful" UI improvements and y being enough new
users to raise Linux market share. It's clear that your "long-standing
predictions" are being claimed to be "supported" based on the
"increase in Linux usage" as looked at from market share stats.
NO question as to what you are arguing.
IOW, that is you, doing what you claimed you didn't do... making an
absolute 'cause and effect' type statement regarding UI improvements
and an increase in Linux desktop market share and calling it your
"overall claims", which is no different than what you labeled your
"predictions"... a thing that is nothing more than a statistically
unsubstantiated correlation. IOW... you twisted yourself into a knot
as you always do with your failed attempts at tautology and, in this
case, your inability to understand the core topic of statistics.
> Now given how (1) my prediction was vague and (2) my later predictions based
> on the same reasoning did not pan out,
not being "successful" didn't pan out. You flatly admit this, yet,
here you are crowing that your "predictions" came true? Do you not
realize how your pathetic need to be "right" is making you look like
the fool you obviously must be?
> it can easily be argued that the
> reasons for the increase were not tied to the logic of my predictions and,
> in fact, I have never claimed that the correlation between my (vague)
> prediction and the data showed the cause-and-affect I spoke of.
insisted be made "clear" as I just showed above:
"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
context will not disappear... no matter how much you need it to... and
people just aren't as stupid as you eed them to be.
> If you were intelligent and actually understood stats and logic this is the
> avenue of "attack" you would use against my claims.
in the context of the discussion (hint: that's for people like you,
Hadron)... for example, your "overall claims" statement is clearly
saying that "successful" UI improvements "will" raise Linux desktop
market share... here it is AGAIN:
"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
context, like you've done again in this very post.
(snip irrelevant re herring BS by Snit)
cc
Jun 20, 2012, 2:10:05 PM6/20/12
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:57:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> > a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> (snip)
>
> > > I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> > > not indicate a trend one way or another.
> >
> > But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
>
> Which, of course, has nothing to do with outliers ("extreme
> anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
> were unable to comprehend ;)
>
I think he finally gets it now, which is why he's content to copy and paste points that have been proven to him multiple times now. He's not even trying any more. He moved farther and farther away from his original statements and still ended up being flat wrong. He should stick to arguing matters of opinion. The poor guy just can't grasp the basics of statistics and math that have been used to shoot his theories that anyone with a smidgen of common sense knew were false to begin with.
> On Jun 20, 9:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> > a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> (snip)
>
> > > I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> > > not indicate a trend one way or another.
> >
> > But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
>
> Which, of course, has nothing to do with outliers ("extreme
> anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
> were unable to comprehend ;)
>
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 2:48:30 PM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 11:10 AM, in article
46d6738a-035a-4c0c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Remember: I am not the one running... that is you and Carroll.
And I already quoted your BS about how there is no trend for summers to be
hotter because you can average the data for the year and deem the summer
data to be an anomaly or "outliers". Idiotic drivel from you which proved
you have no idea what you are talking about. But you run from your past
stupid comments... and you will run from your current. 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.... yet cc denies them
and runs when faced with these facts. And my stalker just runs around
yapping and lying... as he has done since 2004 when his girlfriend dumped
him and he incorrectly blamed me.
What a loser... he is still mad about his false beliefs of 2004. But, hey,
you finally found someone to side with your lies... does not matter how
bat-shit crazy they are, eh?
46d6738a-035a-4c0c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:57:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 9:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
>>> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
>>>> not indicate a trend one way or another.
>>>
>>> But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
>>
>> Which, of course, has nothing to do with outliers ("extreme
>> anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
>> were unable to comprehend ;)
>>
>
> I think he finally gets it now, which is why he's content to copy and paste
> points that have been proven to him multiple times now. He's not even trying
> any more. He moved farther and farther away from his original statements and
> still ended up being flat wrong. He should stick to arguing matters of
> opinion. The poor guy just can't grasp the basics of statistics and math that
> have been used to shoot his theories that anyone with a smidgen of common
> sense knew were false to begin with.
>
I refuse to play your game where you two run like cowards.
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:57:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 9:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
>>> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
>>>> not indicate a trend one way or another.
>>>
>>> But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
>>
>> Which, of course, has nothing to do with outliers ("extreme
>> anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
>> were unable to comprehend ;)
>>
>
> I think he finally gets it now, which is why he's content to copy and paste
> points that have been proven to him multiple times now. He's not even trying
> any more. He moved farther and farther away from his original statements and
> still ended up being flat wrong. He should stick to arguing matters of
> opinion. The poor guy just can't grasp the basics of statistics and math that
> have been used to shoot his theories that anyone with a smidgen of common
> sense knew were false to begin with.
>
Remember: I am not the one running... that is you and Carroll.
And I already quoted your BS about how there is no trend for summers to be
hotter because you can average the data for the year and deem the summer
data to be an anomaly or "outliers". Idiotic drivel from you which proved
you have no idea what you are talking about. But you run from your past
stupid comments... and you will run from your current. 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>.
and runs when faced with these facts. And my stalker just runs around
yapping and lying... as he has done since 2004 when his girlfriend dumped
him and he incorrectly blamed me.
What a loser... he is still mad about his false beliefs of 2004. But, hey,
you finally found someone to side with your lies... does not matter how
bat-shit crazy they are, eh?
cc
Jun 20, 2012, 2:57:13 PM6/20/12
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48:30 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/20/12 11:10 AM, in article
> 46d6738a-035a-4c0c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:57:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 6/20/12 11:10 AM, in article
> 46d6738a-035a-4c0c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:57:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Jun 20, 9:36�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> >>> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >>>> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> >>>> not indicate a trend one way or another.
> >>>
> >>> But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
> >>
> >> Which, of course, has nothing to do with outliers ("extreme
> >> anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
> >> were unable to comprehend ;)
> >>
> >
> > I think he finally gets it now, which is why he's content to copy and paste
> > points that have been proven to him multiple times now. He's not even trying
> > any more. He moved farther and farther away from his original statements and
> > still ended up being flat wrong. He should stick to arguing matters of
> > opinion. The poor guy just can't grasp the basics of statistics and math that
> > have been used to shoot his theories that anyone with a smidgen of common
> > sense knew were false to begin with.
> >
>
> I refuse to play your game where you two run like cowards.
>
> Remember: I am not the one running... that is you and Carroll.
>
> And I already quoted your BS about how there is no trend for summers to be
> hotter because you can average the data for the year and deem the summer
> data to be an anomaly or "outliers".
Dude, this was NEVER said. Apparently you still don't get it. You accuse me of running, yet you can't even grasp the basics of what I'm telling you. Summers are hotter. Three really cold days in a row in summer does not mean that the temperature is trending down during the summer. That is what I'm trying to tell you. Not that all summer temps are outliers. You're either deliberately lying or just plain dumb.
> >>> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> >>> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >>>> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> >>>> not indicate a trend one way or another.
> >>>
> >>> But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters.
> >>
> >> Which, of course, has nothing to do with outliers ("extreme
> >> anomalies"), you know, the part you didn't mind publicly proving you
> >> were unable to comprehend ;)
> >>
> >
> > I think he finally gets it now, which is why he's content to copy and paste
> > points that have been proven to him multiple times now. He's not even trying
> > any more. He moved farther and farther away from his original statements and
> > still ended up being flat wrong. He should stick to arguing matters of
> > opinion. The poor guy just can't grasp the basics of statistics and math that
> > have been used to shoot his theories that anyone with a smidgen of common
> > sense knew were false to begin with.
> >
>
> I refuse to play your game where you two run like cowards.
>
> Remember: I am not the one running... that is you and Carroll.
>
> And I already quoted your BS about how there is no trend for summers to be
> hotter because you can average the data for the year and deem the summer
> data to be an anomaly or "outliers".
You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that they are statistically insignificant. Originally you factored them heavily into your trend line, which is why it was so wrong. Now you want to look just at those points and try to base a trend off of that! Do you not see what a mistake you are making?
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 3:26:57 PM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98). In the end, you are
just running. It is all you can do. Here, again, is what you run from:
>> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
1) My prediction was vague... I did not have numbers or specific times
set with it.
8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> they are statistically insignificant.
You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> they are statistically insignificant.
which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98). In the end, you are
just running. It is all you can do. Here, again, is what you run from:
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
>> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than
>>>> winters?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. And stupud.
>>>
>>> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> Summer is always hot. Occasionally there are extreme
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
>> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> In your world there is no trend that summers tend to be hotter than
>>>> winters?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. And stupud.
>>>
>>> "Stupud" indeed, as that is not even close to what I said.
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter). They do not
>> indicate a trend one way or another.
>> -----
>>
>> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
>> a trend one way or the other".
>
> No moron.
I quoted you. Above. The quote is still there.
And you are an idiot.
>>
>> You claimed that the ideas that "summers are always hot" does not "indicate
>> a trend one way or the other".
>
> No moron.
I quoted you. Above. The quote is still there.
And you are an idiot.
> I said extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) during the summer do
> not indicate a trend one way or another.
> not indicate a trend one way or another.
But there *is* a trend: summers tend to be hotter than winters. They do.
This is something so obvious that you are now clearly just saying stupid
things to beg for attention.
This is something so obvious that you are now clearly just saying stupid
things to beg for attention.
> Learn to read. Full quote below:
>
> "Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter).
> They do not indicate a trend one way or another."
Nobody said that an especially hot summer indicates a trend that, say, the
>
> "Occasionally there are extreme anomalies (sometimes cold, sometimes hotter).
> They do not indicate a trend one way or another."
Nobody said that an especially hot summer indicates a trend that, say, the
next summer will also be especially hot. But the idea that there is no
trend for summers to be hot is just stupid.
But you are just being stupid to change the topic.
trend for summers to be hot is just stupid.
But you are just being stupid to change the topic.
The fact is I *predicted* a change in the usage of Linux (an increase)...
and then that change came to be. Now there are some problems with this:
1) My prediction was vague... I did not have numbers or specific times
set with it.
2) I also predicted that the increase in usage would stay the same or
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
continue to increase (though not at the rate we saw for the second
half of 2012). This did *not* happen - usage plummeted.
Now given how (1) my prediction was vague and (2) my later predictions based
on the same reasoning did not pan out, it can easily be argued that the
reasons for the increase were not tied to the logic of my predictions and,
in fact, I have never claimed that the correlation between my (vague)
prediction and the data showed the cause-and-affect I spoke of.
in fact, I have never claimed that the correlation between my (vague)
prediction and the data showed the cause-and-affect I spoke of.
If you were intelligent and actually understood stats and logic this is the
cc
Jun 20, 2012, 3:39:53 PM6/20/12
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ....
> > You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> > they are statistically insignificant.
>
> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of the outliers. You took an extremely small sample set of just outliers. So of course the trend line fits pretty well. That does not mean your trend line is significant in any way.
> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ....
> > You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> > they are statistically insignificant.
>
> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
Calculating an R^2 value does not tell you if the data you are using contains outliers or not. That is not the purpose of the R^2 value. It is just used to compare two trendlines that cover the same data set to verify the correct trend, and to see how close the trendline comes to modeling the data. That is why I used it to compare your trend line to mine. Read that one more time before responding with something idiotic. I've given you the equations to check for anomalies, and they have nothing to do with R^2.
Wow, I knew you didn't know much about statistics, but this is pretty bad. You're failing on some common sense stuff now.
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 4:56:19 PM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Now let's see if you can stop running from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You took an extremely small sample set of just outliers. So of
> course the trend line fits pretty well.
LOL! That is a really funny claim. No, I shan't explain to you how you
just proved yourself to be amazingly ignorant again. But funny you are!
And until you stop running I shall not respond to the rest of your drivel.
The only reason I responded to the above was how funny you are being...
unintentionally.
You have to stop running if you want me to respond to your BS. Just
remember, you have been proved wrong repeatedly... as discussed above. The
fact you run just proves you know you are wrong. And note where I discuss
in quite some detail where I was wrong (I even help you to understand where
I made errors - you had no clue). I simply do not share your insecurity.
f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ....
>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
>>> they are statistically insignificant.
>>
>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
>
> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> the outliers.
I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ....
>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
>>> they are statistically insignificant.
>>
>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
>
> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> the outliers.
Now let's see if you can stop running from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You took an extremely small sample set of just outliers. So of
> course the trend line fits pretty well.
just proved yourself to be amazingly ignorant again. But funny you are!
And until you stop running I shall not respond to the rest of your drivel.
The only reason I responded to the above was how funny you are being...
unintentionally.
You have to stop running if you want me to respond to your BS. Just
remember, you have been proved wrong repeatedly... as discussed above. The
fact you run just proves you know you are wrong. And note where I discuss
in quite some detail where I was wrong (I even help you to understand where
I made errors - you had no clue). I simply do not share your insecurity.
cc
Jun 20, 2012, 5:15:04 PM6/20/12
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> >> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ....
> >>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> >>> they are statistically insignificant.
> >>
> >> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> >> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
> >
> >
> > LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> > the outliers.
>
> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are irrelevant.
> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> >> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ....
> >>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> >>> they are statistically insignificant.
> >>
> >> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> >> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
> >
> >
> > LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> > the outliers.
>
> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
R^2 values are relevant when:
Someone creates a trendline using the same dataset that shows a different trend from yours. That means the trendline with the best R^2 value shows the correct trend.
R^2 values are irrelevant when:
Determining if the dataset you are using is made up of erroneous data.
For example, using the latter half of 2011 data, and using my method I can get an even better (although only slightly) R^2 value than you. Good for me! But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are statistically insignificant because they are outliers. So both trendlines are completely useless in this case, even though they have high R^2 values.
Another example: if you took 6 temperatures points throughout the summer, and 4 of those points were record lows, and decided to create a trendline, the R^2 value would be very high, and it would be showing a downward trend. If you tried to use that to disprove global warming you would be laughed at.
One final example: if you took a larger dataset of temperature points throughout the summer, but didn't deal with the outliers, you would have a trendline with a low R^2 value that showed the temperature actually dropped. If I came along, did a proper statistical analysis and had a flat trendline with a better R^2 value for that same dataset, then everyone would know your trendline is wrong.
So once again you're confused about how the R^2 value factors in. When comparing one trendline to another, the R^2 value is very important, but not when seeing if your data is composed of anomalies. That's why the R^2 value was important before (when comparing your trendline to mine), but it's not important now (just discussing how stupid it is for you to use those points to make a trendline).
Steve Carroll
Jun 20, 2012, 5:33:57 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 1:39 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> > 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> > 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ....
> > > You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> > > they are statistically insignificant.
>
> > You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> > which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of the outliers. You took an extremely small sample set of just outliers. So of course the trend line fits pretty well. That does not mean your trend line is significant in any way.
>
> Calculating an R^2 value does not tell you if the data you are using contains outliers or not. That is not the purpose of the R^2 value. It is just used to compare two trendlines that cover the same data set to verify the correct trend, and to see how close the trendline comes to modeling the data. That is why I used it to compare your trend line to mine. Read that one more time before responding with something idiotic. I've given you the equations to check for anomalies, and they have nothing to do with R^2.
>
> Wow, I knew you didn't know much about statistics, but this is pretty bad. You're failing on some common sense stuff now.
Yeah... after all the (considerable!) back and forth... I actually
>
> > ....
> > > You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> > > they are statistically insignificant.
>
> > You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> > which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of the outliers. You took an extremely small sample set of just outliers. So of course the trend line fits pretty well. That does not mean your trend line is significant in any way.
>
> Calculating an R^2 value does not tell you if the data you are using contains outliers or not. That is not the purpose of the R^2 value. It is just used to compare two trendlines that cover the same data set to verify the correct trend, and to see how close the trendline comes to modeling the data. That is why I used it to compare your trend line to mine. Read that one more time before responding with something idiotic. I've given you the equations to check for anomalies, and they have nothing to do with R^2.
>
> Wow, I knew you didn't know much about statistics, but this is pretty bad. You're failing on some common sense stuff now.
thought he had a better handle on this. His latest arguments here show
he has absolutely NO clue of the purpose of R^2 value. It's really
weird, too... because there were places where he seemed to understand
it previously. Maybe he was just parroting things... not realizing
what they actually meant.
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 5:59:01 PM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 2:15 PM, in article
fc44314d-bff1-4e6f...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
read the rest of your post:
fc44314d-bff1-4e6f...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
>> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
>>>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
>>>>> they are statistically insignificant.
>>>>
>>>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
>>>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
>>> the outliers.
>>
>> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
>
> You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are
> irrelevant.
Incorrect. And you are still running. When you can cease running I will
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
>> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
>>>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
>>>>> they are statistically insignificant.
>>>>
>>>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
>>>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
>>> the outliers.
>>
>> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
>
> You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are
> irrelevant.
read the rest of your post:
Onion Knight
Jun 20, 2012, 9:13:35 PM6/20/12
to
Given how your wife no longer will sleep with you what do you have to
lose to try to get your ex to accept you back again?
Onion Knight
Jun 20, 2012, 9:14:26 PM6/20/12
to
happier person. Here are the directions to her house you posted
http://goo.gl/maps/Q0Ne
Onion Knight
Jun 20, 2012, 9:16:47 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 9:59 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/12 2:15 PM, in article
> fc44314d-bff1-4e6f...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
> >> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On 6/20/12 2:15 PM, in article
> fc44314d-bff1-4e6f...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
> >> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> >>>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> >>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> >>>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >>>> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> ....
> >>>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> >>>>> they are statistically insignificant.
>
> >>>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> >>>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
> >>> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> >>> the outliers.
>
> >> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
>
> > You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are
> > irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect. And you are still running. When you can cease running I will
> read the rest of your post:
>
> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
> >> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> >>>> ....
> >>>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> >>>>> they are statistically insignificant.
>
> >>>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> >>>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
> >>> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> >>> the outliers.
>
> >> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
>
> > You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are
> > irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect. And you are still running. When you can cease running I will
> read the rest of your post:
>
> On 6/20/12 5:27 AM, in article
> a01dbff3-e102-4644...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/19/12 12:49 PM, in article
> >> cdc66007-821c-4359...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
know they steps on their single dick. Maybe that is why Steve is in
such a bad mood. His wife rejected him and his five minute trips to
his girlfriend are only leading to him being unable to get it up.
http://goo.gl/maps/Q0Ne
Why not take that drive Steve so you can stop being so angry? Can you
really not get your Viagra prescription renewed?
Onion Knight
Jun 20, 2012, 9:24:44 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 9:15 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
> > f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article
> > f38e2317-d48b-4bbc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > >> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> > >> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > >> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article
> > >> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > >> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> ....
> > >>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> > >>> they are statistically insignificant.
>
> > >> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> > >> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
> > > LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> > > the outliers.
>
> > I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
>
> You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are irrelevant.
>
> R^2 values are relevant when:
> Someone creates a trendline using the same dataset that shows a different trend from yours. That means the trendline with the best R^2 value shows the correct trend.
Based on this Snit's trendline for the second half of 2011 with its
>
> > >> ....
> > >>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point that
> > >>> they are statistically insignificant.
>
> > >> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value,
> > >> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98).
>
> > > LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of
> > > the outliers.
>
> > I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods.
>
> You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are irrelevant.
>
> R^2 values are relevant when:
> Someone creates a trendline using the same dataset that shows a different trend from yours. That means the trendline with the best R^2 value shows the correct trend.
excellent R^2 value is much better than any trendline you created.
Good to see you admit you fucked up in your attempts to make
trendlines.
> R^2 values are irrelevant when:
> Determining if the dataset you are using is made up of erroneous data.
thus showed the data for 2011 was in error. The R^2 value Snit showed
proves to you his trendline is better than yours and proves to you
that your claim about the data being in error is shit.
You admit you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
> For example, using the latter half of 2011 data, and using my method I can get an even better (although only slightly) R^2 value than you. Good for me! But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are statistically insignificant because they are outliers. So both trendlines are completely useless in this case, even though they have high R^2 values.
wrong.
> Another example: if you took 6 temperatures points throughout the summer, and 4 of those points were record lows, and decided to create a trendline, the R^2 value would be very high, and it would be showing a downward trend. If you tried to use that to disprove global warming you would be laughed at.
trendline for those four data points would be going down. If you
looked at record lows in March, April, May, and June then the
trendline for those points would likely being going up. As to why you
would want to use such data to disprove global warming is just fucked
up. You are displaying your stupidity for all to see.
> One final example: if you took a larger dataset of temperature points throughout the summer, but didn't deal with the outliers, you would have a trendline with a low R^2 value that showed the temperature actually dropped. If I came along, did a proper statistical analysis and had a flat trendline with a better R^2 value for that same dataset, then everyone would know your trendline is wrong.
not going up in 2011 is because it goes against your wishes. This
shows you are a fucking idiot.
> So once again you're confused about how the R^2 value factors in. When comparing one trendline to another, the R^2 value is very important, but not when seeing if your data is composed of anomalies. That's why the R^2 value was important before (when comparing your trendline to mine), but it's not important now (just discussing how stupid it is for you to use those points to make a trendline).
usenet no matter what name you post under.
Snit
Jun 20, 2012, 10:45:39 PM6/20/12
to
On 6/20/12 6:24 PM, in article
1b104b9d-7f75-474f...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Well, he did say for the same data.
Then again, he admitted for his trend line he did not use the same data, but
a data set *based* on the same data where he weighted points for the purpose
of getting a better R^2 value. Then he was shocked - just shocked - that
his R^2 value was higher.
He is completely lost on the topic.
> Good to see you admit you fucked up in your attempts to make
> trendlines.
He does not realize how he made such an admission. And my stalker will back
him. He will ignore logic and reason and suck up the slop of my stalker.
Count on it.
>> R^2 values are irrelevant when:
>> Determining if the dataset you are using is made up of erroneous data.
>
> But you claimed your trendline was better because of its R^2 value and
> thus showed the data for 2011 was in error. The R^2 value Snit showed
> proves to you his trendline is better than yours and proves to you
> that your claim about the data being in error is shit.
>
> You admit you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Of course he has no idea what he is talking about. He claims this data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
is erroneous because it does not fit his wishes. He has *no* other
evidence. "Erroneous data" does not form such a clear trend - not unless
there is a systemic problem in the data collection... something he has not
shown. He is just spewing nonsense because the facts do not fit his wishes.
Compare that with me: I do not *want* Linux usage to drop for multiple
reasons - it goes against my prediction and, more importantly, I *want*
desktop Linux to succeed. But I accept the data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>
I hope the downward trend does not continue but I will not call the data
showing it is doing so "erroneous data" just because I do not like it. I
will not sink to cc's level.
>> For example, using the latter half of 2011 data, and using my method I can
>> get an even better (although only slightly) R^2 value than you. Good for me!
>> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are statistically
>> insignificant because they are outliers. So both trendlines are completely
>> useless in this case, even though they have high R^2 values.
>
> Those data points are insignificant to you because they prove you
> wrong.
Exactly... that is the sole determiner for cc as to if data is good or
"erroneous" - does it fit his wishes. He has *no* evidence to back his
claims. None.
>> Another example: if you took 6 temperatures points throughout the summer, and
>> 4 of those points were record lows, and decided to create a trendline, the
>> R^2 value would be very high, and it would be showing a downward trend. If
>> you tried to use that to disprove global warming you would be laughed
>> at.
>
> Just because you have four record lows that does not mean the
> trendline for those four data points would be going down. If you
> looked at record lows in March, April, May, and June then the
> trendline for those points would likely being going up. As to why you
> would want to use such data to disprove global warming is just fucked
> up. You are displaying your stupidity for all to see.
Well put. Yes: his whole temperature analogy just is another avenue for him
to run from the actual discussion *and* show off his ignorance.
Oh, and just because four of six points are record lows does not mean that
any trend line you created would have a "very high" R^2 value. Once again
cc is just showing off his ignorance.
>> One final example: if you took a larger dataset of temperature points
>> throughout the summer, but didn't deal with the outliers, you would have a
>> trendline with a low R^2 value that showed the temperature actually dropped.
>> If I came along, did a proper statistical analysis and had a flat trendline
>> with a better R^2 value for that same dataset, then everyone would know your
>> trendline is wrong.
>
> The only reason you think you can prove the trend of Linux usage was
> not going up in 2011 is because it goes against your wishes. This
> shows you are a fucking idiot.
cc has created a new field of math: statistics by wishes. That is *all* he
has. He *wishes* things so he figures he can keep making trend line based
on whatever sets of data he wants, re-weighing data points as he wishes,
until his point is "proved". Utter stupidity on his part.
>> So once again you're confused about how the R^2 value factors in. When
>> comparing one trendline to another, the R^2 value is very important, but not
>> when seeing if your data is composed of anomalies. That's why the R^2 value
>> was important before (when comparing your trendline to mine), but it's not
>> important now (just discussing how stupid it is for you to use those points
>> to make a trendline).
>
> There is no doubt Steve that you are the dumbest fuck to ever roam
> usenet no matter what name you post under.
Funny how Steve never did get around to posting that list of names he used.
LOL!
>> --
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's
>> ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
>
1b104b9d-7f75-474f...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Then again, he admitted for his trend line he did not use the same data, but
a data set *based* on the same data where he weighted points for the purpose
of getting a better R^2 value. Then he was shocked - just shocked - that
his R^2 value was higher.
He is completely lost on the topic.
> Good to see you admit you fucked up in your attempts to make
> trendlines.
him. He will ignore logic and reason and suck up the slop of my stalker.
Count on it.
>> R^2 values are irrelevant when:
>> Determining if the dataset you are using is made up of erroneous data.
>
> But you claimed your trendline was better because of its R^2 value and
> thus showed the data for 2011 was in error. The R^2 value Snit showed
> proves to you his trendline is better than yours and proves to you
> that your claim about the data being in error is shit.
>
> You admit you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
is erroneous because it does not fit his wishes. He has *no* other
evidence. "Erroneous data" does not form such a clear trend - not unless
there is a systemic problem in the data collection... something he has not
shown. He is just spewing nonsense because the facts do not fit his wishes.
Compare that with me: I do not *want* Linux usage to drop for multiple
reasons - it goes against my prediction and, more importantly, I *want*
desktop Linux to succeed. But I accept the data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>
I hope the downward trend does not continue but I will not call the data
showing it is doing so "erroneous data" just because I do not like it. I
will not sink to cc's level.
>> For example, using the latter half of 2011 data, and using my method I can
>> get an even better (although only slightly) R^2 value than you. Good for me!
>> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are statistically
>> insignificant because they are outliers. So both trendlines are completely
>> useless in this case, even though they have high R^2 values.
>
> Those data points are insignificant to you because they prove you
> wrong.
"erroneous" - does it fit his wishes. He has *no* evidence to back his
claims. None.
>> Another example: if you took 6 temperatures points throughout the summer, and
>> 4 of those points were record lows, and decided to create a trendline, the
>> R^2 value would be very high, and it would be showing a downward trend. If
>> you tried to use that to disprove global warming you would be laughed
>> at.
>
> Just because you have four record lows that does not mean the
> trendline for those four data points would be going down. If you
> looked at record lows in March, April, May, and June then the
> trendline for those points would likely being going up. As to why you
> would want to use such data to disprove global warming is just fucked
> up. You are displaying your stupidity for all to see.
to run from the actual discussion *and* show off his ignorance.
Oh, and just because four of six points are record lows does not mean that
any trend line you created would have a "very high" R^2 value. Once again
cc is just showing off his ignorance.
>> One final example: if you took a larger dataset of temperature points
>> throughout the summer, but didn't deal with the outliers, you would have a
>> trendline with a low R^2 value that showed the temperature actually dropped.
>> If I came along, did a proper statistical analysis and had a flat trendline
>> with a better R^2 value for that same dataset, then everyone would know your
>> trendline is wrong.
>
> The only reason you think you can prove the trend of Linux usage was
> not going up in 2011 is because it goes against your wishes. This
> shows you are a fucking idiot.
has. He *wishes* things so he figures he can keep making trend line based
on whatever sets of data he wants, re-weighing data points as he wishes,
until his point is "proved". Utter stupidity on his part.
>> So once again you're confused about how the R^2 value factors in. When
>> comparing one trendline to another, the R^2 value is very important, but not
>> when seeing if your data is composed of anomalies. That's why the R^2 value
>> was important before (when comparing your trendline to mine), but it's not
>> important now (just discussing how stupid it is for you to use those points
>> to make a trendline).
>
> There is no doubt Steve that you are the dumbest fuck to ever roam
> usenet no matter what name you post under.
LOL!
>> --
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's
>> ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
>
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 20, 2012, 10:52:35 PM6/20/12
to
Snit wrote:
>> There is no doubt Steve that you are the dumbest fuck to ever roam
>> usenet no matter what name you post under.
>
> Funny how Steve never did get around to posting that list of names he used.
> LOL!
Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>> There is no doubt Steve that you are the dumbest fuck to ever roam
>> usenet no matter what name you post under.
>
> Funny how Steve never did get around to posting that list of names he used.
> LOL!
--
Keyboard not found. Visualize "F1" to continue.
[tv]
TomB
Jun 21, 2012, 12:07:52 AM6/21/12
to
On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
> Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
"converstations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
> Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
"converstations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
Snit
Jun 21, 2012, 12:10:16 AM6/21/12
to
On 6/20/12 9:07 PM, in article 20120621...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
Ok, please post your *best* evidence that Carroll's claims of Onion Knight
and Kaba being my socks are true. And then ask him to list the names he has
used. This whole BS is based on Carroll's BS attacks - his fabrications
created out of his anger of being called out on his use of socks.
But the herd will glom onto any attack against me... does not matter if
there is *no* support for it. Much better to attack me as a person than to
actually try to refute my claims - the herd knows they cannot.
and Kaba being my socks are true. And then ask him to list the names he has
used. This whole BS is based on Carroll's BS attacks - his fabrications
created out of his anger of being called out on his use of socks.
But the herd will glom onto any attack against me... does not matter if
there is *no* support for it. Much better to attack me as a person than to
actually try to refute my claims - the herd knows they cannot.
cc
Jun 21, 2012, 8:14:20 AM6/21/12
to
> > R^2 values are irrelevant when:
> > Determining if the dataset you are using is made up of erroneous data.
>
> But you claimed your trendline was better because of its R^2 value and
> thus showed the data for 2011 was in error.
>
> > For example, using the latter half of 2011 data, and using my method I can get an even better (although only slightly) R^2 value than you. Good for me! But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are statistically insignificant because they are outliers. So both trendlines are completely useless in this case, even though they have high R^2 values.
>
> Those data points are insignificant to you because they prove you
> wrong.
High Plains Thumper
Jun 21, 2012, 10:16:09 AM6/21/12
to
TomB wrote:
> from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>
>> Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>
> Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
> "conversations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
> from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>
>> Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>
> Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
I usually gloss over or ignore such conversations. Except for once in a
blue moon, they are unproductive.
People here need to do similar to the Ubuntu and the rec.audio.pro
posters do, largely ignore them. I'm not saying don't reply once in a
while, trolls do need a black eye.
Without wood, the fire goes out. Overall without reply, the trolling
will dwindle and they will look for other forums for attention.
--
HPT
Snit
Jun 21, 2012, 12:17:16 PM6/21/12
to
On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data. It is
like trying to form a straight trend through many years of data and then
using the trend line to disprove summers are hotter than winters (after all,
those data are simply "outliers" or "anomalies" or "erroneous". But, hey,
maybe I am wrong... so let me give you a chance to prove your better
knowledge on the topics we have been discussing. Three questions for you:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
Of course, there are more questions for you, noted in my .sig, but let's
just start with those 3. I really would love to learn from you! Oh, you
are so very knowledgeable!
42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> the SAME DATA SET because it was.
A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
> That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> the SAME DATA SET because it was.
shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data. It is
like trying to form a straight trend through many years of data and then
using the trend line to disprove summers are hotter than winters (after all,
those data are simply "outliers" or "anomalies" or "erroneous". But, hey,
maybe I am wrong... so let me give you a chance to prove your better
knowledge on the topics we have been discussing. Three questions for you:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
Of course, there are more questions for you, noted in my .sig, but let's
just start with those 3. I really would love to learn from you! Oh, you
are so very knowledgeable!
cc
Jun 21, 2012, 1:08:34 PM6/21/12
to
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> > the SAME DATA SET because it was.
>
> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
> shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data.
No, it will not. The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit to the trend of the data. There is no risk of missing trends in the data, you are simply wrong about this.
> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> > the SAME DATA SET because it was.
>
> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
> shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data.
Snit
Jun 21, 2012, 1:52:26 PM6/21/12
to
On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, in article
ca47aa6d-8f9c-4fd3...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
"outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
interesting. But it is exactly what you did. Let's start with a weather
analogy (you seem to like those!):
Say you are looking at a year's worth of temperature data. You make a trend
line and think of that as the data - ignoring the actual data (like you did
with the usage data). The conclusion would be that the increase in
temperature in the summer was insignificant or non-existent. You would make
foolish claims such as how the temperature "will be at [X degrees]. Same as
it ever was]. You would miss the upward trend of summer and the downward
trend of winter. This is, in fact, what you did: you missed the increase in
usage for the latter half of 2011... well, you *claimed to* once you
realized that this went against your attacks against me. Or, at the very
least, you realized there was a downtrend after it (in 2012):
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But then you realized this was an admission that I was right (and you know I
am). So you went back to a claim you know is wrong:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
You made up all sorts of things. You pretended the increase in the latter
half of 2011 did not happen (this is akin to claiming the summer in a year
of data did not show hotter temperatures than the winter) and you pretended
that I was predicting that the upward trend for the latter half of 2011
would continue unchanged - something I never said. You also pretended that
I claimed the trend lines I showed were, in my mine, proof of the
cause-and-effect I had used to (vaguely) predict the trend... but I never
made any such claim (though I have seen Carroll repeatedly claiming
otherwise - just out and out lying... but you will never call him on that).
> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit to
> the trend of the data.
<http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
-----
A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
for trend.
-----
Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
> There is no risk of missing trends in the data, you are simply wrong about
> this.
Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
There are more, of course - they are linked in my .sig - but you will
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
ca47aa6d-8f9c-4fd3...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
>> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's
>>> for
>>> the SAME DATA SET because it was.
>>
>> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
>> shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
>> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data.
>
> No, it will not.
So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
>> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's
>>> for
>>> the SAME DATA SET because it was.
>>
>> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
>> shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
>> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data.
>
> No, it will not.
assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
"outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
interesting. But it is exactly what you did. Let's start with a weather
analogy (you seem to like those!):
Say you are looking at a year's worth of temperature data. You make a trend
line and think of that as the data - ignoring the actual data (like you did
with the usage data). The conclusion would be that the increase in
temperature in the summer was insignificant or non-existent. You would make
foolish claims such as how the temperature "will be at [X degrees]. Same as
it ever was]. You would miss the upward trend of summer and the downward
trend of winter. This is, in fact, what you did: you missed the increase in
usage for the latter half of 2011... well, you *claimed to* once you
realized that this went against your attacks against me. Or, at the very
least, you realized there was a downtrend after it (in 2012):
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But then you realized this was an admission that I was right (and you know I
am). So you went back to a claim you know is wrong:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
You made up all sorts of things. You pretended the increase in the latter
half of 2011 did not happen (this is akin to claiming the summer in a year
of data did not show hotter temperatures than the winter) and you pretended
that I was predicting that the upward trend for the latter half of 2011
would continue unchanged - something I never said. You also pretended that
I claimed the trend lines I showed were, in my mine, proof of the
cause-and-effect I had used to (vaguely) predict the trend... but I never
made any such claim (though I have seen Carroll repeatedly claiming
otherwise - just out and out lying... but you will never call him on that).
> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit to
> the trend of the data.
-----
A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
for trend.
-----
Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
> There is no risk of missing trends in the data, you are simply wrong about
> this.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
cc
Jun 21, 2012, 2:03:14 PM6/21/12
to
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:52:26 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, in article
> ca47aa6d-8f9c-4fd3...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> >> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's
> >>> for
> >>> the SAME DATA SET because it was.
> >>
> >> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
> >> shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
> >> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data.
> >
> > No, it will not.
>
> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
> On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, in article
> ca47aa6d-8f9c-4fd3...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> >> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's
> >>> for
> >>> the SAME DATA SET because it was.
> >>
> >> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"... it
> >> shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
> >> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data.
> >
> > No, it will not.
>
> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
> > The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit to
> > the trend of the data.
>
> <http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
> -----
> A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
> for trend.
> -----
>
> Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
>
I like how you left out the most important sentence. An greater R^2 value implies an increase in credibility of the trend line. That's a direct statement from above. Of course the 2nd sentence, the one you quoted means that the R^2 value cannot be used to determine if the data contains any outliers, ie cannot imply greater credibility for the trend. This is EXACTLY what I have been telling you. Thank you for finding a source.
Snit
Jun 21, 2012, 2:27:25 PM6/21/12
to
On 6/21/12 11:03 AM, in article
b34761c1-c8ab-4826...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
But you are right that you were lying when you said that - you knew it was
not always the same. Here are some quotes where you acknowledged this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
In those quotes you made it clear you knew I was right that the data showed
an increase before 2012 and then a decrease at the start of 2012 - which is
contrary to the claim that the data was always the "same".
Of course, when this is noted and your quotes are shown to you, your
reaction is to snip and run. Just as you do when the topic of your claims
about sigma lines come up. You just run. You *know* you are full of it.
This is not a question: you know you are lying. You know you have been
proved wrong. It is just amusing to watch you squirm.
>>> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit
>>> to the trend of the data.
>>
>> <http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
>> -----
>> A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
>> for trend.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
>
> "The results suggest that an INCREASE IN THE R^2 OF THE LINEAR TREND LINE may
> imply an INCREASE IN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TREND LINE, reliance on a greater
> amount of trend, or a more reliable resulting estimate. Which of these or
> which combination of these in the case depends on the data at hand. A greater
> R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend." [emphasis mine]
You did not emphasize the word "may". Let me do it for you:
<http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
-----
The results suggest that an increase in the R^2 of the linear
trend line *MAY* imply an increase in the credibility of the
trend line ...
-----
Compare this with your claim:
cc:
-----
-----
Are you able to see the difference in those claims? This might help you:
think of the difference in the meaning of "may" and "is"... or look it up if
you have to.
Below you show you missed the difference...
> I like how you left out the most important sentence. An greater R^2 value
> implies an increase in credibility of the trend line. That's a direct
> statement from above. Of course the 2nd sentence, the one you quoted means
> that the R^2 value cannot be used to determine if the data contains any
> outliers, ie cannot imply greater credibility for the trend. This is EXACTLY
> what I have been telling you. Thank you for finding a source.
LOL! Back to claiming sources which contradict your claims are supportive
of them.
I do so enjoy watching you squirm. Oh, and I was right about you running.
You *always* do. It is amazing to watch! You never explained what I asked
you to. From the post you responded to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
There are more, of course - they are linked in my .sig - but you will
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how predictable it is that you will snip and run.
Oh, cc, you are such a silly coward. I love watching you freak out as you
are!
b34761c1-c8ab-4826...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
>> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
>> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
>> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
>
> This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
> understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
Well, you claimed to!
>> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
>> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
>> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
>
> This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
> understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
not always the same. Here are some quotes where you acknowledged this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
an increase before 2012 and then a decrease at the start of 2012 - which is
contrary to the claim that the data was always the "same".
Of course, when this is noted and your quotes are shown to you, your
reaction is to snip and run. Just as you do when the topic of your claims
about sigma lines come up. You just run. You *know* you are full of it.
This is not a question: you know you are lying. You know you have been
proved wrong. It is just amusing to watch you squirm.
>>> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit
>>> to the trend of the data.
>>
>> <http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
>> -----
>> A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
>> for trend.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
>
> "The results suggest that an INCREASE IN THE R^2 OF THE LINEAR TREND LINE may
> imply an INCREASE IN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TREND LINE, reliance on a greater
> amount of trend, or a more reliable resulting estimate. Which of these or
> which combination of these in the case depends on the data at hand. A greater
> R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend." [emphasis mine]
<http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
-----
The results suggest that an increase in the R^2 of the linear
trend line *MAY* imply an increase in the credibility of the
trend line ...
-----
Compare this with your claim:
cc:
-----
The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value
*IS* a better fit to the trend of the data.
-----
Are you able to see the difference in those claims? This might help you:
think of the difference in the meaning of "may" and "is"... or look it up if
you have to.
Below you show you missed the difference...
> I like how you left out the most important sentence. An greater R^2 value
> implies an increase in credibility of the trend line. That's a direct
> statement from above. Of course the 2nd sentence, the one you quoted means
> that the R^2 value cannot be used to determine if the data contains any
> outliers, ie cannot imply greater credibility for the trend. This is EXACTLY
> what I have been telling you. Thank you for finding a source.
of them.
I do so enjoy watching you squirm. Oh, and I was right about you running.
You *always* do. It is amazing to watch! You never explained what I asked
you to. From the post you responded to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
There are more, of course - they are linked in my .sig - but you will
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
See how predictable it is that you will snip and run.
Oh, cc, you are such a silly coward. I love watching you freak out as you
are!
cc
Jun 21, 2012, 2:53:03 PM6/21/12
to
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:27:25 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/21/12 11:03 AM, in article
> b34761c1-c8ab-4826...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
> >> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
> >> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
> >> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
> >
> > This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
> > understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
>
> Well, you claimed to!
>
> cc:
> -----
> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
> -----
You're a moron. That was a general statement on the state of Linux, and not in any way part of my method.
> On 6/21/12 11:03 AM, in article
> b34761c1-c8ab-4826...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
> >> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
> >> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
> >> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
> >
> > This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
> > understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
>
> Well, you claimed to!
>
> cc:
> -----
> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
> -----
>
> >>> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit
> >>> to the trend of the data.
> >>
> >> <http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
> >> -----
> >> A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
> >> for trend.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
> >
> > "The results suggest that an INCREASE IN THE R^2 OF THE LINEAR TREND LINE may
> > imply an INCREASE IN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TREND LINE, reliance on a greater
> > amount of trend, or a more reliable resulting estimate. Which of these or
> > which combination of these in the case depends on the data at hand. A greater
> > R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend." [emphasis mine]
>
> You did not emphasize the word "may". Let me do it for you:
> <http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
> -----
> The results suggest that an increase in the R^2 of the linear
> trend line *MAY* imply an increase in the credibility of the
> trend line ...
> -----
>
> Compare this with your claim:
> cc:
> -----
> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value
> *IS* a better fit to the trend of the data.
> -----
>
> Are you able to see the difference in those claims? This might help you:
> think of the difference in the meaning of "may" and "is"... or look it up if
> you have to.
>
> Below you show you missed the difference...
From the same paper:
"For these same two alternative assumptions, an increase in R2 from one
application to the next implies an increase in the credibility of the trend
line, or reliance on a greater amount of trend, or a more reliable resulting
estimate. A combination of these is also possible. Which of these three
situations is really the case depends on the problem at hand."
Now that the word "may" has been removed, maybe you understand a little better.
> > I like how you left out the most important sentence. An greater R^2 value
> > implies an increase in credibility of the trend line. That's a direct
> > statement from above. Of course the 2nd sentence, the one you quoted means
> > that the R^2 value cannot be used to determine if the data contains any
> > outliers, ie cannot imply greater credibility for the trend. This is EXACTLY
> > what I have been telling you. Thank you for finding a source.
>
> LOL! Back to claiming sources which contradict your claims are supportive
> of them.
http://www.phaser.com/modules/students/salmon/R2.pdf
http://graphpad.com/curvefit/goodness_of_fit.htm
R^2 quantifies goodness of fit. You're an absolute moron who can't seem to grasp this concept.
Steve Carroll
Jun 21, 2012, 3:35:41 PM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 10:17 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> > the SAME DATA SET because it was.
>
> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"...
LOL! A higher R^2 value is an indicator for showing how reliably a
> > That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> > the SAME DATA SET because it was.
>
> A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"...
given line fits the data... if you learned anything in this discussion
this should have been it.
> it shows you went through a process which will *always* result in a higher R^2
> value... but it will also risk leading to missing trends in the data. It is
> like trying to form a straight trend through many years of data and then
> using the trend line to disprove summers are hotter than winters (after all,
> those data are simply "outliers" or "anomalies" or "erroneous". But, hey,
> maybe I am wrong... so let me give you a chance to prove your better
> knowledge on the topics we have been discussing. Three questions for you:
>
> 1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
> are drawn correctly?
regarding his mathematical method for identifying the outliers.
Notably, one of the authors of the following document, Boris Iglewicz,
did earlier work with Tukey and Hoaglin (note their use of 2.2 for the
multiplier - 'g'). Why should you look at this document? Given the
fact that you're discussing univariate and a rather small sample size,
it's relatively accurate, simple and pertinent to your discussion
(more pertinent than the irrelevant drivel you're responding to cc
with):
"A simple approach is introduced for identifying multiple outliers in
random samples of univariate data. The same approach can be used for
both symmetric and for skewed distributions."
http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/y2001/Proceed/00523.pdf
Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
than you do;)
Snit
Jun 21, 2012, 4:13:33 PM6/21/12
to
On 6/21/12 11:53 AM, in article
f5cbe9da-7564-4bd7...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
always at 1%. This implies no change. But at other times you admit it
dropped:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
So you knew you were wrong about it always being the same. You lied. In
any case:
I predicted you would run from that. And you did. As for the rest of your
drivel - you just showed you cannot understand when a paper contradicts your
claims. I will discuss that in more detail with you when you stop running.
f5cbe9da-7564-4bd7...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:27:25 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 11:03 AM, in article
>> b34761c1-c8ab-4826...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
>>>> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
>>>> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
>>>> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
>>>
>>> This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
>>> understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
>>
>> Well, you claimed to!
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>
> You're a moron. That was a general statement on the state of Linux, and not in
> any way part of my method.
See your name calling... and your running. At times you claimed it was
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:27:25 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 11:03 AM, in article
>> b34761c1-c8ab-4826...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
>>>> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
>>>> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
>>>> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
>>>
>>> This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
>>> understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
>>
>> Well, you claimed to!
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>
> You're a moron. That was a general statement on the state of Linux, and not in
> any way part of my method.
always at 1%. This implies no change. But at other times you admit it
dropped:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
any case:
drivel - you just showed you cannot understand when a paper contradicts your
claims. I will discuss that in more detail with you when you stop running.
cc
Jun 21, 2012, 4:50:58 PM6/21/12
to
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:17 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> > 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> > > the SAME DATA SET because it was.
> >
> > A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"...
>
> LOL! A higher R^2 value is an indicator for showing how reliably a
> given line fits the data... if you learned anything in this discussion
> this should have been it.
He pulled a quote that didn't apply to the situation out of a paper, then tried to use that to back him up. He's given up I think, and instead of responding just started copying and pasting more nonsense he doesn't understand. If he can't grasp such a simple concept as R^2, then there's really no use talking to him about anything else.
> On Jun 21, 10:17 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 6/21/12 5:14 AM, in article
> > 42e3f942-9a43-4168...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > That is not what I claimed. I claimed my trendline was better than Snit's for
> > > the SAME DATA SET because it was.
> >
> > A higher R^2 value does not show that your trend line was "better"...
>
> LOL! A higher R^2 value is an indicator for showing how reliably a
> given line fits the data... if you learned anything in this discussion
> this should have been it.
Steve Carroll
Jun 21, 2012, 5:27:21 PM6/21/12
to
these 3 guys that point out the history of how certain things were
developed that you don't get a chance to see (like... say, in a stats
class) unless you read them.
I 've seen Snit confused many, many times but this may be the worst
case ;)
Snit
Jun 21, 2012, 6:30:57 PM6/21/12
to
On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
even try to make sense. He has been doing this since 2004. It is not as
though even he believes his BS. But I was right to predict you would run -
because even you know Carroll is full of it when you or he have knowledge on
the topics at hand:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
are clueless. You know you have been busted lying and trying to seem
knowledgeable about things you are not. But, hey, my stalker thinks you are
just swell... eat that up! It is not as if anyone else is ever going to
even pretend to be stupid enough to buy your BS.
acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
even try to make sense. He has been doing this since 2004. It is not as
though even he believes his BS. But I was right to predict you would run -
because even you know Carroll is full of it when you or he have knowledge on
the topics at hand:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
There are more, of course - they are linked in my .sig - but you will
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the first bit you have run from. You keep running. You know you
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
are clueless. You know you have been busted lying and trying to seem
knowledgeable about things you are not. But, hey, my stalker thinks you are
just swell... eat that up! It is not as if anyone else is ever going to
even pretend to be stupid enough to buy your BS.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 21, 2012, 10:31:56 PM6/21/12
to
Snit wrote:
> A
Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
Troll.
> A
Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
Troll.
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 1:23:54 AM6/22/12
to
On 6/21/12 7:31 PM, in article yv8au0hr057w$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
out and run. I mean the questions are easy - and he *knows* he is wrong...
he just is incapable of admitting to it.
Me: well, I openly admit to my errors (for example, my prediction of Linux
usage for 2012 was wrong). cc just is funny to me... so desperate to be
"right" that he makes more and more absurd and outrageous claims to avoid
talking about his past mistakes. It *is* funny.
Really... if you want a laugh ask him about standard deviations and where
sigma lines should be drawn. This is an amazingly innocuous topic but he
has his ego so heavily tied into it he *cannot* admit he was wrong. He
*cannot* admit I was right when I showed incorrect depictions. He just
*can't*.
It is am amazing study of psychology to watch him run time and time again
and then beg me to answer questions he pretends to be knowledgeable about
but is, in reality, completely clueless. One last example on that: he was
so proud to get a higher R^2 value after he went through a process that
*always* results in getting a higher R^2 value (though that does not mean it
always serves any given purpose better). He just has *no* clue about this.
None. So he missed things that a grade school student would not miss, such
as seeing an upswing in a chart and then a subsequent drop.
He is one of the most dishonest and delusional people I have ever talked to.
And I find him interesting in it. It really does amaze me how tied up he
gets in *having* to be "right" at any cost. He *cannot* admit to being
wrong. Just funny.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> A
>
> Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
> Troll.
I did not start a new thread. But I do admit I enjoy watching cc just freak
> Snit wrote:
>
>> A
>
> Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
> Troll.
out and run. I mean the questions are easy - and he *knows* he is wrong...
he just is incapable of admitting to it.
Me: well, I openly admit to my errors (for example, my prediction of Linux
usage for 2012 was wrong). cc just is funny to me... so desperate to be
"right" that he makes more and more absurd and outrageous claims to avoid
talking about his past mistakes. It *is* funny.
Really... if you want a laugh ask him about standard deviations and where
sigma lines should be drawn. This is an amazingly innocuous topic but he
has his ego so heavily tied into it he *cannot* admit he was wrong. He
*cannot* admit I was right when I showed incorrect depictions. He just
*can't*.
It is am amazing study of psychology to watch him run time and time again
and then beg me to answer questions he pretends to be knowledgeable about
but is, in reality, completely clueless. One last example on that: he was
so proud to get a higher R^2 value after he went through a process that
*always* results in getting a higher R^2 value (though that does not mean it
always serves any given purpose better). He just has *no* clue about this.
None. So he missed things that a grade school student would not miss, such
as seeing an upswing in a chart and then a subsequent drop.
He is one of the most dishonest and delusional people I have ever talked to.
And I find him interesting in it. It really does amaze me how tied up he
gets in *having* to be "right" at any cost. He *cannot* admit to being
wrong. Just funny.
Hadron
Jun 22, 2012, 3:04:16 AM6/22/12
to
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> On 6/21/12 7:31 PM, in article yv8au0hr057w$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> A
>>
>> Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
>> Troll.
>
> I did not start a new thread. But I do admit I enjoy watching cc just freak
> out and run. I mean the questions are easy - and he *knows* he is wrong...
> he just is incapable of admitting to it.
>
> Me: well, I openly admit to my errors (for example, my prediction of Linux
> usage for 2012 was wrong). cc just is funny to me... so desperate to be
> "right" that he makes more and more absurd and outrageous claims to avoid
> talking about his past mistakes. It *is* funny.
I find it disturbing that you post the same shit ad nauseum. Back in
> On 6/21/12 7:31 PM, in article yv8au0hr057w$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> A
>>
>> Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
>> Troll.
>
> I did not start a new thread. But I do admit I enjoy watching cc just freak
> out and run. I mean the questions are easy - and he *knows* he is wrong...
> he just is incapable of admitting to it.
>
> Me: well, I openly admit to my errors (for example, my prediction of Linux
> usage for 2012 was wrong). cc just is funny to me... so desperate to be
> "right" that he makes more and more absurd and outrageous claims to avoid
> talking about his past mistakes. It *is* funny.
the "killfile" - I'm roaming and its costing me a fortune downloading
all your constant repetition - megabytes of it.
William Poaster
Jun 22, 2012, 4:45:39 AM6/22/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 22/6/2012 03:31, wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> A
>
> Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
> Troll.
OCD.
> Snit wrote:
>
>> A
>
> Do you really have to start endless new threads about the same argument?
> Troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
--
M$ Windows: from the guys who brought you EDLIN
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft.
That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
-- Linus Torvalds (2003-09-28)
Every time Windows had a rebirth I would get hold of it
and buy a new machine to run it on believing that they (M$)
must now have got things right and finally created an operating
environment that could excite, impress and enthral me.
But each time their system got more ham-fisted, more insulting
and more indifferent to the pleasures and interests of the **consumer**.
-- Stephen Fry - December 2008 --
Windows is like a hooker; they're both easy,
and using either puts you at risk of viruses.
-- Kelsey Bjarnason --
comp.os.linux.advocacy
Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 22, 2012, 7:29:57 AM6/22/12
to
Snit wrote:
> I did not start a new thread.
Bullshit.
> I did not start a new thread.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 22, 2012, 7:30:39 AM6/22/12
to
William Poaster wrote:
> OCD.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
I guess we can lump this in with his paranoia and narcissism.
> OCD.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
I guess we can lump this in with his paranoia and narcissism.
cc
Jun 22, 2012, 8:04:04 AM6/22/12
to
On Friday, June 22, 2012 7:29:57 AM UTC-4, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
> > I did not start a new thread.
>
> Bullshit.
It must have been another Snit who started this thread.
> Snit wrote:
>
> > I did not start a new thread.
>
> Bullshit.
cc
Jun 22, 2012, 8:03:00 AM6/22/12
to
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> >> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> >> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> >> than you do;)
> >
> > Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
> > misunderstand.
>
> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
> even try to make sense.
What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> >> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> >> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> >> than you do;)
> >
> > Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
> > misunderstand.
>
> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
> even try to make sense.
Steve Carroll
Jun 22, 2012, 9:11:45 AM6/22/12
to
On Jun 22, 6:03 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> > acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> > acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > >> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> > >> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> > >> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> > >> than you do;)
>
> > > Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
> > > misunderstand.
>
> > Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
> > even try to make sense.
>
> What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
I'm sure you probably realize by now that this isn't a joke:
>
> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > >> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> > >> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> > >> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> > >> than you do;)
>
> > > Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
> > > misunderstand.
>
> > Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
> > even try to make sense.
>
> What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 10:34:26 AM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
you run from every question asked of you. You know you are an ignorant sod
who is a no-nothing pretending to be knowledgeable. Here, prove me wrong
and do something other than run from the following:
But you will run - because you know I am right about you. It is not as if
even you believe your drivel.
54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
>> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
>>>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
>>>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
>>>> than you do;)
>>>
>>> Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
>>> misunderstand.
>>
>> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
>> even try to make sense.
>
> What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of
> what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking
> to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
This whole stupid debate has been filled with you lying. It is the reason
> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
>> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
>>>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
>>>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
>>>> than you do;)
>>>
>>> Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
>>> misunderstand.
>>
>> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
>> even try to make sense.
>
> What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of
> what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking
> to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
you run from every question asked of you. You know you are an ignorant sod
who is a no-nothing pretending to be knowledgeable. Here, prove me wrong
and do something other than run from the following:
even you believe your drivel.
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 10:37:23 AM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/12 5:04 AM, in article
5d30b7f6-4c11-47d3...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
was started.
In any case, my response to him was right on the money:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not start a new thread. But I do admit I enjoy watching cc just freak
out and run. I mean the questions are easy - and he *knows* he is wrong...
he just is incapable of admitting to it.
Me: well, I openly admit to my errors (for example, my prediction of Linux
usage for 2012 was wrong). cc just is funny to me... so desperate to be
"right" that he makes more and more absurd and outrageous claims to avoid
talking about his past mistakes. It *is* funny.
Really... if you want a laugh ask him about standard deviations and where
sigma lines should be drawn. This is an amazingly innocuous topic but he
has his ego so heavily tied into it he *cannot* admit he was wrong. He
*cannot* admit I was right when I showed incorrect depictions. He just
*can't*.
It is am amazing study of psychology to watch him run time and time again
and then beg me to answer questions he pretends to be knowledgeable about
but is, in reality, completely clueless. One last example on that: he was
so proud to get a higher R^2 value after he went through a process that
*always* results in getting a higher R^2 value (though that does not mean it
always serves any given purpose better). He just has *no* clue about this.
None. So he missed things that a grade school student would not miss, such
as seeing an upswing in a chart and then a subsequent drop.
He is one of the most dishonest and delusional people I have ever talked to.
And I find him interesting in it. It really does amaze me how tied up he
gets in *having* to be "right" at any cost. He *cannot* admit to being
wrong. Just funny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice how you snipped all but the first sentence.
You know I am correct about you. Not even you are pretending otherwise at
this point. You are doing all you can to avoid admitting how amazingly
ignorant and wrong you have been in this whole idiotic debate. And I truly
do find that both interesting and amusing.
5d30b7f6-4c11-47d3...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 7:29:57 AM UTC-4, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> I did not start a new thread.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> It must have been another Snit who started this thread.
I had just renamed a thread - I do not know who had started it... or when it
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 7:29:57 AM UTC-4, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> I did not start a new thread.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> It must have been another Snit who started this thread.
was started.
In any case, my response to him was right on the money:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not start a new thread. But I do admit I enjoy watching cc just freak
out and run. I mean the questions are easy - and he *knows* he is wrong...
he just is incapable of admitting to it.
Me: well, I openly admit to my errors (for example, my prediction of Linux
usage for 2012 was wrong). cc just is funny to me... so desperate to be
"right" that he makes more and more absurd and outrageous claims to avoid
talking about his past mistakes. It *is* funny.
Really... if you want a laugh ask him about standard deviations and where
sigma lines should be drawn. This is an amazingly innocuous topic but he
has his ego so heavily tied into it he *cannot* admit he was wrong. He
*cannot* admit I was right when I showed incorrect depictions. He just
*can't*.
It is am amazing study of psychology to watch him run time and time again
and then beg me to answer questions he pretends to be knowledgeable about
but is, in reality, completely clueless. One last example on that: he was
so proud to get a higher R^2 value after he went through a process that
*always* results in getting a higher R^2 value (though that does not mean it
always serves any given purpose better). He just has *no* clue about this.
None. So he missed things that a grade school student would not miss, such
as seeing an upswing in a chart and then a subsequent drop.
He is one of the most dishonest and delusional people I have ever talked to.
And I find him interesting in it. It really does amaze me how tied up he
gets in *having* to be "right" at any cost. He *cannot* admit to being
wrong. Just funny.
Notice how you snipped all but the first sentence.
You know I am correct about you. Not even you are pretending otherwise at
this point. You are doing all you can to avoid admitting how amazingly
ignorant and wrong you have been in this whole idiotic debate. And I truly
do find that both interesting and amusing.
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 10:38:24 AM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/12 12:04 AM, in article ir395na...@news.eternal-september.org,
No offense taken... I am just having fun handing cc rope so he can hang
himself.
himself.
cc
Jun 22, 2012, 11:00:19 AM6/22/12
to
On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
> 54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> >> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> >>>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> >>>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> >>>> than you do;)
> >>>
> >>> Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
> >>> misunderstand.
> >>
> >> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
> >> even try to make sense.
> >
> > What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of
> > what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking
> > to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
>
> This whole stupid debate has been filled with you lying.
I was unaware that you considered mathematical facts to be lies.
> On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
> 54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> >> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> >>>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> >>>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> >>>> than you do;)
> >>>
> >>> Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
> >>> misunderstand.
> >>
> >> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling. He does not
> >> even try to make sense.
> >
> > What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of
> > what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking
> > to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.
>
> This whole stupid debate has been filled with you lying.
R^2 values of two trendlines over the same dataset can be compared to see which trend line fits better. This is a fact. Mine had a better R^2 value.
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers, you did not.
The latter half of 2011, which you love to point to, is mostly made up of outliers. This is a fact.
You have changed datasets to just using the later half of 2011 to try and prove your point, since my trendline refuted your original point using your original data set. This is a fact.
You refuse to acknowledge that the 2011 data you now insist on using is made up of almost entirely outliers, even though it's not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.
You confuse R^2 with outliers and try to point to the high R^2 value for your 2011 data as some sort of proof of non-existence of outliers. This is a fact.
There have been no lies from me at all this entire time. I cannot say the same for you though. You consistently try to pretend I've said things I have not, and continue to repeat those things even though you've been correct numerous times. I'm sorry you got your ass handed to you, but unfortunately for you, it's math and cannot really be refuted.
Desktop Linux has been flatlined for quite some time now. Most people with common sense realize this to be true, and now I've proven it to you.
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 5:38:41 PM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/12 8:00 AM, in article
de637d5a-efbc-45e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
We have already discussed how you missed the change in the trend... you call
them "outliers" (though you have also used the term "erroneous" and
others... all rather silly of you). Let us be more specific on why your
claim that the data from the latter half of 2011 should be seen as
"outliers"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier>
-----
An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to
deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it
occurs.
-----
But if you look at the data from the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Those data points show a clear and very strong trend (even if nobody
predicted that trend would continue unchanged for any great length of time).
Those data points do *not* deviate "markedly from other members of the
sample". This can be seen with the high R^2 value. Even looking at the
greater set of data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
It is *very* clear that there is an upward trend at the latter half of
2011... those data points are forming a pattern. The same Wikipedia page
speaks of using caution that you did not:
-----
Caution: Unless it can be ascertained that the deviation is
not significant, it is ill-advised to ignore the presence of
outliers.
-----
From your description I have not understood what you did to "ascertained
that the deviation is not significant". Maybe you can explain that.
From my view, the fact that it was not a single data point that seemed "off"
but a set of at least six concurrent ones in a very clear trend discount
them as being ignored as meaningless "outliers". But I am open to your
explanation... what makes you think those six data point with such a strong
and clear trend (an R^2 value of over 0.98, and this is *without* weighing
or assuming any outliers, etc.) is "*ONE* that appears to deviate markedly
from the other members of the sample" (emphasis mine... but the importance
of it being *ONE* data point is an important thing to keep in mind). This
does not mean there cannot be more than one outlier in a sample - but that
points that make a trend of their own are not occurring as a single
"outlier".
In case you do not want to accept the single definition from Wikipedia, I
found those for you so you can better understand what an outlier is:
<http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section1/prc16.htm>
-----
An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance
from other values in a random sample from a population. In a
sense, this definition leaves it up to the analyst (or a
consensus process) to decide what will be considered
abnormal. Before abnormal observations can be singled out, it
is necessary to characterize normal observations.
-----
Again, "an observation"... and again it makes it clear that the
determination of if something is "an outlier" (one) is subjective.
<http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/basic-statistics/#Correlationse>
-----
Outliers. Outliers are atypical (by definition), infrequent
observations.
-----
But you called these 6 of 24 data points "outliers"... and to keep your
claim of 1% at all times, you might also include Feb 2012. Even if not, you
are deeming 25% of the data as being "outliers". This is not consistent
with the idea that they would be "atypical".
-----
Needless to say, one should never base important conclusions
on the value of the correlation coefficient alone (i.e.,
examining the respective scatterplot is always recommended).
-----
This is what I have been telling you. Looking just at the linear trend line
is *not* sufficient, esp. when you are assuming that 25% of your data points
are "outliers" The same link gets even more clear:
-----
Nonlinear Relations between Variables. Another potential
source of problems with the linear (Pearson r) correlation is
the shape of the relation. As mentioned before, Pearson r
measures a relation between two variables only to the extent
to which it is linear; deviations from linearity will
increase the total sum of squared distances from the
regression line even if they represent a "true" and very
close relationship between two variables. The possibility of
such non-linear relationships is another reason why examining
scatterplots is a necessary step in evaluating every
correlation. For example, the following graph demonstrates an
extremely strong correlation between the two variables which
is not well described by the linear function.
-----
As I have been telling you: when the data is non-linear, as the data in this
case is not, then one *must* look at the data itself. You did not - hence
the reason why you missed the upward trend of the latter half of 2011.
But there are more resources to help you understand this:
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html>
-----
An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall
pattern of a distribution (Moore and McCabe 1999). Usually,
the presence of an outlier indicates some sort of problem.
This can be a case which does not fit the model under study,
or an error in measurement.
Outliers are often easy to spot in histograms. For example,
the point on the far left in the above figure is an outlier.
-----
If you look at the graph, you can see it shows what appears to be a *true*
outlier... a single point that is significantly different from the rest of
the data. Your "outliers" are 25% of the data and form a clear trend. This
means they are not "outliers" at all, but a trend that is seen in the
overall data. A trend that fit my vague prediction (which, to remind you,
does not prove causation).
But there is more:
<http://www.experiment-resources.com/statistical-outliers.html>
-----
Statistical outliers are data points that are far removed and
numerically distant from the rest of the points.
-----
Calling 25% of the data points "outliers" is a bit silly.... esp. when they
show such a strong trend. Points that form such a strong tend *cannot* be
"far removed and numerically distant from the rest of the points".
And I found many more examples... pretty much any reasonable page that talks
about outliers will make it clear why
1) Such determinations are largely subjective - contrary to your claim that
they are "fact"
2) Cannot include 25% of the data - esp. when that 25% of the data are
points in a direct series which show a *very* clear trend (even if a
non-lasting trend).
Your "outlier" claim is a bit absurd - and, again, shows how you do not
really get the concept of what you are talking about. This is the same as
when you insisted sigma lines could not be based on the distance from the
mean (they can - they are based on the distance from the mean to the
inflection points) and your claim that the depictions I showed you were fine
when it was *very* clear they were not. And you *know* this... hence the
reason you repeatedly snip your own comments and refuse to answer questions
on these topics.
You were shown to be wrong about sigma lines. Now you have shown yourself
to be wrong about outliers in data.
Really, is there anything you can point to where you can claim to be right?
> The latter half of 2011, which you love to point to, is mostly made up of
> outliers. This is a fact.
A "fact"? Based on what. Also from the same Wikipedia page:
-----
There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes
an outlier; determining whether or not an observation is an
outlier is ultimately a subjective exercise.
-----
In other words, it is not a "fact" but a subjective *opinion*. And I find
that opinion to be rather absurd given that we are *not* talking about *ONE*
point but a set - and that set has a very clear trend. Amazingly clear,
really.
> You have changed datasets to just using the later half of 2011 to try and
> prove your point, since my trendline refuted your original point using your
> original data set. This is a fact.
Incorrect.
> You refuse to acknowledge that the 2011 data you now insist on using is made
> up of almost entirely outliers, even though it's not a matter of opinion. This
> is a fact.
Incorrect.
> You confuse R^2 with outliers and try to point to the high R^2 value for your
> 2011 data as some sort of proof of non-existence of outliers. This is a fact.
Incorrect.
> There have been no lies from me at all this entire time. I cannot say the same
> for you though. You consistently try to pretend I've said things I have not,
> and continue to repeat those things even though you've been correct numerous
> times. I'm sorry you got your ass handed to you, but unfortunately for you,
> it's math and cannot really be refuted.
Your claims are incorrect. I am not suggesting the math is wrong.
> Desktop Linux has been flatlined for quite some time now. Most people with
> common sense realize this to be true, and now I've proven it to you.
Let's try different a tact here. I have been very open with the places
where I see where I have been wrong or did not handle things as well as you
should have. I am an honest and open person. For example: I was wrong in
my predictions for the trend in 2012 and I did not handle things as well as
I should have when I did not note the non-linear nature of the trend before
I did. In one I was wrong - in the other I did not handle things as well as
I did.
Let us test your honesty and openness: where do you think *you* have been
wrong... and no back-handed insults with that... just a sincere statement of
where you admit you were wrong. Can you think of *any* place in this whole
debate? Any at all?
My guess: you will not be willing to admit to any. I sincerely hope you
prove me wrong... (that would give me something else to add to my list). My
guess though is you are so tied to having to "prove" you are right - no
matter how wrong you have been - that you will simply avoid this question.
de637d5a-efbc-45e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
them "outliers" (though you have also used the term "erroneous" and
others... all rather silly of you). Let us be more specific on why your
claim that the data from the latter half of 2011 should be seen as
"outliers"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier>
-----
An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to
deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it
occurs.
-----
But if you look at the data from the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Those data points show a clear and very strong trend (even if nobody
predicted that trend would continue unchanged for any great length of time).
Those data points do *not* deviate "markedly from other members of the
sample". This can be seen with the high R^2 value. Even looking at the
greater set of data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
It is *very* clear that there is an upward trend at the latter half of
2011... those data points are forming a pattern. The same Wikipedia page
speaks of using caution that you did not:
-----
Caution: Unless it can be ascertained that the deviation is
not significant, it is ill-advised to ignore the presence of
outliers.
-----
From your description I have not understood what you did to "ascertained
that the deviation is not significant". Maybe you can explain that.
From my view, the fact that it was not a single data point that seemed "off"
but a set of at least six concurrent ones in a very clear trend discount
them as being ignored as meaningless "outliers". But I am open to your
explanation... what makes you think those six data point with such a strong
and clear trend (an R^2 value of over 0.98, and this is *without* weighing
or assuming any outliers, etc.) is "*ONE* that appears to deviate markedly
from the other members of the sample" (emphasis mine... but the importance
of it being *ONE* data point is an important thing to keep in mind). This
does not mean there cannot be more than one outlier in a sample - but that
points that make a trend of their own are not occurring as a single
"outlier".
In case you do not want to accept the single definition from Wikipedia, I
found those for you so you can better understand what an outlier is:
<http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section1/prc16.htm>
-----
An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance
from other values in a random sample from a population. In a
sense, this definition leaves it up to the analyst (or a
consensus process) to decide what will be considered
abnormal. Before abnormal observations can be singled out, it
is necessary to characterize normal observations.
-----
Again, "an observation"... and again it makes it clear that the
determination of if something is "an outlier" (one) is subjective.
<http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/basic-statistics/#Correlationse>
-----
Outliers. Outliers are atypical (by definition), infrequent
observations.
-----
But you called these 6 of 24 data points "outliers"... and to keep your
claim of 1% at all times, you might also include Feb 2012. Even if not, you
are deeming 25% of the data as being "outliers". This is not consistent
with the idea that they would be "atypical".
-----
Needless to say, one should never base important conclusions
on the value of the correlation coefficient alone (i.e.,
examining the respective scatterplot is always recommended).
-----
This is what I have been telling you. Looking just at the linear trend line
is *not* sufficient, esp. when you are assuming that 25% of your data points
are "outliers" The same link gets even more clear:
-----
Nonlinear Relations between Variables. Another potential
source of problems with the linear (Pearson r) correlation is
the shape of the relation. As mentioned before, Pearson r
measures a relation between two variables only to the extent
to which it is linear; deviations from linearity will
increase the total sum of squared distances from the
regression line even if they represent a "true" and very
close relationship between two variables. The possibility of
such non-linear relationships is another reason why examining
scatterplots is a necessary step in evaluating every
correlation. For example, the following graph demonstrates an
extremely strong correlation between the two variables which
is not well described by the linear function.
-----
As I have been telling you: when the data is non-linear, as the data in this
case is not, then one *must* look at the data itself. You did not - hence
the reason why you missed the upward trend of the latter half of 2011.
But there are more resources to help you understand this:
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html>
-----
An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall
pattern of a distribution (Moore and McCabe 1999). Usually,
the presence of an outlier indicates some sort of problem.
This can be a case which does not fit the model under study,
or an error in measurement.
Outliers are often easy to spot in histograms. For example,
the point on the far left in the above figure is an outlier.
-----
If you look at the graph, you can see it shows what appears to be a *true*
outlier... a single point that is significantly different from the rest of
the data. Your "outliers" are 25% of the data and form a clear trend. This
means they are not "outliers" at all, but a trend that is seen in the
overall data. A trend that fit my vague prediction (which, to remind you,
does not prove causation).
But there is more:
<http://www.experiment-resources.com/statistical-outliers.html>
-----
Statistical outliers are data points that are far removed and
numerically distant from the rest of the points.
-----
Calling 25% of the data points "outliers" is a bit silly.... esp. when they
show such a strong trend. Points that form such a strong tend *cannot* be
"far removed and numerically distant from the rest of the points".
And I found many more examples... pretty much any reasonable page that talks
about outliers will make it clear why
1) Such determinations are largely subjective - contrary to your claim that
they are "fact"
2) Cannot include 25% of the data - esp. when that 25% of the data are
points in a direct series which show a *very* clear trend (even if a
non-lasting trend).
Your "outlier" claim is a bit absurd - and, again, shows how you do not
really get the concept of what you are talking about. This is the same as
when you insisted sigma lines could not be based on the distance from the
mean (they can - they are based on the distance from the mean to the
inflection points) and your claim that the depictions I showed you were fine
when it was *very* clear they were not. And you *know* this... hence the
reason you repeatedly snip your own comments and refuse to answer questions
on these topics.
You were shown to be wrong about sigma lines. Now you have shown yourself
to be wrong about outliers in data.
Really, is there anything you can point to where you can claim to be right?
> The latter half of 2011, which you love to point to, is mostly made up of
> outliers. This is a fact.
-----
There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes
an outlier; determining whether or not an observation is an
outlier is ultimately a subjective exercise.
-----
In other words, it is not a "fact" but a subjective *opinion*. And I find
that opinion to be rather absurd given that we are *not* talking about *ONE*
point but a set - and that set has a very clear trend. Amazingly clear,
really.
> You have changed datasets to just using the later half of 2011 to try and
> prove your point, since my trendline refuted your original point using your
> original data set. This is a fact.
> You refuse to acknowledge that the 2011 data you now insist on using is made
> up of almost entirely outliers, even though it's not a matter of opinion. This
> is a fact.
> You confuse R^2 with outliers and try to point to the high R^2 value for your
> 2011 data as some sort of proof of non-existence of outliers. This is a fact.
> There have been no lies from me at all this entire time. I cannot say the same
> for you though. You consistently try to pretend I've said things I have not,
> and continue to repeat those things even though you've been correct numerous
> times. I'm sorry you got your ass handed to you, but unfortunately for you,
> it's math and cannot really be refuted.
> Desktop Linux has been flatlined for quite some time now. Most people with
> common sense realize this to be true, and now I've proven it to you.
where I see where I have been wrong or did not handle things as well as you
should have. I am an honest and open person. For example: I was wrong in
my predictions for the trend in 2012 and I did not handle things as well as
I should have when I did not note the non-linear nature of the trend before
I did. In one I was wrong - in the other I did not handle things as well as
I did.
Let us test your honesty and openness: where do you think *you* have been
wrong... and no back-handed insults with that... just a sincere statement of
where you admit you were wrong. Can you think of *any* place in this whole
debate? Any at all?
My guess: you will not be willing to admit to any. I sincerely hope you
prove me wrong... (that would give me something else to add to my list). My
guess though is you are so tied to having to "prove" you are right - no
matter how wrong you have been - that you will simply avoid this question.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 22, 2012, 7:27:39 PM6/22/12
to
Snit wrote:
> I had just renamed a thread
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - yeah, uh huh...
> I had just renamed a thread
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 9:51:16 PM6/22/12
to
I am not a math person and am having trouble figuring out who is right
or wrong in the below. I leave the below intact but offer this
summary.
There is this data: http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png
of which part of it seems to show an upward trend
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png
One person claims the upward trend shown in the second link is
something to consider while the other says it should be ignored
because it is just "outliers". Far more details are given below.
My question is if the data from that second link should be considered
outliers? Can outliers be seen with such a trend? Should the data for
that time period be excepted as a sign that there was an increase in
the numbers even if only temporarily?
What do the 'real' math folks think?
On Jun 22, 9:38 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/12 8:00 AM, in article
> de637d5a-efbc-45e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
or wrong in the below. I leave the below intact but offer this
summary.
There is this data: http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png
of which part of it seems to show an upward trend
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png
One person claims the upward trend shown in the second link is
something to consider while the other says it should be ignored
because it is just "outliers". Far more details are given below.
My question is if the data from that second link should be considered
outliers? Can outliers be seen with such a trend? Should the data for
that time period be excepted as a sign that there was an increase in
the numbers even if only temporarily?
What do the 'real' math folks think?
On Jun 22, 9:38 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/12 8:00 AM, in article
> de637d5a-efbc-45e4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
> >> 54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
> >> 54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> >>>> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> >>>> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 9:55:29 PM6/22/12
to
On Jun 21, 4:07 am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>
> > Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>
> Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
> "converstations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
Conversations are what forums are for.
> On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>
> > Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>
> Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
> "converstations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
Conversations are what forums are for.
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 9:57:58 PM6/22/12
to
On Jun 21, 4:10 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/12 9:07 PM, in article 20120621061255...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
> and Kaba being my socks are true. And then ask him to list the names he has
> used. This whole BS is based on Carroll's BS attacks - his fabrications
> created out of his anger of being called out on his use of socks.
>
> But the herd will glom onto any attack against me... does not matter if
> there is *no* support for it. Much better to attack me as a person than to
> actually try to refute my claims - the herd knows they cannot.
He could not deal with Elizabot dumping his ass. He still defends the
bitch and says you harassed her when you have posted the facts about
what happened. I could not find your link but I had the file. I has
been uploaded here http://tinyurl.com/6p333qs
There is no doubt Steve and his fucked up girlfriend were harassing
you back in 2004. She stopped. He never did.
> On 6/20/12 9:07 PM, in article 20120621061255...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>
> <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>
> >> Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>
> > Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
> > "converstations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
>
> Ok, please post your *best* evidence that Carroll's claims of Onion Knight
> <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>
> >> Snit is talking to himself again. How unusual! (not)
>
> > Ugh, virtually all new articles in cola since about 6 hrs ago are
> > "converstations" between Snit and "Onion Knight".
>
> and Kaba being my socks are true. And then ask him to list the names he has
> used. This whole BS is based on Carroll's BS attacks - his fabrications
> created out of his anger of being called out on his use of socks.
>
> But the herd will glom onto any attack against me... does not matter if
> there is *no* support for it. Much better to attack me as a person than to
> actually try to refute my claims - the herd knows they cannot.
>
> --
> 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.
Carroll spews vile attacks because he is a complete and utter asshole.
> --
> 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.
He could not deal with Elizabot dumping his ass. He still defends the
bitch and says you harassed her when you have posted the facts about
what happened. I could not find your link but I had the file. I has
been uploaded here http://tinyurl.com/6p333qs
There is no doubt Steve and his fucked up girlfriend were harassing
you back in 2004. She stopped. He never did.
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 9:58:45 PM6/22/12
to
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 10:02:02 PM6/22/12
to
Your screwing some bitch when your wife is away is no joke either. If
you forgot how to get to her house here are the directions you posted
http://goo.gl/maps/Q0Ne
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 10:04:19 PM6/22/12
to
On Jun 22, 9:38 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
> >> 54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
> >> 54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> >>>> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
> >>>> acf34017-6524-4ba0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Will be interesting to see what math folks say.
Onion Knight
Jun 22, 2012, 9:59:44 PM6/22/12
to
> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> than you do;)
http://tinyurl.com/6p333qs
> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> than you do;)
Go fuck your girlfriend. Or your wife. I do not care just leave usenet
alone.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 22, 2012, 10:35:41 PM6/22/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> Conversations are what forums are for.
This isn't a forum, dumbass.
> Conversations are what forums are for.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 22, 2012, 10:42:39 PM6/22/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> I am not a math person
You're not a person. You're a sock puppet. =)
> I am not a math person
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 11:22:41 PM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/12 7:04 PM, in article
24c01868-c549-4c7f...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com, "Onion
My predictions:
1) cc will deny his outliers BS has been completely refuted. It has been,
of course, but he will *never* admit to it. Once again, I gave him plenty
of rope for him to hang himself and he did... and now he will be completely
unable to back away from his BS claims.
2) My stalker will back cc or ignore the topic. He has been backing cc this
whole time... and now that I have proved how wrong they both are he, too,
will just stay in denial.
They are both unable to admit when they are wrong. They have the need to
present themselves as always right - no matter what the evidence shows.
24c01868-c549-4c7f...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com, "Onion
1) cc will deny his outliers BS has been completely refuted. It has been,
of course, but he will *never* admit to it. Once again, I gave him plenty
of rope for him to hang himself and he did... and now he will be completely
unable to back away from his BS claims.
2) My stalker will back cc or ignore the topic. He has been backing cc this
whole time... and now that I have proved how wrong they both are he, too,
will just stay in denial.
They are both unable to admit when they are wrong. They have the need to
present themselves as always right - no matter what the evidence shows.
Snit
Jun 22, 2012, 11:24:04 PM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/12 7:02 PM, in article
28c26408-903a-45f5...@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
I am not defending Carroll in any way, but I do not agree with such attacks.
Defeat him with logic and reason. His personal life, no matter how
repulsive, is irrelevant to COLA.
28c26408-903a-45f5...@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Defeat him with logic and reason. His personal life, no matter how
repulsive, is irrelevant to COLA.
Peter Köhlmann
Jun 23, 2012, 3:09:17 AM6/23/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
>> than you do;)
>
> Go fuck her http://tinyurl.com/6p333qs
And this incredibly dishonest POS Snit Michael Glasser still maintains that
>>
>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
>> than you do;)
>
> Go fuck her http://tinyurl.com/6p333qs
he is not using "Onion Knight" as a sock?
> If you get some maybe you will be less of an asshole.
good for the very first time in your miserable life.
You should use the time to gainfully work instead of squandering your wifes
(and kids) money, parasite Glasser
-hh
Jun 23, 2012, 3:25:00 AM6/23/12
to
On Jun 23, 3:09 am, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:
Another is a retrospective analysis that benchmarks off of simple "in
aggregate" posting frequency: when he has no life other than to post
trolls, the trend is that the net sum total of all nyms combined will
be generally constant from month to month. In other words, look for
fresh new socks that post 100+ in a month.
Of course, there's also a simpler method too, but that would be
telling :-)
> > If you get some maybe you will be less of an asshole.
>
> If you would simply neck yourself, Michael Glasser, you would do something
> good for the very first time in your miserable life.
> You should use the time to gainfully work instead of squandering your wifes
> (and kids) money, parasite Glasser
Good points both, but neither is likely to happen within the next
decade.
-hh
wrote:
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
> >> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> >> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> >> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> >> than you do;)
>
> > Go fuck herhttp://tinyurl.com/6p333qs
>
> >> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
> >> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
> >> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
> >> than you do;)
>
>
> And this incredibly dishonest POS Snit Michael Glasser still maintains that
> he is not using "Onion Knight" as a sock?
The content of the messages is one way to assess.
> And this incredibly dishonest POS Snit Michael Glasser still maintains that
> he is not using "Onion Knight" as a sock?
Another is a retrospective analysis that benchmarks off of simple "in
aggregate" posting frequency: when he has no life other than to post
trolls, the trend is that the net sum total of all nyms combined will
be generally constant from month to month. In other words, look for
fresh new socks that post 100+ in a month.
Of course, there's also a simpler method too, but that would be
telling :-)
> > If you get some maybe you will be less of an asshole.
>
> If you would simply neck yourself, Michael Glasser, you would do something
> good for the very first time in your miserable life.
> You should use the time to gainfully work instead of squandering your wifes
> (and kids) money, parasite Glasser
decade.
-hh
Hadron
Jun 23, 2012, 8:20:55 AM6/23/12
to
--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>
Hadron
Jun 23, 2012, 8:22:17 AM6/23/12
to
Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> writes:
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> I am not a math person
>
> You're not a person. You're a sock puppet. =)
He must be. No one would read all that repetitious bullshit from Snit
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> I am not a math person
>
> You're not a person. You're a sock puppet. =)
time and time again. Well, he can join Snit in the lower ranking Gnus
scores... Enough already... Megabytes of bullshit - over and over again.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages