Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics
40 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
Jun 28, 2012, 12:59:57 PM6/28/12
to
On Feb 17, 8:09 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Earlier this month, I posted here statistics from NetMarketShare showing
> (Desktop - Worldwide):-
>
> Jul 2011 0.97%
> Aug 2011 1.07%
> Sep 2011 1.11%
> Oct 2011 1.19%
> Nov 2011 1.31%
> Dec 2011 1.41%
> Jan 2012 1.56%
>
> I did comment that perhaps it was an aberration/anomaly - and perhaps
> somebody was fiddling the numbers!
>
> I've now looked more closely, using the "Geographic and Demographic Filter"
> facility, and discovered a *huge* blip!
> The figure for *California* shows 18.59%!
>
> I think we can safely say that the 1.56% worldwide is somewhat inflated!
>
> *However* my little researches did turn up some interesting numbers:-
>
> USA *without* California shows 0.78%
>
> Wordwide *without* USA shows 1.35%
> (Worldwide with USA but without California 1.29%)
>
> Broken down by continent we see:-
> Europe 1.70%
> Asia 1.38%
> S. America 1.10%
>
> In "countries possibly of interest" (to this group) we see:-
>
> China 1.98
> France 2.03
> Germany 1.85
> India 2.14
> Netherlands 1.25
> Russia 2.55
> Spain 1.63
> U.K. 1.06
>
> None are as high as I'd like to see, of course, but the real disappointment
> is that for a minute or two I thought I'd found signs of Intelligent Life in
> the U.S. of A ;-)
Now *this* is a decent explanation as to why the upswing in the latter half
of 2011 is not something that should be taken all that seriously - it seems
it was very localized. Nothing to do with all of cc's utter BS on the
topic.
So why did California have such a jump? Odd.
I love cc's take on your reporting of that:
-----
I predicted that as more of California's citizens could buy
legal weed, the usage of Linux would increase. There's a very
obvious correlation between smoking doobies and using Linux.
Of course, the herd will never acknowledge that I was right.
-----
LOL! As always, cc is just lost.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
> Earlier this month, I posted here statistics from NetMarketShare showing
> (Desktop - Worldwide):-
>
> Jul 2011 0.97%
> Aug 2011 1.07%
> Sep 2011 1.11%
> Oct 2011 1.19%
> Nov 2011 1.31%
> Dec 2011 1.41%
> Jan 2012 1.56%
>
> I did comment that perhaps it was an aberration/anomaly - and perhaps
> somebody was fiddling the numbers!
>
> I've now looked more closely, using the "Geographic and Demographic Filter"
> facility, and discovered a *huge* blip!
> The figure for *California* shows 18.59%!
>
> I think we can safely say that the 1.56% worldwide is somewhat inflated!
>
> *However* my little researches did turn up some interesting numbers:-
>
> USA *without* California shows 0.78%
>
> Wordwide *without* USA shows 1.35%
> (Worldwide with USA but without California 1.29%)
>
> Broken down by continent we see:-
> Europe 1.70%
> Asia 1.38%
> S. America 1.10%
>
> In "countries possibly of interest" (to this group) we see:-
>
> China 1.98
> France 2.03
> Germany 1.85
> India 2.14
> Netherlands 1.25
> Russia 2.55
> Spain 1.63
> U.K. 1.06
>
> None are as high as I'd like to see, of course, but the real disappointment
> is that for a minute or two I thought I'd found signs of Intelligent Life in
> the U.S. of A ;-)
Now *this* is a decent explanation as to why the upswing in the latter half
of 2011 is not something that should be taken all that seriously - it seems
it was very localized. Nothing to do with all of cc's utter BS on the
topic.
So why did California have such a jump? Odd.
I love cc's take on your reporting of that:
-----
I predicted that as more of California's citizens could buy
legal weed, the usage of Linux would increase. There's a very
obvious correlation between smoking doobies and using Linux.
Of course, the herd will never acknowledge that I was right.
-----
LOL! As always, cc is just lost.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
cc
Jun 28, 2012, 2:35:25 PM6/28/12
to
>
> I love cc's take on your reporting of that:
> -----
> I predicted that as more of California's citizens could buy
> legal weed, the usage of Linux would increase. There's a very
> obvious correlation between smoking doobies and using Linux.
> Of course, the herd will never acknowledge that I was right.
> -----
>
> LOL! As always, cc is just lost.
>
>
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Snit
Jun 28, 2012, 4:53:20 PM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/12 11:35 AM, in article
dcd526a4-0e6a-4167...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
See my .sig... you have been proved wrong on your every point.
Where do you think I was proved wrong other than that the upswing I
predicted now has been shown to be very unlikely from the cause I had used
to predict it (which is fine, I never claimed there was a cause-and-effect
relationship that was proved) and for the same reason I was wrong about the
drop in 2012. Meanwhile, here is just a partial list of where you have been
wrong:
1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".
2) You made a rather silly claim to say that 17% of the data are
"outliers" - especially when those data are in a direct series
tied to a *very* clear trend that includes 25% of the data.
3) Outliers are atypical - you clearly are stretching to call 17%
of the data, which occurs in a clear pattern, "atypical" to the
data. Tied to the top 3: <http://tinyurl.com/7hymgfg>. Makes
it very clear just how clueless cc is.
4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the
correlation coefficient even though it is unwise to do so at
the expense of a focus on the visual graphs / visible trends.
5) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly
drawn based on the distance from the mean to the inflection
points.
6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
you were, in fact, poorly done. They were unambiguously wrong.
7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
linear trend line in Excel. I did no such thing (and you
never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)
8) You were 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.
9) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to
your claimed views.
And you have refused to admit when you are wrong. Please note, when I am
shown to be wrong I admit to it with no problem. You just lie and snip and
run. You are a very amusing person.
dcd526a4-0e6a-4167...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Where do you think I was proved wrong other than that the upswing I
predicted now has been shown to be very unlikely from the cause I had used
to predict it (which is fine, I never claimed there was a cause-and-effect
relationship that was proved) and for the same reason I was wrong about the
drop in 2012. Meanwhile, here is just a partial list of where you have been
wrong:
1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".
2) You made a rather silly claim to say that 17% of the data are
"outliers" - especially when those data are in a direct series
tied to a *very* clear trend that includes 25% of the data.
3) Outliers are atypical - you clearly are stretching to call 17%
of the data, which occurs in a clear pattern, "atypical" to the
data. Tied to the top 3: <http://tinyurl.com/7hymgfg>. Makes
it very clear just how clueless cc is.
4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the
correlation coefficient even though it is unwise to do so at
the expense of a focus on the visual graphs / visible trends.
5) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly
drawn based on the distance from the mean to the inflection
points.
6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
you were, in fact, poorly done. They were unambiguously wrong.
7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
linear trend line in Excel. I did no such thing (and you
never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)
8) You were 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.
9) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to
your claimed views.
And you have refused to admit when you are wrong. Please note, when I am
shown to be wrong I admit to it with no problem. You just lie and snip and
run. You are a very amusing person.
cc
Jun 28, 2012, 5:21:43 PM6/28/12
to
> Where do you think I was proved wrong other than that the upswing I
> predicted now has been shown to be very unlikely from the cause I had used
> to predict it (which is fine, I never claimed there was a cause-and-effect
> relationship that was proved)
How would you characterize an upswing that was caused by a single state out of the entire world-wide population?
> predicted now has been shown to be very unlikely from the cause I had used
> to predict it (which is fine, I never claimed there was a cause-and-effect
> relationship that was proved)
Would you consider that a legitimate upswing, or would you be more likely to say that something fishy was going on in California, meaning that the data is not to be trusted? I mean, if you ignore California, there was no upswing at all.
Oh, you already said, "Now *this* is a decent explanation as to why the upswing in the latter half of 2011 is not something that should be taken all that seriously." So we're obviously not taking it seriously, because the data has a serious likelihood of being an anomaly, and not being legitimate.
So you want to say you were right in your prediction, but only for 6 months, and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)? Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to you.
Snit
Jun 28, 2012, 5:38:52 PM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/12 2:21 PM, in article
13ca71ae-4ecd-4a70...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
proved wrong repeatedly:
> Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an
> open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's
> what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to
> you.
LOL! You just make things up as you go. You lie.
And it amuses me.
13ca71ae-4ecd-4a70...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Where do you think I was proved wrong other than that the upswing I
>> predicted now has been shown to be very unlikely from the cause I had used
>> to predict it (which is fine, I never claimed there was a cause-and-effect
>> relationship that was proved)
>
> How would you characterize an upswing that was caused by a single state out of
> the entire world-wide population?
>
> Would you consider that a legitimate upswing, or would you be more likely to
> say that something fishy was going on in California, meaning that the data is
> not to be trusted? I mean, if you ignore California, there was no upswing at
> all.
>
> Oh, you already said, "Now *this* is a decent explanation as to why the
> upswing in the latter half of 2011 is not something that should be taken all
> that seriously." So we're obviously not taking it seriously, because the data
> has a serious likelihood of being an anomaly, and not being legitimate.
Right... which has nothing to do with your BS. Remember, you have been
>> Where do you think I was proved wrong other than that the upswing I
>> predicted now has been shown to be very unlikely from the cause I had used
>> to predict it (which is fine, I never claimed there was a cause-and-effect
>> relationship that was proved)
>
> How would you characterize an upswing that was caused by a single state out of
> the entire world-wide population?
>
> Would you consider that a legitimate upswing, or would you be more likely to
> say that something fishy was going on in California, meaning that the data is
> not to be trusted? I mean, if you ignore California, there was no upswing at
> all.
>
> Oh, you already said, "Now *this* is a decent explanation as to why the
> upswing in the latter half of 2011 is not something that should be taken all
> that seriously." So we're obviously not taking it seriously, because the data
> has a serious likelihood of being an anomaly, and not being legitimate.
proved wrong repeatedly:
> So you want to say you were right in your prediction, but only for 6 months,
> and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)?
You made that up. See: when faced with facts you lie.
> and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)?
> Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an
> open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's
> what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to
> you.
And it amuses me.
cc
Jun 28, 2012, 5:45:07 PM6/28/12
to
Snit
Jun 28, 2012, 6:16:44 PM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/12 2:45 PM, in article
fd13ae9f-62aa-428a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
> Did the rest of the world see an increase in Linux usage? Nope.
This is not in contention.
> Did you originally state your prediction was only for the last part of 2011?
> Nope.
This is not in contention.
> So if you're saying there's a correlation, then it's only for the last
> part of 2011 and only for California.
See: you are clueless on what you have been told. And you snip and run from
your mistakes:
These things are *not* in contention either. Hence why you snip and run.
> That's pretty far from your original statement.
One: your lies are very different than my statements. That is not in
contention.
Two: as we get new data I alter my views... as is the rational and honest
thing to do. This is what you are incapable of doing... to the point that
you see it as a bad thing when I do it. Yes: you think it is *bad* that I
alter my views based on new data.
> But hey, if your tiny brain in your fat head somehow sees that as being
> "right" then what can I do?
You do realize that you have made it clear you know you are lying, right?
I keep asking you that and you keep running. You hate knowing how obvious
your lies are.
fd13ae9f-62aa-428a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:38:52 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 2:21 PM, in article
>> 13ca71ae-4ecd-4a70...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So you want to say you were right in your prediction, but only for 6 months,
>>> and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)?
>>
>> You made that up. See: when faced with facts you lie.
>>
>>> Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an
>>> open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's
>>> what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to
>>> you.
>>
>> LOL! You just make things up as you go. You lie.
>>
>> And it amuses me.
>>
>
> What is a lie?
No wonder you so rarely tell the truth: you do not even know that a lie is
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:38:52 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 2:21 PM, in article
>> 13ca71ae-4ecd-4a70...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So you want to say you were right in your prediction, but only for 6 months,
>>> and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)?
>>
>> You made that up. See: when faced with facts you lie.
>>
>>> Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an
>>> open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's
>>> what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to
>>> you.
>>
>> LOL! You just make things up as you go. You lie.
>>
>> And it amuses me.
>>
>
> What is a lie?
something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
> Did the rest of the world see an increase in Linux usage? Nope.
> Did you originally state your prediction was only for the last part of 2011?
> Nope.
> So if you're saying there's a correlation, then it's only for the last
> part of 2011 and only for California.
your mistakes:
> That's pretty far from your original statement.
contention.
Two: as we get new data I alter my views... as is the rational and honest
thing to do. This is what you are incapable of doing... to the point that
you see it as a bad thing when I do it. Yes: you think it is *bad* that I
alter my views based on new data.
> But hey, if your tiny brain in your fat head somehow sees that as being
> "right" then what can I do?
I keep asking you that and you keep running. You hate knowing how obvious
your lies are.
Onion Knight
Jun 29, 2012, 8:10:27 AM6/29/12
to
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:16:44 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 6/28/12 2:45 PM, in article
> fd13ae9f-62aa-428a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:38:52 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/28/12 2:21 PM, in article
> >> 13ca71ae-4ecd-4a70...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So you want to say you were right in your prediction, but only for 6 months,
> >>> and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)?
> >>
> >> You made that up. See: when faced with facts you lie.
> >>
> >>> Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an
> >>> open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's
> >>> what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to
> >>> you.
> >>
> >> LOL! You just make things up as you go. You lie.
> >>
> >> And it amuses me.
> >>
> >
> > What is a lie?
>
> No wonder you so rarely tell the truth: you do not even know that a lie is
> something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
>
I think you're confused. Obviously from the context he was asking which of his statements were a lie. Do you have trouble with context? It seems like you totally misunderstand most things people write. Even in this thread you took statements CC made where he was making fun of you, and tried to pass them off as if they were legitimate statements. If it's a deliberate troll technique, then I think it works! If it's not, then I think you need to try harder or get some help, because responses like your's above only make you look really, really, dumb.
> On 6/28/12 2:45 PM, in article
> fd13ae9f-62aa-428a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:38:52 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/28/12 2:21 PM, in article
> >> 13ca71ae-4ecd-4a70...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So you want to say you were right in your prediction, but only for 6 months,
> >>> and only in California (which again, is a dubious claim)?
> >>
> >> You made that up. See: when faced with facts you lie.
> >>
> >>> Well, that's a hilarious interpretation of being right considering it was an
> >>> open-ended prediction for all desktop Linux usage everywhere, but if that's
> >>> what you're so desperately trying to cling to, then I guess I can give it to
> >>> you.
> >>
> >> LOL! You just make things up as you go. You lie.
> >>
> >> And it amuses me.
> >>
> >
> > What is a lie?
>
> No wonder you so rarely tell the truth: you do not even know that a lie is
> something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
>
> > Did the rest of the world see an increase in Linux usage? Nope.
>
> This is not in contention.
>
> > Did you originally state your prediction was only for the last part of 2011?
> > Nope.
>
> This is not in contention.
>
> > So if you're saying there's a correlation, then it's only for the last
> > part of 2011 and only for California.
>
> See: you are clueless on what you have been told. And you snip and run from
> your mistakes:
>
> 1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
> were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
> definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
> such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".
> 2) You made a rather silly claim to say that 17% of the data are
> "outliers" - especially when those data are in a direct series
> tied to a *very* clear trend that includes 25% of the data.
> 3) Outliers are atypical - you clearly are stretching to call 17%
> of the data, which occurs in a clear pattern, "atypical" to the
> data. Tied to the top 3: <http://tinyurl.com/7hymgfg>. Makes
> it very clear just how clueless cc is.
> 4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the
> correlation coefficient even though it is unwise to do so at
> the expense of a focus on the visual graphs / visible trends.
I've seen your graph of Linux usage, and data set. It's been very helpful verifying what CC said. But I haven't seen your graph correlating Linux usage with an increased focus in usability. Do you have that graph? It would be hard to focus on the visual graphs/visible trends if you don't even have anything visible to show! Thanks.
> 5) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly
> drawn based on the distance from the mean to the inflection
> points.
> 6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
> you were, in fact, poorly done. They were unambiguously wrong.
> 7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
> linear trend line in Excel. I did no such thing (and you
> never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
> linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
> would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)
> 8) You were 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.
> 9) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to
> your claimed views.
> These things are *not* in contention either. Hence why you snip and run.
>
> > That's pretty far from your original statement.
>
> One: your lies are very different than my statements. That is not in
> contention.
>
> Two: as we get new data I alter my views... as is the rational and honest
> thing to do. This is what you are incapable of doing... to the point that
> you see it as a bad thing when I do it. Yes: you think it is *bad* that I
> alter my views based on new data.
>
> > But hey, if your tiny brain in your fat head somehow sees that as being
> > "right" then what can I do?
>
> You do realize that you have made it clear you know you are lying, right?
>
> I keep asking you that and you keep running. You hate knowing how obvious
> your lies are.
Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't. Did CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did. Did California skew the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? Yes, he did. Did correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? No, you didn't. You even claimed there were no outliers at all. So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire time and his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world results. Why are you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 1:36:08 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
<onionkn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
between the concepts as to what is a lie and what is not. But, as you know,
I have pointed to many of his lies.
As far as taking statements made by cc where he was making fun of me and
then trying to pass them off as something else, that is one of his lies. I
did no such thing. He repeatedly admitted that there was a drop in the data
in 2012. When called on it he tried to retcon his claims.
>>> Did the rest of the world see an increase in Linux usage? Nope.
>>
>> This is not in contention.
>>
>>> Did you originally state your prediction was only for the last part of 2011?
>>> Nope.
>>
>> This is not in contention.
>>
>>> So if you're saying there's a correlation, then it's only for the last
>>> part of 2011 and only for California.
>>
>> See: you are clueless on what you have been told. And you snip and run from
>> your mistakes:
>
> But if the above two are not in contention, then it's true that the
> correlation was only for the latter part of 2011 and only for California like
> CC says. That doesn't seem like much of a correlation, and also doesn't fit
> your original prediction at all. So it seems like your prediction was totally
> wrong. What am I missing?
The correlation fit the full data set. Now we know that this came from some
data in CA. This does not change the fact that the correlation fit the
whole data set.
What it does do is very strongly weaken my claim of cause and effect.
Correlations and cause-and-effects are not the same. The only ones who
confuse these concepts as you just did are cc and Carroll - and thus I
suspect your posts are being forged by one of them. Given the style of the
writing I would guess Carroll, but I have no proof.
>> 1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
>> were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
>> definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
>> such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".
>
> I found plenty of calculators online to find outliers. All of them said the
> data had outliers in them, and all of them had pretty much the same outliers.
> What way to find outliers did you use came up with no outliers as a result?
Some calculators find some. Some do not. But since the distribution is not
even appropriate for most of these calculators, and since different
calculators disagree on which points, if any, are outliers, then his claim
that it is a "fact" that some set of specific points are outliers is
completely absurd. It has been proved wrong.
>> 2) You made a rather silly claim to say that 17% of the data are
>> "outliers" - especially when those data are in a direct series
>> tied to a *very* clear trend that includes 25% of the data.
>
> Can outliers not be in a direct series? I thought outliers were random
> occurances, or at least not predictable. You can flip a coin a thousand times
> and have heads come up. That doesn't mean it's a pattern. I didn't see
> anything online where there had to be only a certain percentage of outliers,
> and no more. Also, I think 17% is the wrong figure, looking at the data you
> put up from 2007. It's more like 7% I think.
If outliers are a high percentage of the data then the data is likely too
corrupt to be of value. In any case, the 17% is in reference to the original
data set cc asked me to use, not the one he claims to have run to when he
realized how absurd his claims were (the data set he was never able to
produce).
>> 3) Outliers are atypical - you clearly are stretching to call 17%
>> of the data, which occurs in a clear pattern, "atypical" to the
>> data. Tied to the top 3: <http://tinyurl.com/7hymgfg>. Makes
>> it very clear just how clueless cc is.
>
> I think you're seeing a pattern where none exists. See my comment about the
> coin flip above. Again, I really doubt it is 17%, and I believe cc posted in
> another thread it was more like 6%, which I also think is wrong. It was 7-8% I
> believe depending on which online outlier calculator you used.
First, some of cc's claims on this issue:
cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----
But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
-----
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
you did not.
-----
Your new trendline uses data made up of mostly outliers,
evidenced by all standard measurements of outliers and the
fact that a single state caused the fluctuation.
-----
Now looking at different outlier calculators:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
It is 0% using the Median() and array formula from:
<http://tinyurl.com/7fqxztv>. This is true at when you use a Z-Score
Tolerance of 3.5 (the norm), and also all the way down to 2. Even at a
tolerance of 1.5 there is only one outlier that is detected, and that is in
Jan of 2012, not in the "latter half of 2011" as cc claimed... and certainly
not four from the latter half... and *none* from "late 2007, early 2008".
At a tolerance of 1 (and here we are getting far from the norm of 3.5!), you
still only have four points which are found to be outliers: 2 (not 4) from
the "latter half of 2011" and only one from "late 2007" and none from "early
2008". By the way, if you want the Excel spreadsheet I used I have made it
available: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>. Unlike
cc I am very open with how I calculate these things. He is not because he
just makes things up.
So let us look at Grubbs: <http://tinyurl.com/832dvjz>:
Only one outlier, and it is at the start of 2012, not in the "latter half of
2011" as cc claimed... and certainly not four from the latter half... and
*none* from "late 2007, early 2008".
On the same link we have the Quartile method: and it finds 3 outliers. Two
are from the "latter half of 2011" (not four, as cc claimed), and none are
from "late 2007, early 2008"... and one is from 2012 - a time period cc
never mentioned in his claims about where he found outliers.
And yet cc went on and on about how he found these - but he never has been
specific as to his method and none of the calculators nor methods I have
tried have replicated his claimed findings... findings he cannot show.
Worse for him, he behaves like his findings are a foregone conclusion - and
that has been completely trounced. He is flat out wrong. He is completely
clueless on the topic.
>> 4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the
>> correlation coefficient even though it is unwise to do so at
>> the expense of a focus on the visual graphs / visible trends.
>
> Your eyes can lie. Why wouldn't an exact calculation be important?
Who said it would not be? But what "exact calculation"? cc presented
*none*... and the data itself does not approximate a normal distribution and
is not linear... this the calculations we are discussing are of limited
value anyway.
> All of the correlation results I find online have a coefficient. Is there are
> a reason you shouldn't calculate a correlation coefficient? I'm confused, I
> thought that was standard procedure.
cc insists on including the calculation of outliers - which, as you have
been shown, is not a "standard" operation with one accepted method and one
accepted result. It is not a "fact" as he claimed.
The linear trend line itself is a poor tool to use, given the non-linear
nature of the data.
> Why would someone place a greater deal of focus on the inexact and potentially
> wrong method of looking at a graph, instead of getting a numerical result? You
> think people should place a greater focus on estimation at the expense of
> exact results?
Incorrect. I go into far more detail in one of the links in my sig:
> But I haven't seen your graph correlating Linux usage with an increased focus
> in usability. Do you have that graph? It would be hard to focus on the visual
> graphs/visible trends if you don't even have anything visible to show! Thanks.
What graph? I have been very open that the graph does not show the
cause-and-effect I spoke of, and my prediction was vague... it is not like I
had a predictive graph and can show some numerical calculation which shows
how well it correlated to the actual data.
What I did was made a vague prediction about an increase and gave a reason
for my prediction. The data correlated with that prediction (during the
increase... though frankly that was more of an increase than I expected,
again, my predictions were vague). It has now been shown (by bbgruff) that
the increase was localized to a small region... so not only does the data
from 2012 go against my predictions, the data from the latter half of 2011
does not fit them well, either. This has been established and discussed and
is not in contention.
So given that what graph are you looking for? Your question shows a level
of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
either one is possible and neither is proved).
>> 5) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly
>> drawn based on the distance from the mean to the inflection
>> points.
>
> Reading over his posts, I don't see where he did that.
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.
------
I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the
second derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the
sigma lines are in your supposed incorrect examples. Funny
how you're now questioning the applications used to generate
those graphs! Face it, you're wrong.
------
His denials were repeated and strong. He insisted it was based on the
percentage under the curve and *not* the distance from the mean to
*anything*.
> He said there is no exact numerical distance, and he also said they are at the
> inflection points. So again, I wonder if you have some sort of problem
> reading? I think you're confused on this. Look at the links you posted, it's
> obvious that many are not normal distributions, so the inflection point isn't
> meaningful.
Look at his quotes. Also, I had already discussed how the reference to
distance was to some feature of the curve and not in inches or centimeters
or the like. He kept making his claims. He was completely ignorant of this
- and he knows it, hence the reason he repeatedly runs.
>> 6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
>> you were, in fact, poorly done. They were unambiguously wrong.
>
> You said all the links you posted were examples of incorrect placement of
> standard deviation lines. CC claims many were done with MatLab. Looking
> online, that looks to be the case. So how could they be poorly done if they
> were in MatLab? Why is MatLab poorly done software?
Please show the examples I stated were bad that were not. So far cc has
completely failed to find a single example.
But here is the rub: say he does find one. It is *possible* I was mistaken
and I would admit to it if it were to be shown. Unlike cc I am honest.
Now look at cc's claims above. His first:
cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Was in reference to this image:
<http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
Once you know to look for the inflection points it is *clearly* an incorrect
depiction. There is no doubt cc was wrong. He will, however, never admit
to it. He simply runs.
>> 7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
>> linear trend line in Excel. I did no such thing (and you
>> never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
>> linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
>> would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)
>
> I read his comments, and he said he followed MS directions. So you're lying
> here. Why lie? You admitted you never checked for outliers, and let them screw
> up your data. So perhaps that's your missing step?
If you think I missed steps in creating a linear trend line in MS's
directions then please state what steps: <http://tinyurl.com/25x2dvn>
I did use the right-click method of getting to the tools and not the Ribbon
- but that is not a "missing step" it is merely using a different method to
get to the same tools.
The claim I missed steps is an out and out lie. It has been completely
disproved.
>> 8) You were 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.
>
> In the thread you reference, he admits he was wrong to say you were predicting
> a causation.
I do not recall that. Can you link to it or quote his admission there? If
he did so I will happily accept his admission and note this point has been
"handled" by him.
> So yes, he was wrong and he admits it. What is the problem with
> that? I don't see you admitting you were wrong about your prediction.
Oh, if he made such an admission I would love to see it. I would love to be
proved wrong.
As far as my admissions about errors, see above and many other posts. I do
not hide nor deny my errors.
>> 9) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to
>> your claimed views.
>
> I already found many spots where he already answered these questions.
No. Given that he has not you have not found such. If you think otherwise
then quote or link. An empty claim is meaningless... and that is all you
have there. Very much like cc and Carroll. Gee, not saying your ID is
being forged, just noting all data points to that conclusion. :)
>> These things are *not* in contention either. Hence why you snip and run.
>>
>>> That's pretty far from your original statement.
>>
>> One: your lies are very different than my statements. That is not in
>> contention.
>>
>> Two: as we get new data I alter my views... as is the rational and honest
>> thing to do. This is what you are incapable of doing... to the point that
>> you see it as a bad thing when I do it. Yes: you think it is *bad* that I
>> alter my views based on new data.
>
> But your views were wrong at the time, with no new data!
I am open to you supporting this.
> And there was no new data when CC posted the info claiming you were wrong.
He makes many idiotic claims. So?
> You were saying you were right, up until yesterday. So when you were told you
> were wrong with old data, you said you were right. When you were shown you
> were wrong with new data, you still said you were right. In another post you
> said you were willing to admit when you are wrong. Well will you finally admit
> it? I doubt it.
Can you repeat that in English? Thanks! If you think I was wrong about
something then say what! If you can show I was wrong, or if I can, I will
admit to it. It is what I do.
I am not like cc and Carroll.
>>> But hey, if your tiny brain in your fat head somehow sees that as being
>>> "right" then what can I do?
>>
>> You do realize that you have made it clear you know you are lying, right?
>>
>> I keep asking you that and you keep running. You hate knowing how obvious
>> your lies are.
>
> I found where CC answers all the questions you said he was running from.
Given how he has not this is not possible. But feel free to try to show
otherwise.
> I verified all the answers he gave as best I could. In the end, his statements
> match up perfectly to the real world results, and show the prediction you made
> was incorrect. So what is he lying about?
See above: you and he offer no verification for his claims. None. I show
massive amounts of counters to his claims.
> Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't.
Well, in CA there was, or at least that is what the data shows.
> Did CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your
> trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did.
And here is the overall trend: <http://tinyurl.com/832dvjz>
Now we can remove some data points from the early and late dates - the ones
which some method show as outliers, but the trend line will still be clearly
an upward one. Of course, as I have noted, this is not linear data so the
predictive value, esp. in the short term, is pretty much useless. Over the
long run, though, it does suggest the trend will continue upward.
Also keep in mind that the later data
> Did California skew the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which
> points were skewed using outliers?
Absolutely not.
> Yes, he did.
I would love to see your support for this.
> Did correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? No, you
> didn't.
The search for outliers is not what showed the increase applied only to CA.
> You even claimed there were no outliers at all.
Please quote this claim. I have noted that the number of points which are
outliers, if any, is largely subjective and can be based on any number of
methods. I have shown where at least some of these methods show no
outliers, but others do show some (though none that I find match what cc
claimed to find - and he has not been able to produce, say, an Excel
spreadsheet he claimed he used to calculate these things). There is no
reason to think such a spreadsheet even exists... but if it does he is
welcome to email it to me and I will post it for him. He has emailed me in
the past and I have no problem with him doing this so he can support his
claims. He can then look at the link and make sure I have not modified it
in any way (he can even password protect it if he wishes).
> So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire time and
> his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world results. Why are
> you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
Yawn. Not even you, cc or Carroll, believe this BS you are spewing... but
it was fun to read your forgery and refute your claims. :)
>> --
>> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
>> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
>> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
>> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
>
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
<onionkn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> What is a lie?
>>
>> No wonder you so rarely tell the truth: you do not even know that a lie is
>> something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
>>
>
> I think you're confused. Obviously from the context he was asking which of his
> statements were a lie. Do you have trouble with context? It seems like you
> totally misunderstand most things people write. Even in this thread you took
> statements CC made where he was making fun of you, and tried to pass them off
> as if they were legitimate statements. If it's a deliberate troll technique,
> then I think it works! If it's not, then I think you need to try harder or get
> some help, because responses like your's above only make you look really,
> really, dumb.
Given cc's history, it is reasonable to assume he cannot differentiate
>>
>> No wonder you so rarely tell the truth: you do not even know that a lie is
>> something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
>>
>
> I think you're confused. Obviously from the context he was asking which of his
> statements were a lie. Do you have trouble with context? It seems like you
> totally misunderstand most things people write. Even in this thread you took
> statements CC made where he was making fun of you, and tried to pass them off
> as if they were legitimate statements. If it's a deliberate troll technique,
> then I think it works! If it's not, then I think you need to try harder or get
> some help, because responses like your's above only make you look really,
> really, dumb.
between the concepts as to what is a lie and what is not. But, as you know,
I have pointed to many of his lies.
As far as taking statements made by cc where he was making fun of me and
then trying to pass them off as something else, that is one of his lies. I
did no such thing. He repeatedly admitted that there was a drop in the data
in 2012. When called on it he tried to retcon his claims.
>>> Did the rest of the world see an increase in Linux usage? Nope.
>>
>> This is not in contention.
>>
>>> Did you originally state your prediction was only for the last part of 2011?
>>> Nope.
>>
>> This is not in contention.
>>
>>> So if you're saying there's a correlation, then it's only for the last
>>> part of 2011 and only for California.
>>
>> See: you are clueless on what you have been told. And you snip and run from
>> your mistakes:
>
> But if the above two are not in contention, then it's true that the
> correlation was only for the latter part of 2011 and only for California like
> CC says. That doesn't seem like much of a correlation, and also doesn't fit
> your original prediction at all. So it seems like your prediction was totally
> wrong. What am I missing?
data in CA. This does not change the fact that the correlation fit the
whole data set.
What it does do is very strongly weaken my claim of cause and effect.
Correlations and cause-and-effects are not the same. The only ones who
confuse these concepts as you just did are cc and Carroll - and thus I
suspect your posts are being forged by one of them. Given the style of the
writing I would guess Carroll, but I have no proof.
>> 1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
>> were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
>> definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
>> such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".
>
> I found plenty of calculators online to find outliers. All of them said the
> data had outliers in them, and all of them had pretty much the same outliers.
> What way to find outliers did you use came up with no outliers as a result?
even appropriate for most of these calculators, and since different
calculators disagree on which points, if any, are outliers, then his claim
that it is a "fact" that some set of specific points are outliers is
completely absurd. It has been proved wrong.
>> 2) You made a rather silly claim to say that 17% of the data are
>> "outliers" - especially when those data are in a direct series
>> tied to a *very* clear trend that includes 25% of the data.
>
> Can outliers not be in a direct series? I thought outliers were random
> occurances, or at least not predictable. You can flip a coin a thousand times
> and have heads come up. That doesn't mean it's a pattern. I didn't see
> anything online where there had to be only a certain percentage of outliers,
> and no more. Also, I think 17% is the wrong figure, looking at the data you
> put up from 2007. It's more like 7% I think.
corrupt to be of value. In any case, the 17% is in reference to the original
data set cc asked me to use, not the one he claims to have run to when he
realized how absurd his claims were (the data set he was never able to
produce).
>> 3) Outliers are atypical - you clearly are stretching to call 17%
>> of the data, which occurs in a clear pattern, "atypical" to the
>> data. Tied to the top 3: <http://tinyurl.com/7hymgfg>. Makes
>> it very clear just how clueless cc is.
>
> I think you're seeing a pattern where none exists. See my comment about the
> coin flip above. Again, I really doubt it is 17%, and I believe cc posted in
> another thread it was more like 6%, which I also think is wrong. It was 7-8% I
> believe depending on which online outlier calculator you used.
cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----
But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
-----
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
you did not.
-----
Your new trendline uses data made up of mostly outliers,
evidenced by all standard measurements of outliers and the
fact that a single state caused the fluctuation.
-----
Now looking at different outlier calculators:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
It is 0% using the Median() and array formula from:
<http://tinyurl.com/7fqxztv>. This is true at when you use a Z-Score
Tolerance of 3.5 (the norm), and also all the way down to 2. Even at a
tolerance of 1.5 there is only one outlier that is detected, and that is in
Jan of 2012, not in the "latter half of 2011" as cc claimed... and certainly
not four from the latter half... and *none* from "late 2007, early 2008".
At a tolerance of 1 (and here we are getting far from the norm of 3.5!), you
still only have four points which are found to be outliers: 2 (not 4) from
the "latter half of 2011" and only one from "late 2007" and none from "early
2008". By the way, if you want the Excel spreadsheet I used I have made it
available: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>. Unlike
cc I am very open with how I calculate these things. He is not because he
just makes things up.
So let us look at Grubbs: <http://tinyurl.com/832dvjz>:
Only one outlier, and it is at the start of 2012, not in the "latter half of
2011" as cc claimed... and certainly not four from the latter half... and
*none* from "late 2007, early 2008".
On the same link we have the Quartile method: and it finds 3 outliers. Two
are from the "latter half of 2011" (not four, as cc claimed), and none are
from "late 2007, early 2008"... and one is from 2012 - a time period cc
never mentioned in his claims about where he found outliers.
And yet cc went on and on about how he found these - but he never has been
specific as to his method and none of the calculators nor methods I have
tried have replicated his claimed findings... findings he cannot show.
Worse for him, he behaves like his findings are a foregone conclusion - and
that has been completely trounced. He is flat out wrong. He is completely
clueless on the topic.
>> 4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the
>> correlation coefficient even though it is unwise to do so at
>> the expense of a focus on the visual graphs / visible trends.
>
> Your eyes can lie. Why wouldn't an exact calculation be important?
*none*... and the data itself does not approximate a normal distribution and
is not linear... this the calculations we are discussing are of limited
value anyway.
> All of the correlation results I find online have a coefficient. Is there are
> a reason you shouldn't calculate a correlation coefficient? I'm confused, I
> thought that was standard procedure.
been shown, is not a "standard" operation with one accepted method and one
accepted result. It is not a "fact" as he claimed.
The linear trend line itself is a poor tool to use, given the non-linear
nature of the data.
> Why would someone place a greater deal of focus on the inexact and potentially
> wrong method of looking at a graph, instead of getting a numerical result? You
> think people should place a greater focus on estimation at the expense of
> exact results?
> I've seen your graph of Linux usage, and data set. It's been very helpful
> verifying what CC said.
How so? What claim?
> verifying what CC said.
> But I haven't seen your graph correlating Linux usage with an increased focus
> in usability. Do you have that graph? It would be hard to focus on the visual
> graphs/visible trends if you don't even have anything visible to show! Thanks.
cause-and-effect I spoke of, and my prediction was vague... it is not like I
had a predictive graph and can show some numerical calculation which shows
how well it correlated to the actual data.
What I did was made a vague prediction about an increase and gave a reason
for my prediction. The data correlated with that prediction (during the
increase... though frankly that was more of an increase than I expected,
again, my predictions were vague). It has now been shown (by bbgruff) that
the increase was localized to a small region... so not only does the data
from 2012 go against my predictions, the data from the latter half of 2011
does not fit them well, either. This has been established and discussed and
is not in contention.
So given that what graph are you looking for? Your question shows a level
of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
either one is possible and neither is proved).
>> 5) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly
>> drawn based on the distance from the mean to the inflection
>> points.
>
> Reading over his posts, I don't see where he did that.
-----
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.
------
I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the
second derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the
sigma lines are in your supposed incorrect examples. Funny
how you're now questioning the applications used to generate
those graphs! Face it, you're wrong.
------
His denials were repeated and strong. He insisted it was based on the
percentage under the curve and *not* the distance from the mean to
*anything*.
> He said there is no exact numerical distance, and he also said they are at the
> inflection points. So again, I wonder if you have some sort of problem
> reading? I think you're confused on this. Look at the links you posted, it's
> obvious that many are not normal distributions, so the inflection point isn't
> meaningful.
distance was to some feature of the curve and not in inches or centimeters
or the like. He kept making his claims. He was completely ignorant of this
- and he knows it, hence the reason he repeatedly runs.
>> 6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
>> you were, in fact, poorly done. They were unambiguously wrong.
>
> You said all the links you posted were examples of incorrect placement of
> standard deviation lines. CC claims many were done with MatLab. Looking
> online, that looks to be the case. So how could they be poorly done if they
> were in MatLab? Why is MatLab poorly done software?
completely failed to find a single example.
But here is the rub: say he does find one. It is *possible* I was mistaken
and I would admit to it if it were to be shown. Unlike cc I am honest.
Now look at cc's claims above. His first:
cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Was in reference to this image:
<http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
Once you know to look for the inflection points it is *clearly* an incorrect
depiction. There is no doubt cc was wrong. He will, however, never admit
to it. He simply runs.
>> 7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
>> linear trend line in Excel. I did no such thing (and you
>> never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
>> linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
>> would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)
>
> I read his comments, and he said he followed MS directions. So you're lying
> here. Why lie? You admitted you never checked for outliers, and let them screw
> up your data. So perhaps that's your missing step?
directions then please state what steps: <http://tinyurl.com/25x2dvn>
I did use the right-click method of getting to the tools and not the Ribbon
- but that is not a "missing step" it is merely using a different method to
get to the same tools.
The claim I missed steps is an out and out lie. It has been completely
disproved.
>> 8) You were 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.
>
> In the thread you reference, he admits he was wrong to say you were predicting
> a causation.
he did so I will happily accept his admission and note this point has been
"handled" by him.
> So yes, he was wrong and he admits it. What is the problem with
> that? I don't see you admitting you were wrong about your prediction.
proved wrong.
As far as my admissions about errors, see above and many other posts. I do
not hide nor deny my errors.
>> 9) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to
>> your claimed views.
>
> I already found many spots where he already answered these questions.
then quote or link. An empty claim is meaningless... and that is all you
have there. Very much like cc and Carroll. Gee, not saying your ID is
being forged, just noting all data points to that conclusion. :)
>> These things are *not* in contention either. Hence why you snip and run.
>>
>>> That's pretty far from your original statement.
>>
>> One: your lies are very different than my statements. That is not in
>> contention.
>>
>> Two: as we get new data I alter my views... as is the rational and honest
>> thing to do. This is what you are incapable of doing... to the point that
>> you see it as a bad thing when I do it. Yes: you think it is *bad* that I
>> alter my views based on new data.
>
> But your views were wrong at the time, with no new data!
> And there was no new data when CC posted the info claiming you were wrong.
> You were saying you were right, up until yesterday. So when you were told you
> were wrong with old data, you said you were right. When you were shown you
> were wrong with new data, you still said you were right. In another post you
> said you were willing to admit when you are wrong. Well will you finally admit
> it? I doubt it.
something then say what! If you can show I was wrong, or if I can, I will
admit to it. It is what I do.
I am not like cc and Carroll.
>>> But hey, if your tiny brain in your fat head somehow sees that as being
>>> "right" then what can I do?
>>
>> You do realize that you have made it clear you know you are lying, right?
>>
>> I keep asking you that and you keep running. You hate knowing how obvious
>> your lies are.
>
> I found where CC answers all the questions you said he was running from.
otherwise.
> I verified all the answers he gave as best I could. In the end, his statements
> match up perfectly to the real world results, and show the prediction you made
> was incorrect. So what is he lying about?
massive amounts of counters to his claims.
> Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't.
> Did CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your
> trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did.
Now we can remove some data points from the early and late dates - the ones
which some method show as outliers, but the trend line will still be clearly
an upward one. Of course, as I have noted, this is not linear data so the
predictive value, esp. in the short term, is pretty much useless. Over the
long run, though, it does suggest the trend will continue upward.
Also keep in mind that the later data
> Did California skew the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which
> points were skewed using outliers?
> Yes, he did.
I would love to see your support for this.
> Did correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? No, you
> didn't.
> You even claimed there were no outliers at all.
outliers, if any, is largely subjective and can be based on any number of
methods. I have shown where at least some of these methods show no
outliers, but others do show some (though none that I find match what cc
claimed to find - and he has not been able to produce, say, an Excel
spreadsheet he claimed he used to calculate these things). There is no
reason to think such a spreadsheet even exists... but if it does he is
welcome to email it to me and I will post it for him. He has emailed me in
the past and I have no problem with him doing this so he can support his
claims. He can then look at the link and make sure I have not modified it
in any way (he can even password protect it if he wishes).
> So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire time and
> his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world results. Why are
> you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
it was fun to read your forgery and refute your claims. :)
>> --
>> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
>> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
>> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
>> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
>
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 1:45:57 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/12 10:36 AM, in article CC133598.434B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
OK, I suspected you were being forged... now it is certain. My guess - and
it is just a guess - is that it is being done by Carroll... the writing
style is much more like his than like cc's... and even though you are
presenting yourself as a dolt, you are showing a level of reasoning and
intelligence that cc does not possess.
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Your question shows a level
> of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
> to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
> either one is possible and neither is proved).
I also notice your email has changed from gmail to hotmail.
> Your question shows a level
> of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
> to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
> either one is possible and neither is proved).
OK, I suspected you were being forged... now it is certain. My guess - and
it is just a guess - is that it is being done by Carroll... the writing
style is much more like his than like cc's... and even though you are
presenting yourself as a dolt, you are showing a level of reasoning and
intelligence that cc does not possess.
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 3:49:47 PM6/29/12
to
There has been some debate over the long term trend of desktop Linux usage.
At first I was asked to look at 24 months of data (claiming 12 months was
"arbitrary"). So I did. And the trend line went up. I did not account for
mathematical outliers, though, so this was deemed irrelevant. I complied
with the request to account for outlier and found some using different
methods (there is no one standard way, and for non-normal data the standard
methods are not ideal, but I was told the data was close enough to normal
for this to be OK... for the sake of this post I will accept that, though I
really would like to see evidence). But I digress, a couple of outlier
tests:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
This shows the Grubbs method and the Quartile method. Neither matches the
claims I was told had been found (including with the use of Grubbs as one of
the methods... but no work other than mine was ever shown).
I also used the median and array method:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
At the standard Z-Score Tolerance of 3.5 it finds no outliers, but when you
take it to an extreme and use a Tolerance of 1 it finds 4 outliers... and
while they do not match what I was told was to be expected, they are as
close as any of the methods.... and it finds the most. So I went with
that...
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
Page 1: Showing those four being removed
Page 2: Showing the trend line with them removed. *Clearly* upward.
Page 3: Repeating the same method - finding one more outlier. Even
more importantly, though, I removed the data that has been
shown to be largely localized to CA and this has been deemed
anomalous *even though the mathematical models do not show
it as such* (this is very contrary to the claims I had been
told - no wonder he never showed his work!)
Page 4: Even with all of *that* data removed, the trend line is
*still* clearly moving upward, though the data is also
not linear (if it was the R^2 value would be better and the
fit would be better).
Also consider that while the affect is likely small, the data does not
account for the fact the overall part of the "pie" that desktop systems
(including laptops) in general have been holding has reduced over time
(given the growth of mobile devices). This would make the up slope
*slightly* higher, but I suspect it is not much of a statistical difference.
But there we have it: with mathematical outliers removed with a rather
extreme process and also data known to be anomalous even outside of the
mathematical calculations being removed, the trend for desktop Linux has
been, overall, upward. Granted, this upward trend is slight... but there
*is* an upward trend.
I think this is excellent to see. I think as the open source community
matures and is able to produce better systems (largely systems which act
more as consistent systems *and* have a better selection of software) we
will see this trend continue to go up.
At first I was asked to look at 24 months of data (claiming 12 months was
"arbitrary"). So I did. And the trend line went up. I did not account for
mathematical outliers, though, so this was deemed irrelevant. I complied
with the request to account for outlier and found some using different
methods (there is no one standard way, and for non-normal data the standard
methods are not ideal, but I was told the data was close enough to normal
for this to be OK... for the sake of this post I will accept that, though I
really would like to see evidence). But I digress, a couple of outlier
tests:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
This shows the Grubbs method and the Quartile method. Neither matches the
claims I was told had been found (including with the use of Grubbs as one of
the methods... but no work other than mine was ever shown).
I also used the median and array method:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
At the standard Z-Score Tolerance of 3.5 it finds no outliers, but when you
take it to an extreme and use a Tolerance of 1 it finds 4 outliers... and
while they do not match what I was told was to be expected, they are as
close as any of the methods.... and it finds the most. So I went with
that...
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
Page 1: Showing those four being removed
Page 2: Showing the trend line with them removed. *Clearly* upward.
Page 3: Repeating the same method - finding one more outlier. Even
more importantly, though, I removed the data that has been
shown to be largely localized to CA and this has been deemed
anomalous *even though the mathematical models do not show
it as such* (this is very contrary to the claims I had been
told - no wonder he never showed his work!)
Page 4: Even with all of *that* data removed, the trend line is
*still* clearly moving upward, though the data is also
not linear (if it was the R^2 value would be better and the
fit would be better).
Also consider that while the affect is likely small, the data does not
account for the fact the overall part of the "pie" that desktop systems
(including laptops) in general have been holding has reduced over time
(given the growth of mobile devices). This would make the up slope
*slightly* higher, but I suspect it is not much of a statistical difference.
But there we have it: with mathematical outliers removed with a rather
extreme process and also data known to be anomalous even outside of the
mathematical calculations being removed, the trend for desktop Linux has
been, overall, upward. Granted, this upward trend is slight... but there
*is* an upward trend.
I think this is excellent to see. I think as the open source community
matures and is able to produce better systems (largely systems which act
more as consistent systems *and* have a better selection of software) we
will see this trend continue to go up.
Big Steel
Jun 29, 2012, 3:59:13 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
<snipped>
.9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
not saying much. Just sayin....
<snipped>
.9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
not saying much. Just sayin....
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 4:11:16 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/12 12:59 PM, in article
oNadnQcCR_OBlHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
No, it is not increasing much... but even with going to some pretty heavy
extremes to get rid of mathematical outliers *and* removing some data we
found to be largely local to CA that was not found by the mathematical
process, the trend is still upward. See page 4 here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
oNadnQcCR_OBlHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
extremes to get rid of mathematical outliers *and* removing some data we
found to be largely local to CA that was not found by the mathematical
process, the trend is still upward. See page 4 here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
Big Steel
Jun 29, 2012, 4:18:25 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/2012 4:11 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/29/12 12:59 PM, in article
> oNadnQcCR_OBlHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>
>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>
> No, it is not increasing much... but even with going to some pretty heavy
> extremes to get rid of mathematical outliers *and* removing some data we
> found to be largely local to CA that was not found by the mathematical
> process, the trend is still upward. See page 4 here:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
>
>
Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
> On 6/29/12 12:59 PM, in article
> oNadnQcCR_OBlHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>
>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>
> No, it is not increasing much... but even with going to some pretty heavy
> extremes to get rid of mathematical outliers *and* removing some data we
> found to be largely local to CA that was not found by the mathematical
> process, the trend is still upward. See page 4 here:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
>
>
around.
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 4:28:59 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
*if* the open source community can gets its act together.
And I also think with the inclusion of ChromOS and other non-traditional
desktop Linux variants coming out, this gives desktop Linux a good chance to
make a "showing"... though in the web-kiosk niche, mostly. For the
traditional desktop we are still a far way away from seeing it be a serious
competitor to Windows and OS X.
Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
<YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/2012 4:11 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 12:59 PM, in article
>> oNadnQcCR_OBlHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>>
>>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>>
>> No, it is not increasing much... but even with going to some pretty heavy
>> extremes to get rid of mathematical outliers *and* removing some data we
>> found to be largely local to CA that was not found by the mathematical
>> process, the trend is still upward. See page 4 here:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
>
> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
> around.
Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
> On 6/29/2012 4:11 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 12:59 PM, in article
>> oNadnQcCR_OBlHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>>
>>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>>
>> No, it is not increasing much... but even with going to some pretty heavy
>> extremes to get rid of mathematical outliers *and* removing some data we
>> found to be largely local to CA that was not found by the mathematical
>> process, the trend is still upward. See page 4 here:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
>
> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
> around.
*if* the open source community can gets its act together.
And I also think with the inclusion of ChromOS and other non-traditional
desktop Linux variants coming out, this gives desktop Linux a good chance to
make a "showing"... though in the web-kiosk niche, mostly. For the
traditional desktop we are still a far way away from seeing it be a serious
competitor to Windows and OS X.
Foster
Jun 29, 2012, 4:40:28 PM6/29/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>> around.
>
> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>> around.
>
> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
system.
Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
Nobody
Jun 29, 2012, 6:48:25 PM6/29/12
to
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 8:36:53 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/12 1:40 PM, in article 1i9qvhfa6y8je.i...@40tude.net,
I would not be surprised if the "solution" is to give up on the KDE / Gnome
split which is possibly causing more harm than good to the desktop Linux
systems.
split which is possibly causing more harm than good to the desktop Linux
systems.
Snit
Jun 29, 2012, 8:46:30 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
setting up networked devices.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
-----
I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
-----
Even though he was shown video proof of how easy the competition is, he
*could not* believe it. The link to the video is above, but here it is for
convenience:
<http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
The competition even handles updates to the software as needed (both the
initial installation when you point it to the device and later updates).
The only think not shown is that you have to sometimes select the menu once
to have the computer find the networked devices and then go to it again to
do as I show in the video.
Again: JEDIDIAH is so used to an inferior experience that he *literally*
could not believe it. Even though he was shown video *proof* of how easy
the competition is, he could not wrap his mind about it.
JEDIDIAH, a Linux "advocate" went out of his way to show how far behind the
times desktop Linux is, at least in this area.
And, really, even for a web kiosk, being able to print and scan and
otherwise use devices is important. Even as a web kiosk Linux would be
significantly behind in this area.
For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
setting up networked devices.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
-----
I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
-----
Even though he was shown video proof of how easy the competition is, he
*could not* believe it. The link to the video is above, but here it is for
convenience:
<http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
The competition even handles updates to the software as needed (both the
initial installation when you point it to the device and later updates).
The only think not shown is that you have to sometimes select the menu once
to have the computer find the networked devices and then go to it again to
do as I show in the video.
Again: JEDIDIAH is so used to an inferior experience that he *literally*
could not believe it. Even though he was shown video *proof* of how easy
the competition is, he could not wrap his mind about it.
JEDIDIAH, a Linux "advocate" went out of his way to show how far behind the
times desktop Linux is, at least in this area.
And, really, even for a web kiosk, being able to print and scan and
otherwise use devices is important. Even as a web kiosk Linux would be
significantly behind in this area.
Onion Knight
Jun 30, 2012, 12:41:05 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 5:10 am, Onion Knight <onionknight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The post I am responding to is a forgery from Steve Carroll. This
explains Steve Carroll's disappearance from the discussion. He often
does that to distance himself from his forgeries. There is no doubt
that Steve Carroll is forged my name. He is pissed that I called him
out on his screwing around on his wife with his girlfriend who lives
around the corner.
Poor baby Steve. He does not want his wife to know what he publicly
posts to the internet so he resorts to forging IDs again. He has done
this many times.
The post I am responding to is a forgery from Steve Carroll. This
explains Steve Carroll's disappearance from the discussion. He often
does that to distance himself from his forgeries. There is no doubt
that Steve Carroll is forged my name. He is pissed that I called him
out on his screwing around on his wife with his girlfriend who lives
around the corner.
Poor baby Steve. He does not want his wife to know what he publicly
posts to the internet so he resorts to forging IDs again. He has done
this many times.
Onion Knight
Jun 30, 2012, 12:57:18 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 10:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
> e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
You have already shown you know this post was a forgery by Steve
> On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
> e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
CCarroll.
> <onionknight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> What is a lie?
>
> >> No wonder you so rarely tell the truth: you do not even know that a lie is
> >> something you knowingly tell which is contrary to the truth.
>
> > I think you're confused. Obviously from the context he was asking which of his
> > statements were a lie. Do you have trouble with context? It seems like you
> > totally misunderstand most things people write. Even in this thread you took
> > statements CC made where he was making fun of you, and tried to pass them off
> > as if they were legitimate statements. If it's a deliberate troll technique,
> > then I think it works! If it's not, then I think you need to try harder or get
> > some help, because responses like your's above only make you look really,
> > really, dumb.
>
> Given cc's history, it is reasonable to assume he cannot differentiate
> between the concepts as to what is a lie and what is not. But, as you know,
> I have pointed to many of his lies.
>
> As far as taking statements made by cc where he was making fun of me and
> then trying to pass them off as something else, that is one of his lies. I
> did no such thing. He repeatedly admitted that there was a drop in the data
> in 2012. When called on it he tried to retcon his claims.
proof that it is Steve CCarroll who is forging my posts.
> >>> Did the rest of the world see an increase in Linux usage? Nope.
>
> >> This is not in contention.
>
> >>> Did you originally state your prediction was only for the last part of 2011?
> >>> Nope.
>
> >> This is not in contention.
>
> >>> So if you're saying there's a correlation, then it's only for the last
> >>> part of 2011 and only for California.
>
> >> See: you are clueless on what you have been told. And you snip and run from
> >> your mistakes:
>
> > But if the above two are not in contention, then it's true that the
> > correlation was only for the latter part of 2011 and only for California like
> > CC says. That doesn't seem like much of a correlation, and also doesn't fit
> > your original prediction at all. So it seems like your prediction was totally
> > wrong. What am I missing?
>
> The correlation fit the full data set. Now we know that this came from some
> data in CA. This does not change the fact that the correlation fit the
> whole data set.
>
> What it does do is very strongly weaken my claim of cause and effect.
> Correlations and cause-and-effects are not the same. The only ones who
> confuse these concepts as you just did are cc and Carroll - and thus I
> suspect your posts are being forged by one of them. Given the style of the
> writing I would guess Carroll, but I have no proof.
Carroll. I think CC is Carroll trying to speak differently but there
are too many similarities.
> >> 1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
> >> were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
> >> definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
> >> such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".
>
> > I found plenty of calculators online to find outliers. All of them said the
> > data had outliers in them, and all of them had pretty much the same outliers.
> > What way to find outliers did you use came up with no outliers as a result?
>
> Some calculators find some. Some do not. But since the distribution is not
> even appropriate for most of these calculators, and since different
> calculators disagree on which points, if any, are outliers, then his claim
> that it is a "fact" that some set of specific points are outliers is
> completely absurd. It has been proved wrong.
to be able to repeat Steve CCarroll's claims about the four outliers.
Here is the discussion https://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.stat.spss/browse_frm/thread/a97bb20b7ad7daab#
of Steve CCarroll's crap? He can't handle it when you shove his own
words back at him and then rip him apart so badly. It does make for an
entertaining show to see how fucked up he will get. In this case he
has again resorted to forging IDs. He can't handle being proved wrong.
> So given that what graph are you looking for? Your question shows a level
> of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
> to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
> either one is possible and neither is proved).
Only the two of them could get things so wrong so often and in the
exact same ways.
> >> 6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
> >> you were, in fact, poorly done. They were unambiguously wrong.
>
> > You said all the links you posted were examples of incorrect placement of
> > standard deviation lines. CC claims many were done with MatLab. Looking
> > online, that looks to be the case. So how could they be poorly done if they
> > were in MatLab? Why is MatLab poorly done software?
>
> Please show the examples I stated were bad that were not. So far cc has
> completely failed to find a single example.
>
> But here is the rub: say he does find one. It is *possible* I was mistaken
> and I would admit to it if it were to be shown. Unlike cc I am honest.
>
> Now look at cc's claims above. His first:
>
> cc:
> -----
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
> axis labeling.
> -----
>
> Was in reference to this image:
> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> Once you know to look for the inflection points it is *clearly* an incorrect
> depiction. There is no doubt cc was wrong. He will, however, never admit
> to it. He simply runs.
overkill mode and rip them to fucking shreds.
> >> 7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
> >> linear trend line in Excel. I did no such thing (and you
> >> never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
> >> linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
> >> would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)
>
> > I read his comments, and he said he followed MS directions. So you're lying
> > here. Why lie? You admitted you never checked for outliers, and let them screw
> > up your data. So perhaps that's your missing step?
>
> If you think I missed steps in creating a linear trend line in MS's
> directions then please state what steps: <http://tinyurl.com/25x2dvn>
>
> I did use the right-click method of getting to the tools and not the Ribbon
> - but that is not a "missing step" it is merely using a different method to
> get to the same tools.
>
> The claim I missed steps is an out and out lie. It has been completely
> disproved.
steps and it matches what MS and others suggested. This is a fact.
Steve CCarroll is lying again.
> No. Given that he has not you have not found such. If you think otherwise
> then quote or link. An empty claim is meaningless... and that is all you
> have there. Very much like cc and Carroll. Gee, not saying your ID is
> being forged, just noting all data points to that conclusion. :)
debates. He knows he has lost.
> Yawn. Not even you, cc or Carroll, believe this BS you are spewing... but
> it was fun to read your forgery and refute your claims. :)
Onion Knight
Jun 30, 2012, 12:59:34 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 10:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/12 10:36 AM, in article CC133598.434B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Your question shows a level
> > of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
> > to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
> > either one is possible and neither is proved).
>
> I also notice your email has changed from gmail to hotmail.
>
> OK, I suspected you were being forged... now it is certain. My guess - and
> it is just a guess - is that it is being done by Carroll... the writing
> style is much more like his than like cc's... and even though you are
> presenting yourself as a dolt, you are showing a level of reasoning and
> intelligence that cc does not possess.
It is Steve Carroll. He has been doing this shit for years. I still
> On 6/29/12 10:36 AM, in article CC133598.434B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Your question shows a level
> > of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
> > to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
> > either one is possible and neither is proved).
>
> I also notice your email has changed from gmail to hotmail.
>
> OK, I suspected you were being forged... now it is certain. My guess - and
> it is just a guess - is that it is being done by Carroll... the writing
> style is much more like his than like cc's... and even though you are
> presenting yourself as a dolt, you are showing a level of reasoning and
> intelligence that cc does not possess.
would not be surprised if CC was his sock. It is easy to appear less
intelligent than you are which is why CC can appear that way but still
somehow come to the same wrong conclusions as Steve.
High Plains Thumper
Jun 30, 2012, 12:59:41 AM6/30/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> The post I am responding to is a forgery from Steve Carroll. [snip]
Boring night, eh Snit?
--
HPT
> The post I am responding to is a forgery from Steve Carroll. [snip]
Boring night, eh Snit?
--
HPT
Onion Knight
Jun 30, 2012, 1:00:50 AM6/30/12
to
and not just on the stupid fighting.
High Plains Thumper
Jun 30, 2012, 1:02:34 AM6/30/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
--
HPT
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Yawn. Not even you, cc or Carroll, believe this BS you are
>> spewing... but it was fun to read your forgery and refute your
>> claims. :)
>
> I am glad you were not taken in by the forgery.
Yawn, I love it when sock puppets talk. ;->
>
>> Yawn. Not even you, cc or Carroll, believe this BS you are
>> spewing... but it was fun to read your forgery and refute your
>> claims. :)
>
> I am glad you were not taken in by the forgery.
--
HPT
Onion Knight
Jun 30, 2012, 1:22:53 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 5:46 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
When those who use Linux the most are so clueless about how far behind
the times they are it really does show there is a problem with the
system and with their perception.
> On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 06/29/2012 03:40 PM, Foster wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
> >>> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPSnZ2dnUVZ_rGdn...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 06/29/2012 03:40 PM, Foster wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
> >>> <YouCanRun111...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
> >>>> around.
>
> >>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
> >>> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>
> >> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
> >> system.
> >> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>
> > Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>
> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>
> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
> setting up networked devices.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9...>
>
> >>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
> >>>> around.
>
> >>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
> >>> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>
> >> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
> >> system.
> >> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>
> > Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>
> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>
> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
> setting up networked devices.
>
the times they are it really does show there is a problem with the
system and with their perception.
Foster
Jun 30, 2012, 8:26:41 AM6/30/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:36:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
> I would not be surprised if the "solution" is to give up on the KDE / Gnome
> split which is possibly causing more harm than good to the desktop Linux
> systems.
Logically that is a good idea however, the Linux community prefers
> I would not be surprised if the "solution" is to give up on the KDE / Gnome
> split which is possibly causing more harm than good to the desktop Linux
> systems.
"choice" and each member wants their 15 minutes of fame so I doubt
it will happen.
Foster
Jun 30, 2012, 8:36:32 AM6/30/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:46:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
> On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 03:40 PM, Foster wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
>>>> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>>>> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
>>>> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>
>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
>>> system.
>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>
>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>
>>
> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
As long as your needs are basic email, multimedia, surfing etc Linux
> On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 03:40 PM, Foster wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
>>>> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>>>> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
>>>> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>
>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
>>> system.
>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>
>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>
>>
> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
is fine.
Start trying to integrate it with portable electronic devices or in
an office running Windows or Mac and the problems start.
> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
> setting up networked devices.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>
> JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
> -----
> I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
> video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
> -----
>
> Even though he was shown video proof of how easy the competition is, he
> *could not* believe it. The link to the video is above, but here it is for
> convenience:
>
> <http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
He is still "pining" for the green screen era where his command line
skills were a mystery to most people.
Since that is no longer the case he feels bitter because he realizes
he has become obsolete.
> The competition even handles updates to the software as needed (both the
> initial installation when you point it to the device and later updates).
> The only think not shown is that you have to sometimes select the menu once
> to have the computer find the networked devices and then go to it again to
> do as I show in the video.
cable and the iMac said something like "you appear to be using
broadband, would you like this to be the default for Internet
connections? " I said yes and that was it.
Windows, well that was not so easy but that was Windows 95/98 at the
time I think.
Linux?
Couldn't make Mandriva work at all.
This is years ago.
> Again: JEDIDIAH is so used to an inferior experience that he *literally*
> could not believe it. Even though he was shown video *proof* of how easy
> the competition is, he could not wrap his mind about it.
>
> JEDIDIAH, a Linux "advocate" went out of his way to show how far behind the
> times desktop Linux is, at least in this area.
the times for the average users needs.
> And, really, even for a web kiosk, being able to print and scan and
> otherwise use devices is important. Even as a web kiosk Linux would be
> significantly behind in this area.
Keep Linux far from the consumer.
Foster
Jun 30, 2012, 8:49:21 AM6/30/12
to
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 30, 2012, 9:55:28 AM6/30/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:46:30 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was
very
> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms
of
> setting up networked devices.
And Snit once again hijacks a thread.
> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was
very
> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms
of
> setting up networked devices.
--
Via mobile
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 11:51:04 AM6/30/12
to
On 06/29/2012 07:46 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 03:40 PM, Foster wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
>>>> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>>>> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
>>>> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>
>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
>>> system.
>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>
>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>
>>
> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
> On 6/29/12 3:48 PM, in article jslbbq$e6l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 03:40 PM, Foster wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/12 1:18 PM, in article
>>>> Fr6dnSMz7-MCkHPS...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
>>>> <YouCanR...@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can increase
>>>> *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>
>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop
>>> system.
>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>
>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>
>>
> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
> It was very
> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
> setting up networked devices.
likewise found and set up my network printer for use with a few mouse
clicks. No problem sharing files or printing. If the "competition" is
any easier than that, I really don't care.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 11:55:40 AM6/30/12
to
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:07:40 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 5:49 AM, in article 133ak5dd8bn5f.r...@40tude.net,
Maybe HPT was confusing Onion Knight at gmail with Onion Knight was
Hotmail... the latter of which is almost surely a Carroll sock.
Hotmail... the latter of which is almost surely a Carroll sock.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:12:31 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 5:36 AM, in article 9sje36xfagsh.1o...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> Start trying to integrate it with portable electronic devices or in
> an office running Windows or Mac and the problems start.
The problems become more extreme then... I can accept that.
>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
>> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
>> setting up networked devices.
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>>
>> JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
>> -----
>> I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
>> video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
>> -----
>>
>> Even though he was shown video proof of how easy the competition is, he
>> *could not* believe it. The link to the video is above, but here it is for
>> convenience:
>>
>> <http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
>
> Jeb is an idiot that is very out of touch with modern computing.
> He is still "pining" for the green screen era where his command line
> skills were a mystery to most people.
>
> Since that is no longer the case he feels bitter because he realizes
> he has become obsolete.
I had not seen that as clearly before as I do now. His utter inability to
accept how easy to use a modern computer can be was just amazing.
>> The competition even handles updates to the software as needed (both the
>> initial installation when you point it to the device and later updates).
>> The only think not shown is that you have to sometimes select the menu once
>> to have the computer find the networked devices and then go to it again to
>> do as I show in the video.
>
> When I first got broadband all I did with my iMac was plug in the
> cable and the iMac said something like "you appear to be using
> broadband, would you like this to be the default for Internet
> connections? " I said yes and that was it.
I do not even recall getting a dialog... though it is possible.
> Windows, well that was not so easy but that was Windows 95/98 at the
> time I think.
>
> Linux?
>
> Couldn't make Mandriva work at all.
>
> This is years ago.
Ah, OK, so years ago I think they used to have such dialogs... now you just
plug in a network cable and it works... to be fair this is also true of many
Linux distros (though not all - you have to pick and choose what features
you want to work).
>> Again: JEDIDIAH is so used to an inferior experience that he *literally*
>> could not believe it. Even though he was shown video *proof* of how easy
>> the competition is, he could not wrap his mind about it.
>>
>> JEDIDIAH, a Linux "advocate" went out of his way to show how far behind the
>> times desktop Linux is, at least in this area.
>
> None of these Linux loons will ever admit that Linux is way behind
> the times for the average users needs.
This is shown often - this case was just more extreme than most.
>> And, really, even for a web kiosk, being able to print and scan and
>> otherwise use devices is important. Even as a web kiosk Linux would be
>> significantly behind in this area.
>
> It's fine for that.
Assuming you do not need to scan or print or the like... then it is a bit
more of a crap shoot (though printing with many printers is pretty straight
forward these days on many distros).
> Keep Linux far from the consumer.
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>
>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>
>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>
>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>
> As long as your needs are basic email, multimedia, surfing etc Linux
> is fine.
It is acceptable. It still is not as good as the competition.
>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>
>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>
>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>
>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>
> As long as your needs are basic email, multimedia, surfing etc Linux
> is fine.
> Start trying to integrate it with portable electronic devices or in
> an office running Windows or Mac and the problems start.
>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case. It was very
>> telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in terms of
>> setting up networked devices.
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>>
>> JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
>> -----
>> I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
>> video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
>> -----
>>
>> Even though he was shown video proof of how easy the competition is, he
>> *could not* believe it. The link to the video is above, but here it is for
>> convenience:
>>
>> <http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
>
> Jeb is an idiot that is very out of touch with modern computing.
> He is still "pining" for the green screen era where his command line
> skills were a mystery to most people.
>
> Since that is no longer the case he feels bitter because he realizes
> he has become obsolete.
accept how easy to use a modern computer can be was just amazing.
>> The competition even handles updates to the software as needed (both the
>> initial installation when you point it to the device and later updates).
>> The only think not shown is that you have to sometimes select the menu once
>> to have the computer find the networked devices and then go to it again to
>> do as I show in the video.
>
> When I first got broadband all I did with my iMac was plug in the
> cable and the iMac said something like "you appear to be using
> broadband, would you like this to be the default for Internet
> connections? " I said yes and that was it.
> Windows, well that was not so easy but that was Windows 95/98 at the
> time I think.
>
> Linux?
>
> Couldn't make Mandriva work at all.
>
> This is years ago.
plug in a network cable and it works... to be fair this is also true of many
Linux distros (though not all - you have to pick and choose what features
you want to work).
>> Again: JEDIDIAH is so used to an inferior experience that he *literally*
>> could not believe it. Even though he was shown video *proof* of how easy
>> the competition is, he could not wrap his mind about it.
>>
>> JEDIDIAH, a Linux "advocate" went out of his way to show how far behind the
>> times desktop Linux is, at least in this area.
>
> None of these Linux loons will ever admit that Linux is way behind
> the times for the average users needs.
>> And, really, even for a web kiosk, being able to print and scan and
>> otherwise use devices is important. Even as a web kiosk Linux would be
>> significantly behind in this area.
>
> It's fine for that.
more of a crap shoot (though printing with many printers is pretty straight
forward these days on many distros).
> Keep Linux far from the consumer.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:14:18 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 5:26 AM, in article h606ti4evfij.1n...@40tude.net,
But if Google or some other company with some level of connection with the
consumer were to modify Android to work well on the desktop and just sell it
as "Android Desktop" or the like, I can see that gaining popularity. The
average consumer would not associate it with Linux... just as the average
consumer does not associate OS X or Macs with Darwin (nor is there any
reason for them to).
Then there would be a desktop Linux that might actually compete well with
the competition.
consumer were to modify Android to work well on the desktop and just sell it
as "Android Desktop" or the like, I can see that gaining popularity. The
average consumer would not associate it with Linux... just as the average
consumer does not associate OS X or Macs with Darwin (nor is there any
reason for them to).
Then there would be a desktop Linux that might actually compete well with
the competition.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:33:54 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
on par with the competition.
>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>
> That doesn't describe what Ubuntu is for.
Correct. But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market. I think ChromeOS
might... it is pretty much a web kiosk. Google was smart to do that.
>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>
> Sure it is.
I would love to see support of this. Consider JEDIDIAH and his complete
inability to accept how easy modern computing can be even when he was shown
video *proof* of the process. Now this was just one task (scanning from a
network device) but I think it is indicative of many areas of desktop Linux.
>> It was very telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in
>> terms of setting up networked devices.
>
> Ubuntu attached to my Windows network with just a few mouse clicks, and
> likewise found and set up my network printer for use with a few mouse
> clicks. No problem sharing files or printing. If the "competition" is
> any easier than that, I really don't care.
You snipped a lot. Do you think JEDIDIAH was just being an idiot to deny
how easy things were on the competition? I would also like to see evidence
of how easy it is to set up a network scanner on Ubuntu.
Here is the info on the Apple site for using a networked scanning device:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
-----
How to connect to a network shared scanner
Preview and other applications
1. Open Preview from your Dock or the Applications folder.
2. First enable Networked devices. Choose File > Import from
Scanner > Include Networked Devices.
3. Select your scanner. Choose File > Import from Scanner >
(your scanner under "Network Devices").
-----
Three steps... the first to open an application you want to scan into. On
the same page it does note you can use a variety of applications (Image
Capture, Preview, Print & Fax preferences in System Preferences, Scanner /
Printer queue, and Some third-party applications).
All pretty easy. And there are many third party apps where this works - I
can show some examples if you like. Now compare that to what the Ubuntu
communality says about scanning from a network device:
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
-----
Sharing a Scanner Over a Network
There are two common configurations for using a scanner over
a network:
A computer has a scanner connected to it and shares it over
the network.
The scanner is connected directly to the network.
Server-side setup
Note: This assumes your scanner is installed and working on
the server computer (the computer to which the scanner is
physically attached). If possible, first test that it works
on that local machine before attempting to share it over the
network.
In this configuration, one computer has a scanner connected
by USB or parallel port and wishes to share it with others on
the network. The computer with the scanner is called the
server and a computer on the network wishing to scan is the
client. Both computers need to have sane installed (sudo
apt-get install sane). As saned does not automatically detect
a scanner that is shared by a remote computer you will need
to set up both the server and the client.
There are four steps in setting the server.
1, Tell it to run sane as a server (daemon, service)
2. Set the subnet where to share the scanner.
3. On distributions older that 10.10, set inet (or xinet) to
listen on the appropriate port (This is optional, saned
can be setup to be running continuously)
4. Make sane run at start up
Sane as a server
Set sane to run as a server, ie expect connections Edit
/etc/default/saned to read:
# Set to yes to start saned
RUN=yes
You must be root to edit this file (hint, use sudo)
Share with
Set the subnet that will be able to see the scanner Edit
/etc/sane.d/saned.conf to share the printer on your subnet:
192.168.1.0/24
Make sure it is in your range of IPs. It hit me bad when I
mis-configured it for 192.168.0.0 when I meant 192.168.1.0!
The /24 means to share with everybody in xxx.xxx.xxx.0 to
255.
User setup
In some cases, correct permissions needs to be set. E.g. for
HP DesignJet 2050 All-in-one device, the saned user has to be
inserted into lp group. To do that, type
sudo adduser saned lp
To verify the saned user has the correct permissions to
access the scaner device, run the following commands:
sudo -s
su -s /bin/bash saned
scanimage -L
As a result, you should see a device identified, e.g.
device
`hpaio:/usb/Deskjet_3050_J610_series?serial=
CN0CQ3B1DH05HX' is a Hewlett-Packard
Deskjet_3050_J610_series all-in-one
Set (x)inetd
Only needed for 10.04 and previous distributions. You don't
need this step if running 10.10, jump to step four.
Edit /etc/inetd.conf by adding the following line:
sane-port stream tcp nowait saned.saned /usr/sbin/saned
saned
Note: that an inetd server need not be installed.
Or, if you are using xinetd, create a file called
/etc/xinetd.d/saned and enter the following in the file:
service saned
{
socket_type = stream
server = /usr/sbin/saned
protocol = tcp
user = saned
group = scanner
wait = no
disable = no
}
Note: The saned value (last word on the inet configuration or
in the user line in the xinetd configuration) is the name of
the user running the server. You can get it form the
RUN_AS_USER= line on the /etc/default/saned file
restart inetd or xinetd by
sudo /etc/init.d/(x)inetd restart
Run at start-up
Restart saned by (10.10)
sudo service saned restart
or (10.04 and previous)
sudo /etc/init.d/saned restart
One user writes that a reboot is necessary. Not my experience
(with 10.10) but YMMV.
To configure the Sane daemon to start automatically at boot
up run:
sudo update-rc.d saned defaults
LAN-based scanners
The scanner is connected directly to the network without an
intermediary computer.
HP All-in-One devices
1. Ensure the device is connected to the network and can be
pinged.
1. Ensure hplip is installed:
$ sudo apt-get install hplip
Run the hp-setup wizard which installs printer, scanner, and
any other features.
$ sudo hp-setup
For Connection Type choose "Network/Ethernet..."
If the device is not detected, click "Show advanced options",
tick "Manual discovery" and supply the scanner's IP address.
Check the scanner is now recognized:
$ scanimage -L
For more details, see HpAllInOne.
Client-side Setup
From the client, all you need to do is add server name or IP
address of the scanner server to /etc/sane.d/net.conf:
192.168.1.100
Now run xsane and it should pick up the new network scanner.
-----
That is just insane. And the sad part is the page starts with the warning:
-----
Needs Expansion: This article is incomplete, and needs to be
expanded. More info...
-----
The following is *incomplete*! But you say this is good enough for you.
Quite telling.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>
>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>
>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>
> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>
>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>
>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>
> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
on par with the competition.
>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>
> That doesn't describe what Ubuntu is for.
might... it is pretty much a web kiosk. Google was smart to do that.
>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>
> Sure it is.
inability to accept how easy modern computing can be even when he was shown
video *proof* of the process. Now this was just one task (scanning from a
network device) but I think it is indicative of many areas of desktop Linux.
>> It was very telling when I showed JEDIDIAH how easy the competition is in
>> terms of setting up networked devices.
>
> Ubuntu attached to my Windows network with just a few mouse clicks, and
> likewise found and set up my network printer for use with a few mouse
> clicks. No problem sharing files or printing. If the "competition" is
> any easier than that, I really don't care.
how easy things were on the competition? I would also like to see evidence
of how easy it is to set up a network scanner on Ubuntu.
Here is the info on the Apple site for using a networked scanning device:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
-----
How to connect to a network shared scanner
Preview and other applications
1. Open Preview from your Dock or the Applications folder.
2. First enable Networked devices. Choose File > Import from
Scanner > Include Networked Devices.
3. Select your scanner. Choose File > Import from Scanner >
(your scanner under "Network Devices").
-----
Three steps... the first to open an application you want to scan into. On
the same page it does note you can use a variety of applications (Image
Capture, Preview, Print & Fax preferences in System Preferences, Scanner /
Printer queue, and Some third-party applications).
All pretty easy. And there are many third party apps where this works - I
can show some examples if you like. Now compare that to what the Ubuntu
communality says about scanning from a network device:
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
-----
Sharing a Scanner Over a Network
There are two common configurations for using a scanner over
a network:
A computer has a scanner connected to it and shares it over
the network.
The scanner is connected directly to the network.
Server-side setup
Note: This assumes your scanner is installed and working on
the server computer (the computer to which the scanner is
physically attached). If possible, first test that it works
on that local machine before attempting to share it over the
network.
In this configuration, one computer has a scanner connected
by USB or parallel port and wishes to share it with others on
the network. The computer with the scanner is called the
server and a computer on the network wishing to scan is the
client. Both computers need to have sane installed (sudo
apt-get install sane). As saned does not automatically detect
a scanner that is shared by a remote computer you will need
to set up both the server and the client.
There are four steps in setting the server.
1, Tell it to run sane as a server (daemon, service)
2. Set the subnet where to share the scanner.
3. On distributions older that 10.10, set inet (or xinet) to
listen on the appropriate port (This is optional, saned
can be setup to be running continuously)
4. Make sane run at start up
Sane as a server
Set sane to run as a server, ie expect connections Edit
/etc/default/saned to read:
# Set to yes to start saned
RUN=yes
You must be root to edit this file (hint, use sudo)
Share with
Set the subnet that will be able to see the scanner Edit
/etc/sane.d/saned.conf to share the printer on your subnet:
192.168.1.0/24
Make sure it is in your range of IPs. It hit me bad when I
mis-configured it for 192.168.0.0 when I meant 192.168.1.0!
The /24 means to share with everybody in xxx.xxx.xxx.0 to
255.
User setup
In some cases, correct permissions needs to be set. E.g. for
HP DesignJet 2050 All-in-one device, the saned user has to be
inserted into lp group. To do that, type
sudo adduser saned lp
To verify the saned user has the correct permissions to
access the scaner device, run the following commands:
sudo -s
su -s /bin/bash saned
scanimage -L
As a result, you should see a device identified, e.g.
device
`hpaio:/usb/Deskjet_3050_J610_series?serial=
CN0CQ3B1DH05HX' is a Hewlett-Packard
Deskjet_3050_J610_series all-in-one
Set (x)inetd
Only needed for 10.04 and previous distributions. You don't
need this step if running 10.10, jump to step four.
Edit /etc/inetd.conf by adding the following line:
sane-port stream tcp nowait saned.saned /usr/sbin/saned
saned
Note: that an inetd server need not be installed.
Or, if you are using xinetd, create a file called
/etc/xinetd.d/saned and enter the following in the file:
service saned
{
socket_type = stream
server = /usr/sbin/saned
protocol = tcp
user = saned
group = scanner
wait = no
disable = no
}
Note: The saned value (last word on the inet configuration or
in the user line in the xinetd configuration) is the name of
the user running the server. You can get it form the
RUN_AS_USER= line on the /etc/default/saned file
restart inetd or xinetd by
sudo /etc/init.d/(x)inetd restart
Run at start-up
Restart saned by (10.10)
sudo service saned restart
or (10.04 and previous)
sudo /etc/init.d/saned restart
One user writes that a reboot is necessary. Not my experience
(with 10.10) but YMMV.
To configure the Sane daemon to start automatically at boot
up run:
sudo update-rc.d saned defaults
LAN-based scanners
The scanner is connected directly to the network without an
intermediary computer.
HP All-in-One devices
1. Ensure the device is connected to the network and can be
pinged.
1. Ensure hplip is installed:
$ sudo apt-get install hplip
Run the hp-setup wizard which installs printer, scanner, and
any other features.
$ sudo hp-setup
For Connection Type choose "Network/Ethernet..."
If the device is not detected, click "Show advanced options",
tick "Manual discovery" and supply the scanner's IP address.
Check the scanner is now recognized:
$ scanimage -L
For more details, see HpAllInOne.
Client-side Setup
From the client, all you need to do is add server name or IP
address of the scanner server to /etc/sane.d/net.conf:
192.168.1.100
Now run xsane and it should pick up the new network scanner.
-----
That is just insane. And the sad part is the page starts with the warning:
-----
Needs Expansion: This article is incomplete, and needs to be
expanded. More info...
-----
The following is *incomplete*! But you say this is good enough for you.
Quite telling.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:46:53 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 8:55 AM, in article jsn7ht$rrv$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
Right, that was from Jan 2012. Look what has happened since:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Linux_2007-2012-raw.pdf>
And some info on the long term trend... taking outliers and the like into
consideration (to please cc as much as anything):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
I went into more detail at the start of this thread, but in short, if you
look at the last page it is the full data *minus* mathematical outliers
(determined in a rather extreme and questionable way) and also some data
that was determined to be heavily affected by a regional jump... just CA.
In other words, the actual increase is likely somewhat more than that, but
it is hard to say given how the data is not linear. Still, the idea that
overall there is an upward trend, even if slight, seems pretty clear.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Linux_2007-2012-raw.pdf>
And some info on the long term trend... taking outliers and the like into
consideration (to please cc as much as anything):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
I went into more detail at the start of this thread, but in short, if you
look at the last page it is the full data *minus* mathematical outliers
(determined in a rather extreme and questionable way) and also some data
that was determined to be heavily affected by a regional jump... just CA.
In other words, the actual increase is likely somewhat more than that, but
it is hard to say given how the data is not linear. Still, the idea that
overall there is an upward trend, even if slight, seems pretty clear.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:55:58 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/29/12 9:57 PM, in article
0e27c416-da1b-40f0...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
pretty high confidence it is *most likely* Carroll. And in a day or two he
will suddenly reappear and act all bent out of shape that someone would
suspect him, even though it fits his pattern very well:
1) He was trolling me by glomming onto an idiot who was trolling me.
2) He realized the person he was backing was flat out wrong
3) He disappeared for a few days
4) Someone was suddenly forged - with the forger backing Carroll's BS
claims and using similar language as Carroll.
This is not proof... but there really is no other reasonable suspect. Oh,
and a prediction: Carroll will blame me for "setting him up". He has done
that repeatedly in the past.
...
"context" - a concept which Carroll has focused on for years because he is
working on understanding it. Much of the rest of the wording and tone is
also similar to what I have seen with others of Carroll's socks.
...
happens to repeat those idiotic claims.
>> No. Given that he has not you have not found such. If you think otherwise
>> then quote or link. An empty claim is meaningless... and that is all you
>> have there. Very much like cc and Carroll. Gee, not saying your ID is
>> being forged, just noting all data points to that conclusion. :)
>
> Of course it was. Steve Carroll forges IDs when he knows he has lost
> debates. He knows he has lost.
He has done this for years. Even his buddy Sandman has noted that some of
Carroll's known "aliases" use the TOR network (though Sandman then blames
me... because he has "no doubt" it is me... idiotic)... and your forger is
doing the same.
>> Yawn. Not even you, cc or Carroll, believe this BS you are spewing... but
>> it was fun to read your forgery and refute your claims. :)
>
> I am glad you were not taken in by the forgery.
Carroll is not an idiot... but he is not as smart as he thinks he is. It
was very obvious. I will say I did not see the gmail/hotmail difference at
first and wondered *how* he had done it. He has tried to guess my passwords
in the past and bragged at one time about his "hacking" skills - I was
hoping he had not somehow figured out your gmail password.
0e27c416-da1b-40f0...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
>> e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
> You have already shown you know this post was a forgery by Steve
> CCarroll.
Likely from Steve Carroll - but not proved. Still, I think we can say with
> On Jun 29, 10:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
>> e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
> You have already shown you know this post was a forgery by Steve
> CCarroll.
pretty high confidence it is *most likely* Carroll. And in a day or two he
will suddenly reappear and act all bent out of shape that someone would
suspect him, even though it fits his pattern very well:
1) He was trolling me by glomming onto an idiot who was trolling me.
2) He realized the person he was backing was flat out wrong
3) He disappeared for a few days
4) Someone was suddenly forged - with the forger backing Carroll's BS
claims and using similar language as Carroll.
This is not proof... but there really is no other reasonable suspect. Oh,
and a prediction: Carroll will blame me for "setting him up". He has done
that repeatedly in the past.
...
>>> I think you're confused. Obviously from the context he was asking which of
>>> his statements were a lie. Do you have trouble with context? It seems like
>>> you totally misunderstand most things people write. Even in this thread you
>>> took statements CC made where he was making fun of you, and tried to pass
>>> them off as if they were legitimate statements. If it's a deliberate troll
>>> technique, then I think it works! If it's not, then I think you need to try
>>> harder or get some help, because responses like your's above only make you
>>> look really, really, dumb.
>>>
>> Given cc's history, it is reasonable to assume he cannot differentiate
>> between the concepts as to what is a lie and what is not. But, as you know,
>> I have pointed to many of his lies.
>>
>> As far as taking statements made by cc where he was making fun of me and then
>> trying to pass them off as something else, that is one of his lies. I did no
>> such thing. He repeatedly admitted that there was a drop in the data in
>> 2012. When called on it he tried to retcon his claims.
>>
> Steve CCarroll claimed you did this and now so is the forger. This is proof
> that it is Steve CCarroll who is forging my posts.
Right: the forger is using the same idiotic claims as Carroll and speaks of
>>> his statements were a lie. Do you have trouble with context? It seems like
>>> you totally misunderstand most things people write. Even in this thread you
>>> took statements CC made where he was making fun of you, and tried to pass
>>> them off as if they were legitimate statements. If it's a deliberate troll
>>> technique, then I think it works! If it's not, then I think you need to try
>>> harder or get some help, because responses like your's above only make you
>>> look really, really, dumb.
>>>
>> Given cc's history, it is reasonable to assume he cannot differentiate
>> between the concepts as to what is a lie and what is not. But, as you know,
>> I have pointed to many of his lies.
>>
>> As far as taking statements made by cc where he was making fun of me and then
>> trying to pass them off as something else, that is one of his lies. I did no
>> such thing. He repeatedly admitted that there was a drop in the data in
>> 2012. When called on it he tried to retcon his claims.
>>
> Steve CCarroll claimed you did this and now so is the forger. This is proof
> that it is Steve CCarroll who is forging my posts.
"context" - a concept which Carroll has focused on for years because he is
working on understanding it. Much of the rest of the wording and tone is
also similar to what I have seen with others of Carroll's socks.
...
>> The claim I missed steps is an out and out lie. It has been completely
>> disproved.
>
> How you got to the tools is irrelevant. Your video on it showed your
> steps and it matches what MS and others suggested. This is a fact.
> Steve CCarroll is lying again.
Carroll and cc keep making the same idiotic claims. And the forger just
>> disproved.
>
> How you got to the tools is irrelevant. Your video on it showed your
> steps and it matches what MS and others suggested. This is a fact.
> Steve CCarroll is lying again.
happens to repeat those idiotic claims.
>> No. Given that he has not you have not found such. If you think otherwise
>> then quote or link. An empty claim is meaningless... and that is all you
>> have there. Very much like cc and Carroll. Gee, not saying your ID is
>> being forged, just noting all data points to that conclusion. :)
>
> Of course it was. Steve Carroll forges IDs when he knows he has lost
> debates. He knows he has lost.
Carroll's known "aliases" use the TOR network (though Sandman then blames
me... because he has "no doubt" it is me... idiotic)... and your forger is
doing the same.
>> Yawn. Not even you, cc or Carroll, believe this BS you are spewing... but
>> it was fun to read your forgery and refute your claims. :)
>
> I am glad you were not taken in by the forgery.
was very obvious. I will say I did not see the gmail/hotmail difference at
first and wondered *how* he had done it. He has tried to guess my passwords
in the past and bragged at one time about his "hacking" skills - I was
hoping he had not somehow figured out your gmail password.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 1:59:25 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/29/12 9:59 PM, in article
71de6bb9-6d5c-4b7c...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
even if he goes through phases. cc also sometimes does try to use
evidence... even though he messes it up essentially always (such as with he
BS claims about outliers). The only evidence Carroll tends to use is
dictionaries where he insists you *must* have meant definition 3 of such and
such dictionary and no matter how many times you explain what you really
meant he just runs. For years in CSMA Carroll did this with the definition
of the word "guilty" when I noted someone could be *actually* guilty but not
found so in a court of law. He could not understand the difference between
actually committing a crime and being adjudicated for it. For years. But
his only "evidence" was semantic games... he never was able to find anything
else to back his BS.
71de6bb9-6d5c-4b7c...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 10:36 AM, in article CC133598.434B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Your question shows a level
>>> of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
>>> to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
>>> either one is possible and neither is proved).
>>
>> I also notice your email has changed from gmail to hotmail.
>>
>> OK, I suspected you were being forged... now it is certain. My guess - and
>> it is just a guess - is that it is being done by Carroll... the writing
>> style is much more like his than like cc's... and even though you are
>> presenting yourself as a dolt, you are showing a level of reasoning and
>> intelligence that cc does not possess.
>
> It is Steve Carroll. He has been doing this shit for years. I still
> would not be surprised if CC was his sock. It is easy to appear less
> intelligent than you are which is why CC can appear that way but still
> somehow come to the same wrong conclusions as Steve.
Still, I think they are different people. cc is not as obsessed with me -
> On Jun 29, 10:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 10:36 AM, in article CC133598.434B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Your question shows a level
>>> of ignorance displayed only by cc and Carroll - which is yet another reason
>>> to believe your post has been forged by one of them (likely Carroll, but
>>> either one is possible and neither is proved).
>>
>> I also notice your email has changed from gmail to hotmail.
>>
>> OK, I suspected you were being forged... now it is certain. My guess - and
>> it is just a guess - is that it is being done by Carroll... the writing
>> style is much more like his than like cc's... and even though you are
>> presenting yourself as a dolt, you are showing a level of reasoning and
>> intelligence that cc does not possess.
>
> It is Steve Carroll. He has been doing this shit for years. I still
> would not be surprised if CC was his sock. It is easy to appear less
> intelligent than you are which is why CC can appear that way but still
> somehow come to the same wrong conclusions as Steve.
even if he goes through phases. cc also sometimes does try to use
evidence... even though he messes it up essentially always (such as with he
BS claims about outliers). The only evidence Carroll tends to use is
dictionaries where he insists you *must* have meant definition 3 of such and
such dictionary and no matter how many times you explain what you really
meant he just runs. For years in CSMA Carroll did this with the definition
of the word "guilty" when I noted someone could be *actually* guilty but not
found so in a court of law. He could not understand the difference between
actually committing a crime and being adjudicated for it. For years. But
his only "evidence" was semantic games... he never was able to find anything
else to back his BS.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 2:01:03 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/29/12 10:00 PM, in article
aedf2ada-c74d-400e...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Thank you. With that said, I still look forward to cc's reply. I wish he
would show how he came up with his claimed outliers (and at one time Carroll
said he was able to replicate cc's work, even though it has now been shown
to be absurd).
Neither will ever admit they made up their claims about outliers. I just
wonder what out they will try to use. :)
aedf2ada-c74d-400e...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "Onion
would show how he came up with his claimed outliers (and at one time Carroll
said he was able to replicate cc's work, even though it has now been shown
to be absurd).
Neither will ever admit they made up their claims about outliers. I just
wonder what out they will try to use. :)
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 2:04:48 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 12:33 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>>
>> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
>
> I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>
> I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
> on par with the competition.
I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
> On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>>
>> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
>
> I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>
> I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
> on par with the competition.
EVERYONE.
>>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>>
>> That doesn't describe what Ubuntu is for.
>
> Correct.
> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
> I think ChromeOS
> might... it is pretty much a web kiosk.
> Google was smart to do that.
what they're trying to do.
>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>
>> Sure it is.
>
> I would love to see support of this.
Web Kiosk here either.
<screed snipped>
<Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 2:06:37 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/29/12 10:22 PM, in article
fe0c177f-28eb-4e7c...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
JEDIDIAH has been quite silent on the issue ever since I posted just how
much he was showing off a significant weakness of desktop Linux and the
ignorance of at least some of its users.
fe0c177f-28eb-4e7c...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
much he was showing off a significant weakness of desktop Linux and the
ignorance of at least some of its users.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 2:38:03 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 11:04 AM, in article jsnf41$cq6$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>>>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>>>
>>> That doesn't describe what Ubuntu is for.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Then why did you write that in response to what I wrote about Ubuntu?
I was noting what desktop Linux *in general* handles well. You can use
Ubuntu as that... though you can also do more with it.
>> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
>
> The market for free software? How do you count sales in that?
As you note it is free... and yet it, *combined with all other desktop Linux
based OSs*, still has not earned a significant place on the desktop. It is
still somewhere between 1-2% of desktops.
What other product that is free and is fairly easy to get does so poorly?
Only ones which do not compare well with the competition. And the open
source ecosystem is not mature enough to produce truly competitive products.
Do you want to go into details as to why... would be interesting to see what
excuses and denials you use. In brief:
1) Lack of top-class software. This is in many categories - including
common ones such as office software, image editing software, games,
screencasting software, etc., as well as more specialized things such as
software needed for dentists offices or software used by quilters.
2) The systems do not work well as systems - they are a mish-mash of
different UI paradigms. This means that many benefits that can be found on
the competition simply cannot exist well on desktop Linux distros,
including: proxy icons, integration with any form of media browser, easy
methods to use the title bar to get to the path of a program, a visual
versioning system, saved status indicators, QuickLook, PDF Services, etc. I
have listed many of those things before. These are productivity enhancers /
error-reduction features that benefit both novice and advanced users. But
with the current ecosystem of desktop Linux, these types of things do not
exist.
3) Professional visual design - though this is getting better for many
distros.
4) Tools for programmers - Adobe goes into quite some detail on this in
terms of Photoshop... and I recently showed some of the problems presented
by fragmentation in terms of Skype:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/InstallSkype.jpg>
>> I think ChromeOS might... it is pretty much a web kiosk.
>
> You think people are buying ChromeBooks to use as portable web kiosks?
ChromeOS is pretty much a web kiosk. What else do you think most people do
with them other than access the web?
>> Google was smart to do that.
>
> I don't think you speak for Google. You don't even seem to understand
> what they're trying to do.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS>
-----
Google Chrome OS is a Linux-based operating system designed
by Google to work exclusively with web applications.
-----
I would love to see your counter evidence!
>>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>>
>>> Sure it is.
>>
>> I would love to see support of this.
>
> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
> Web Kiosk here either.
>
> <screed snipped>
>
> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
I am not going to argue with you about how well it serves your needs -
though it you list your needs maybe we can discuss it. It is quite telling
how you felt the need to run from the facts as presented by the Ubuntu site
and a competitors in terms of the ease of use of the products.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 06/30/2012 12:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>>>
>>> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
>>
>> I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>>
>> I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
>> on par with the competition.
>
> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
> EVERYONE.
I would love to see your support for this.
> On 06/30/2012 12:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>>>
>>> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
>>
>> I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>>
>> I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
>> on par with the competition.
>
> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
> EVERYONE.
>>>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>>>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>>>
>>> That doesn't describe what Ubuntu is for.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Then why did you write that in response to what I wrote about Ubuntu?
Ubuntu as that... though you can also do more with it.
>> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
>
> The market for free software? How do you count sales in that?
based OSs*, still has not earned a significant place on the desktop. It is
still somewhere between 1-2% of desktops.
What other product that is free and is fairly easy to get does so poorly?
Only ones which do not compare well with the competition. And the open
source ecosystem is not mature enough to produce truly competitive products.
Do you want to go into details as to why... would be interesting to see what
excuses and denials you use. In brief:
1) Lack of top-class software. This is in many categories - including
common ones such as office software, image editing software, games,
screencasting software, etc., as well as more specialized things such as
software needed for dentists offices or software used by quilters.
2) The systems do not work well as systems - they are a mish-mash of
different UI paradigms. This means that many benefits that can be found on
the competition simply cannot exist well on desktop Linux distros,
including: proxy icons, integration with any form of media browser, easy
methods to use the title bar to get to the path of a program, a visual
versioning system, saved status indicators, QuickLook, PDF Services, etc. I
have listed many of those things before. These are productivity enhancers /
error-reduction features that benefit both novice and advanced users. But
with the current ecosystem of desktop Linux, these types of things do not
exist.
3) Professional visual design - though this is getting better for many
distros.
4) Tools for programmers - Adobe goes into quite some detail on this in
terms of Photoshop... and I recently showed some of the problems presented
by fragmentation in terms of Skype:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/InstallSkype.jpg>
>> I think ChromeOS might... it is pretty much a web kiosk.
>
> You think people are buying ChromeBooks to use as portable web kiosks?
with them other than access the web?
>> Google was smart to do that.
>
> I don't think you speak for Google. You don't even seem to understand
> what they're trying to do.
-----
Google Chrome OS is a Linux-based operating system designed
by Google to work exclusively with web applications.
-----
I would love to see your counter evidence!
>>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>>
>>> Sure it is.
>>
>> I would love to see support of this.
>
> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
> Web Kiosk here either.
>
> <screed snipped>
>
> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
though it you list your needs maybe we can discuss it. It is quite telling
how you felt the need to run from the facts as presented by the Ubuntu site
and a competitors in terms of the ease of use of the products.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 2:44:49 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 12:46 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 8:55 AM, in article jsn7ht$rrv$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 02:59 PM, Big Steel wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/247577/desktop_linux_gains_share
>> _in_recent_months.html
[hijack attempt snipped]
> On 6/30/12 8:55 AM, in article jsn7ht$rrv$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 02:59 PM, Big Steel wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/247577/desktop_linux_gains_share
>> _in_recent_months.html
Quit hijacking threads.
Quit posting links to your site.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 2:54:13 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 01:38 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 11:04 AM, in article jsnf41$cq6$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 12:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
>>>
>>> I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>>>
>>> I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
>>> on par with the competition.
>>
>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>> EVERYONE.
>
> I would love to see your support for this.
If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
> On 6/30/12 11:04 AM, in article jsnf41$cq6$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 12:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 8:51 AM, in article jsn79a$rb7$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Maybe Linux will hit its stride in 2097, but I doubt that it will be
>>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think the growth rate can
>>>>>>>> increase *if* the open source community can gets its act together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Android is Linux's last hope for a traditional desktop system.
>>>>>>> Ultimately desktop Linux will be replaced by a version of Android.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu is working out so far for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, sure, for some small number of people desktop Linux will be acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Linux is acceptable for everyone.
>>>
>>> I agree: Nobody believes Linux is acceptable for everyone. :)
>>>
>>> I think "acceptable" is the best you can even manage... it is certainly not
>>> on par with the competition.
>>
>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>> EVERYONE.
>
> I would love to see your support for this.
supposed to do for you.
>>>>> For people who "live" in the command line or people who mostly need a
>>>>> web-kiosk, it is even very competitive to the competition.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't describe what Ubuntu is for.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>> Then why did you write that in response to what I wrote about Ubuntu?
>
> I was noting what desktop Linux *in general* handles well. You can use
> Ubuntu as that... though you can also do more with it.
>>> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
>>
>> The market for free software? How do you count sales in that?
>
> As you note it is free... and yet it, *combined with all other desktop Linux
> based OSs*, still has not earned a significant place on the desktop. It is
> still somewhere between 1-2% of desktops.
[macro generated screed snipped]
>>> I think ChromeOS might... it is pretty much a web kiosk.
>>
>> You think people are buying ChromeBooks to use as portable web kiosks?
>
> ChromeOS is pretty much a web kiosk. What else do you think most people do
> with them other than access the web?
>
>>> Google was smart to do that.
>>
>> I don't think you speak for Google. You don't even seem to understand
>> what they're trying to do.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS>
> -----
> Google Chrome OS is a Linux-based operating system designed
> by Google to work exclusively with web applications.
> -----
>
> I would love to see your counter evidence!
>>>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it is.
>>>
>>> I would love to see support of this.
>>
>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>
>> <screed snipped>
>>
>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>
> I am not going to argue with you about how well it serves your needs -
> though it you list your needs maybe we can discuss it. It is quite telling
> how you felt the need to run from the facts as presented by the Ubuntu site
> and a competitors in terms of the ease of use of the products.
least of all facts presented by the Ubuntu site.
Quit posting links to your site. I'm never going there.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 2:58:10 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 11:44 AM, in article jsnhf1$h4f$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
I showed support for the idea that Linux usage is going up... in a thread I
started.
And you still whine.
You are a funny person. As with the most of the herd, you are simply not
very technical and most of the discussion is going over your head - so you
whine. I am OK with that.
started.
And you still whine.
You are a funny person. As with the most of the herd, you are simply not
very technical and most of the discussion is going over your head - so you
whine. I am OK with that.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 3:12:31 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 01:58 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 11:44 AM, in article jsnhf1$h4f$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 12:46 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 8:55 AM, in article jsn7ht$rrv$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/29/2012 02:59 PM, Big Steel wrote:
>>>>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>>>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/247577/desktop_linux_gains_sha
>>>> re
>>>> _in_recent_months.html
>>
>> [hijack attempt snipped]
>>
>> Quit hijacking threads.
>>
>> Quit posting links to your site.
>
> I showed support for the idea that Linux usage is going up... in a thread I
> started.
You tried to convince me nobody uses Linux. I haven't forgotten that
> On 6/30/12 11:44 AM, in article jsnhf1$h4f$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 12:46 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 8:55 AM, in article jsn7ht$rrv$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/29/2012 02:59 PM, Big Steel wrote:
>>>>> On 6/29/2012 3:49 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>> .9999999999999999999% at the desktop for Linux at the desktop a year is
>>>>> not saying much. Just sayin....
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/247577/desktop_linux_gains_sha
>>>> re
>>>> _in_recent_months.html
>>
>> [hijack attempt snipped]
>>
>> Quit hijacking threads.
>>
>> Quit posting links to your site.
>
> I showed support for the idea that Linux usage is going up... in a thread I
> started.
even if you have.
<screed snipped>
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 3:56:54 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 11:54 AM, in article jsni0m$ihi$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
That is how I am able go support my claims so well.
You, clearly, have no support. As I have noted, the herd is generally not
very knowledgeable in technical areas - and you are showing an example of
that now.
...
the competition. None. If you did you would be able to speak of it and not
just run. But that is all you can do. And it is what you will do in your
response. You have no concept of the issues being discussed. You have made
that clear.
>>>> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
>>>
>>> The market for free software? How do you count sales in that?
>>
>> As you note it is free... and yet it, *combined with all other desktop Linux
>> based OSs*, still has not earned a significant place on the desktop. It is
>> still somewhere between 1-2% of desktops.
>
> Once again you count market share as if it were usage figures.
Yawn. You have no counter to what I wrote and no better explanation than
the one given: Ubuntu does not compete well with the competition.
...
>>>>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it is.
>>>>
>>>> I would love to see support of this.
>>>
>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>
>>> <screed snipped>
>>>
>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>
>> I am not going to argue with you about how well it serves your needs -
>> though it you list your needs maybe we can discuss it. It is quite telling
>> how you felt the need to run from the facts as presented by the Ubuntu site
>> and a competitors in terms of the ease of use of the products.
>
> Your screeds against your enemies do not represent facts of any kind,
> least of all facts presented by the Ubuntu site.
>
> Quit posting links to your site. I'm never going there.
You have no counter... just empty claims. Got it. That, really, was the
point. If you wish to show otherwise then do so - but you are not capable.
That much is very clear.
Have a great day - and thanks for backing my claims about the lack of
technical knowledge of the herd. I sincerely appreciate it.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
>>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>>> EVERYONE.
>>
>> I would love to see your support for this.
>
> If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
> supposed to do for you.
Your "if" is incorrect - I can and have run Ubuntu and have clients on it.
>>> EVERYONE.
>>
>> I would love to see your support for this.
>
> If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
> supposed to do for you.
That is how I am able go support my claims so well.
You, clearly, have no support. As I have noted, the herd is generally not
very knowledgeable in technical areas - and you are showing an example of
that now.
...
>>> Then why did you write that in response to what I wrote about Ubuntu?
>>
>> I was noting what desktop Linux *in general* handles well. You can use
>> Ubuntu as that... though you can also do more with it.
>
> So you don't even know why yourself?
I do. That is the point. You do not - you have no idea how it compares to
>>
>> I was noting what desktop Linux *in general* handles well. You can use
>> Ubuntu as that... though you can also do more with it.
>
> So you don't even know why yourself?
the competition. None. If you did you would be able to speak of it and not
just run. But that is all you can do. And it is what you will do in your
response. You have no concept of the issues being discussed. You have made
that clear.
>>>> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
>>>
>>> The market for free software? How do you count sales in that?
>>
>> As you note it is free... and yet it, *combined with all other desktop Linux
>> based OSs*, still has not earned a significant place on the desktop. It is
>> still somewhere between 1-2% of desktops.
>
> Once again you count market share as if it were usage figures.
the one given: Ubuntu does not compete well with the competition.
...
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS>
>> -----
>> Google Chrome OS is a Linux-based operating system designed
>> by Google to work exclusively with web applications.
>> -----
>>
>> I would love to see your counter evidence!
>
> Counter evidence against what?
What you are showing no signs of understanding.
>> -----
>> Google Chrome OS is a Linux-based operating system designed
>> by Google to work exclusively with web applications.
>> -----
>>
>> I would love to see your counter evidence!
>
> Counter evidence against what?
>>>>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it is.
>>>>
>>>> I would love to see support of this.
>>>
>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>
>>> <screed snipped>
>>>
>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>
>> I am not going to argue with you about how well it serves your needs -
>> though it you list your needs maybe we can discuss it. It is quite telling
>> how you felt the need to run from the facts as presented by the Ubuntu site
>> and a competitors in terms of the ease of use of the products.
>
> Your screeds against your enemies do not represent facts of any kind,
> least of all facts presented by the Ubuntu site.
>
> Quit posting links to your site. I'm never going there.
point. If you wish to show otherwise then do so - but you are not capable.
That much is very clear.
Have a great day - and thanks for backing my claims about the lack of
technical knowledge of the herd. I sincerely appreciate it.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 4:34:48 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 02:56 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 11:54 AM, in article jsni0m$ihi$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>>>> EVERYONE.
>>>
>>> I would love to see your support for this.
>>
>> If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
>> supposed to do for you.
>
> Your "if" is incorrect - I can and have run Ubuntu and have clients on it.
Then why do you need me to tell you what Ubuntu can do?
> On 6/30/12 11:54 AM, in article jsni0m$ihi$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>>>> EVERYONE.
>>>
>>> I would love to see your support for this.
>>
>> If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
>> supposed to do for you.
>
> Your "if" is incorrect - I can and have run Ubuntu and have clients on it.
> That is how I am able go support my claims so well.
you used to get "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
> You, clearly, have no support. As I have noted, the herd is generally not
> very knowledgeable in technical areas - and you are showing an example of
> that now.
> ...
>>>> Then why did you write that in response to what I wrote about Ubuntu?
>>>
>>> I was noting what desktop Linux *in general* handles well. You can use
>>> Ubuntu as that... though you can also do more with it.
>>
>> So you don't even know why yourself?
>
> I do. That is the point. You do not - you have no idea how it compares to
> the competition. None. If you did you would be able to speak of it and not
> just run. But that is all you can do. And it is what you will do in your
> response. You have no concept of the issues being discussed. You have made
> that clear.
>>>>> But Ubuntu does not compete well in the market.
>>>>
>>>> The market for free software? How do you count sales in that?
>>>
>>> As you note it is free... and yet it, *combined with all other desktop Linux
>>> based OSs*, still has not earned a significant place on the desktop. It is
>>> still somewhere between 1-2% of desktops.
>>
>> Once again you count market share as if it were usage figures.
>
> Yawn. You have no counter to what I wrote and no better explanation than
> the one given: Ubuntu does not compete well with the competition.
> ...
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS>
>>> -----
>>> Google Chrome OS is a Linux-based operating system designed
>>> by Google to work exclusively with web applications.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> I would love to see your counter evidence!
>>
>> Counter evidence against what?
>
> What you are showing no signs of understanding.
to understand.
>
>>>>>>> For the mass in the middle, though, this is not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to see support of this.
>>>>
>>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>>
>>>> <screed snipped>
>>>>
>>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>>
>>> I am not going to argue with you about how well it serves your needs -
>>> though it you list your needs maybe we can discuss it. It is quite telling
>>> how you felt the need to run from the facts as presented by the Ubuntu site
>>> and a competitors in terms of the ease of use of the products.
>>
>> Your screeds against your enemies do not represent facts of any kind,
>> least of all facts presented by the Ubuntu site.
>>
>> Quit posting links to your site. I'm never going there.
>
> You have no counter... just empty claims. Got it. That, really, was the
> point. If you wish to show otherwise then do so - but you are not capable.
> That much is very clear.
> Have a great day - and thanks for backing my claims about the lack of
> technical knowledge of the herd. I sincerely appreciate it.
>
Onion Knight
Jun 30, 2012, 4:51:38 PM6/30/12
to
> --
> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
> On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
In another forum I found information on the Tukey-type box-plot which
> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
> On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
seems to be yet another method.
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.stat.spss/msg/564307078eb00f3e
I found an online calculator for it here http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/box-plot/
I do not think this is the same as the quartile method. Can you look
at this tool as you did the others? Maybe this will find data that
matches what CC claimed to find? I doubt it but it is fun to look at
all the methods.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 4:56:28 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 1:34 PM, in article jsnnt9$uc1$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
are boring.
Bottom line:
* Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
etc. A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
reasoned response for it.
* Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
the desktop.
As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it does
not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
are boring.
Bottom line:
* Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
etc. A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
reasoned response for it.
* Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
the desktop.
As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it does
not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 5:34:19 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 03:56 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 1:34 PM, in article jsnnt9$uc1$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 02:56 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 11:54 AM, in article jsni0m$ihi$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>>>>>> EVERYONE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to see your support for this.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
>>>> supposed to do for you.
>>>
>>> Your "if" is incorrect - I can and have run Ubuntu and have clients on it.
>>
>> Then why do you need me to tell you what Ubuntu can do?
>>
>>> That is how I am able go support my claims so well.
>>
>> "Ubuntu does not compete well with the competition." Is that line what
>> you used to get "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
You couldn't answer?
> On 6/30/12 1:34 PM, in article jsnnt9$uc1$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 02:56 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 11:54 AM, in article jsni0m$ihi$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> I completely disagree with you, and Ubuntu is FANTASTIC software for
>>>>>> EVERYONE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to see your support for this.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't run Ubuntu and see for yourself, I don't know what I'm
>>>> supposed to do for you.
>>>
>>> Your "if" is incorrect - I can and have run Ubuntu and have clients on it.
>>
>> Then why do you need me to tell you what Ubuntu can do?
>>
>>> That is how I am able go support my claims so well.
>>
>> "Ubuntu does not compete well with the competition." Is that line what
>> you used to get "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>>> Have a great day - and thanks for backing my claims about the lack of
>>> technical knowledge of the herd. I sincerely appreciate it.
>>>
>>
>> Yet more "galloping insanity."
>>
>>
> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
> are boring.
>
> Bottom line:
> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
> etc.
> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
> reasoned response for it.
> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
> the desktop.
> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it does
> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 5:39:48 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
Windows when they can afford to.
>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>> reasoned response for it.
>
> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more. It
showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
Ubuntu in a bad light).
>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>> the desktop.
>
> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
you. I also note you have no counter.
>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it does
>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>
> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
As predicted.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>> are boring.
>>
>> Bottom line:
>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>> etc.
>
> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>> are boring.
>>
>> Bottom line:
>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>> etc.
>
> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
Windows when they can afford to.
>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>> reasoned response for it.
>
> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
Ubuntu in a bad light).
>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>> the desktop.
>
> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
you. I also note you have no counter.
>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it does
>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>
> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
As predicted.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 5:48:34 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 1:51 PM, in article
f5e46caf-e1b7-4182...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com, "Onion
No problem: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
First, cc's claims:
cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----
But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
-----
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
you did not.
-----
So we are looking for outliers from late 2007, early 2008, and four of the
six from the latter half of 2011.
So I went to the site and added the full set of data (0.66, 0.69, 0.72,
0.75, 0.73, 0.76, 0.89, 0.87, 0.83, 0.83, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, 0.99, 0.91,
0.99, 1.02, 1.07, 1.18, 1.01, 1.06, 0.95, 0.96, 0.98, 1.02, 1.03, 1.03,
1.00, 1.05, 1.08, 1.15, 1.10, 0.96, 0.87, 0.87, 0.89, 0.96, 1.00, 1.00,
0.96, 1.00, 0.99, 0.95, 1.00, 0.97, 1.07, 1.11, 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.56,
1.16, 0.98, 0.98, 1.03).
Page 1: Outliers: 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 1.56 1.41 1.31
Page 2: Marking where these are:
Two from the 2007 and two from 2008
This matches cc's "There are some low numbers sprinkled
in there from late 2007, early 2008...", so maybe this
is the method he used (it is the only one that has
matched that part of his claim).
But, there are only two from the latter half of 2011
and one from Jan 2012. This does *not* match cc's
claims of "four outliers in the latter half of 2011"
Page 3: I removed the points identified as outliers and graphed
the data. Still shows an upward trend. I also marked
the data from the latter half of 2011 and early part of
2012 which, I believe, was tied to the CA data. I did
not double check this, I simply marked the data in that
area that went over 1%.
Page 4: I re-charted the data with the CA data removed. The
trend line *still* shows an upward trend.
So nothing has changed (other than getting more data proving cc wrong):
* The claims cc made about outliers were not replicated. Still
seems he just made up his claims. Even if he can find *a*
method that shows his findings, which is quite unlikely,
his whole BS about people being stupid to not be able to
replicate his claimed findings and his BS about which points
are outliers being based on "fact" and not being a subjective
finding based on many factors is absurd.
* There still seems to be an upward slope to the trend line,
contrary to what cc claimed and accordance with my wishes.
I am happy to see that, even is slight, there seems to be an upward trend in
Linux usage. And, again, the data shown does not show the growing
percentage of non-desktop devices, so the trend is, if anything, more than
is shown on the charts I have shown.
Also, of note, cc's claims have not been replicated with any of the
following mathematical models:
1) Median() and Array
2) Grubbs
3) Quartile
4) Box Plot
So what method does he claim he used? At one time he specifically mentioned
Grubbs... and I believe also referenced the Median() and Array method, but
that seems false (I am open, though, to hearing his explanation - if nothing
else it would be amusing).
But cc *will not* show his work. Where is his alleged spreadsheet?
Repeatedly well respected methods are showing results contrary to his
claims... his claims he was so cock-sure about. He was, in a word, wrong.
Most likely: he just made things up - the more data is compiled the more
certain that seems. And Carroll backed him saying he was able to replicate
cc's work. No doubt Carroll was lying.
f5e46caf-e1b7-4182...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com, "Onion
First, cc's claims:
cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----
But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
-----
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
you did not.
-----
So we are looking for outliers from late 2007, early 2008, and four of the
six from the latter half of 2011.
So I went to the site and added the full set of data (0.66, 0.69, 0.72,
0.75, 0.73, 0.76, 0.89, 0.87, 0.83, 0.83, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, 0.99, 0.91,
0.99, 1.02, 1.07, 1.18, 1.01, 1.06, 0.95, 0.96, 0.98, 1.02, 1.03, 1.03,
1.00, 1.05, 1.08, 1.15, 1.10, 0.96, 0.87, 0.87, 0.89, 0.96, 1.00, 1.00,
0.96, 1.00, 0.99, 0.95, 1.00, 0.97, 1.07, 1.11, 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.56,
1.16, 0.98, 0.98, 1.03).
Page 1: Outliers: 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 1.56 1.41 1.31
Page 2: Marking where these are:
Two from the 2007 and two from 2008
This matches cc's "There are some low numbers sprinkled
in there from late 2007, early 2008...", so maybe this
is the method he used (it is the only one that has
matched that part of his claim).
But, there are only two from the latter half of 2011
and one from Jan 2012. This does *not* match cc's
claims of "four outliers in the latter half of 2011"
Page 3: I removed the points identified as outliers and graphed
the data. Still shows an upward trend. I also marked
the data from the latter half of 2011 and early part of
2012 which, I believe, was tied to the CA data. I did
not double check this, I simply marked the data in that
area that went over 1%.
Page 4: I re-charted the data with the CA data removed. The
trend line *still* shows an upward trend.
So nothing has changed (other than getting more data proving cc wrong):
* The claims cc made about outliers were not replicated. Still
seems he just made up his claims. Even if he can find *a*
method that shows his findings, which is quite unlikely,
his whole BS about people being stupid to not be able to
replicate his claimed findings and his BS about which points
are outliers being based on "fact" and not being a subjective
finding based on many factors is absurd.
* There still seems to be an upward slope to the trend line,
contrary to what cc claimed and accordance with my wishes.
I am happy to see that, even is slight, there seems to be an upward trend in
Linux usage. And, again, the data shown does not show the growing
percentage of non-desktop devices, so the trend is, if anything, more than
is shown on the charts I have shown.
Also, of note, cc's claims have not been replicated with any of the
following mathematical models:
1) Median() and Array
2) Grubbs
3) Quartile
4) Box Plot
So what method does he claim he used? At one time he specifically mentioned
Grubbs... and I believe also referenced the Median() and Array method, but
that seems false (I am open, though, to hearing his explanation - if nothing
else it would be amusing).
But cc *will not* show his work. Where is his alleged spreadsheet?
Repeatedly well respected methods are showing results contrary to his
claims... his claims he was so cock-sure about. He was, in a word, wrong.
Most likely: he just made things up - the more data is compiled the more
certain that seems. And Carroll backed him saying he was able to replicate
cc's work. No doubt Carroll was lying.
Nobody
Jun 30, 2012, 6:05:52 PM6/30/12
to
On 06/30/2012 04:39 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>>> are boring.
>>>
>>> Bottom line:
>>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>
> I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
> low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
> Windows when they can afford to.
Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>>> are boring.
>>>
>>> Bottom line:
>>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>
> I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
> low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
> Windows when they can afford to.
they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>> reasoned response for it.
>>
>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>
> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
with your rants against your enemies.
> It
> showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>
> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
> Ubuntu in a bad light).
It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light. A
> showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>
> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
> Ubuntu in a bad light).
downright ridiculous attempt too. Why should most people care about
scanning across a network?
>
>>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>>> the desktop.
>>
>> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
>
> I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
> you. I also note you have no counter.
>
>>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it does
>>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>>
>> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
>
> Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
> As predicted.
GreyCloud
Jun 30, 2012, 6:15:31 PM6/30/12
to
seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
intuitive at all. Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
the snags were resolved tho.
Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 9:40:05 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 3:15 PM, in article Ba2dndu8h7cX53LS...@bresnan.com,
have gotten used to most of the rest.
> Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
> I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
> the snags were resolved tho.
> Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
> stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
Never used it.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Four method compared to cc's absurd claims: <http://tinyurl.com/7efkuzm>
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>
>> <screed snipped>
>>
>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>
> I've got Ubuntus latest, but it is a bit weird to use. Not used to
> seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
> intuitive at all.
It is like they tried to copy Apple and failed. Just oddly done... but I
>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>
>> <screed snipped>
>>
>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>
> I've got Ubuntus latest, but it is a bit weird to use. Not used to
> seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
> intuitive at all.
have gotten used to most of the rest.
> Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
> I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
> the snags were resolved tho.
> Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
> stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Snit
Jun 30, 2012, 9:49:16 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/12 3:05 PM, in article jsnt81$9jb$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab was
a Mac lab).
2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words. It
just did not feel like a unified system.
I have had others but those are representative.
> How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
In neither case described above did they need that but I pointed you to the
Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
head.
>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>
>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>
>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>
> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
> with your rants against your enemies.
What I claimed? Click the links... really not hard!
>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>
>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>
>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>
> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
That *must* be it.
LOL!
Really... that is absurd.
> A downright ridiculous attempt too. Why should most people care about
> scanning across a network?
Networked all-in-one machines are common... and people use the features of
them.
But great excuse... does not matter how bad it is on Ubuntu because why
would anyone want to do that. Same excuse was made when I showed people how
image rotation was so much easier on the competition:
<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
The COLA herd could not believe how easy it could be on other
environments... so they made up the same excuse claiming nobody does that.
Well, on Linux it is likely true few do! Who would when the feature is so
messed up?
>>>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>>>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>>>> the desktop.
>>>
>>> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
>>
>> I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
>> you. I also note you have no counter.
>>
>>>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it
>>>> does
>>>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>>>
>>> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
>>
>> Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
>> As predicted.
>
> Give me something sane to respond to.
LOL! I have given you plenty to run from as you show off your ignorance to
my amusement. Thanks!
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 06/30/2012 04:39 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>>>> are boring.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line:
>>>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>>>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>>>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>>
>> I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
>> low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
>> Windows when they can afford to.
>
> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
> On 06/30/2012 04:39 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>>>> are boring.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line:
>>>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>>>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>>>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>>
>> I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
>> low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
>> Windows when they can afford to.
>
> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab was
a Mac lab).
2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words. It
just did not feel like a unified system.
I have had others but those are representative.
> How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
head.
>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>
>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>
>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>
> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
> with your rants against your enemies.
>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>
>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>
>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>
> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
That *must* be it.
LOL!
Really... that is absurd.
> A downright ridiculous attempt too. Why should most people care about
> scanning across a network?
them.
But great excuse... does not matter how bad it is on Ubuntu because why
would anyone want to do that. Same excuse was made when I showed people how
image rotation was so much easier on the competition:
<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
The COLA herd could not believe how easy it could be on other
environments... so they made up the same excuse claiming nobody does that.
Well, on Linux it is likely true few do! Who would when the feature is so
messed up?
>>>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>>>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>>>> the desktop.
>>>
>>> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
>>
>> I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
>> you. I also note you have no counter.
>>
>>>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it
>>>> does
>>>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>>>
>>> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
>>
>> Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
>> As predicted.
>
> Give me something sane to respond to.
my amusement. Thanks!
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Four method compared to cc's absurd claims: <http://tinyurl.com/7efkuzm>
Onion Knight
Jul 1, 2012, 12:11:40 AM7/1/12
to
> f5e46caf-e1b7-4182-a0e9-20a0707d2...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com, "Onion
> >https://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.stat.spss/msg/564307078...
> First, cc's claims:
>
> cc:
> -----
> There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
> -----
> There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
> early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
> out for yourself.
> -----
> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
> statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
> -----
> There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
> determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
> you did not.
> -----
>
> So we are looking for outliers from late 2007, early 2008, and four of the
> six from the latter half of 2011.
Should be what you find if CC is not a liar.
> So I went to the site and added the full set of data (0.66, 0.69, 0.72,
> 0.75, 0.73, 0.76, 0.89, 0.87, 0.83, 0.83, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, 0.99, 0.91,
> 0.99, 1.02, 1.07, 1.18, 1.01, 1.06, 0.95, 0.96, 0.98, 1.02, 1.03, 1.03,
> 1.00, 1.05, 1.08, 1.15, 1.10, 0.96, 0.87, 0.87, 0.89, 0.96, 1.00, 1.00,
> 0.96, 1.00, 0.99, 0.95, 1.00, 0.97, 1.07, 1.11, 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.56,
> 1.16, 0.98, 0.98, 1.03).
>
> Page 1: Outliers: 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 1.56 1.41 1.31
>
> Page 2: Marking where these are:
> Two from the 2007 and two from 2008
> This matches cc's "There are some low numbers sprinkled
> in there from late 2007, early 2008...", so maybe this
> is the method he used (it is the only one that has
> matched that part of his claim).
>
> But, there are only two from the latter half of 2011
> and one from Jan 2012. This does *not* match cc's
> claims of "four outliers in the latter half of 2011"
Yet anther method of finding outliers which does not show what CC
claimed to find with multiple methods and the fucked up suck up Steve
said he was able to replicate. And you still think CC is not a Carroll
sock? How else would they both somehow end up with the same arbitrary
results?
> Page 3: I removed the points identified as outliers and graphed
> the data. Still shows an upward trend. I also marked
> the data from the latter half of 2011 and early part of
> 2012 which, I believe, was tied to the CA data. I did
> not double check this, I simply marked the data in that
> area that went over 1%.
The data CC claimed he found first, the late 2011 data, is not even
showing up at all for any of the methods. He made it up. He lied. He
is a liar. Steve backed his lies.
Funny how both of them have disappeared ever since you have been
showing this. They are no doubt frantically emailing each other if
they are not the same person. They need new lies to try to counter the
facts you show.
> Page 4: I re-charted the data with the CA data removed. The
> trend line *still* shows an upward trend.
>
> So nothing has changed (other than getting more data proving cc wrong):
He will deny this. Steve will agree with CC or ignore the question
entirely and lie and attack you. Count on it.
> * The claims cc made about outliers were not replicated. Still
> seems he just made up his claims. Even if he can find *a*
> method that shows his findings, which is quite unlikely,
> his whole BS about people being stupid to not be able to
> replicate his claimed findings and his BS about which points
> are outliers being based on "fact" and not being a subjective
> finding based on many factors is absurd.
> * There still seems to be an upward slope to the trend line,
> contrary to what cc claimed and accordance with my wishes.
>
> I am happy to see that, even is slight, there seems to be an upward trend in
> Linux usage. And, again, the data shown does not show the growing
> percentage of non-desktop devices, so the trend is, if anything, more than
> is shown on the charts I have shown.
I would love to see CC's and Steve's faces when they read this and
then desperately try to find flaw with your findings.
> Also, of note, cc's claims have not been replicated with any of the
> following mathematical models:
>
> 1) Median() and Array
> 2) Grubbs
> 3) Quartile
> 4) Box Plot
>
> So what method does he claim he used? At one time he specifically mentioned
> Grubbs... and I believe also referenced the Median() and Array method, but
> that seems false (I am open, though, to hearing his explanation - if nothing
> else it would be amusing).
It will be desperate and pathetic. He will insist he is right but
never show details. He will lie and make up stories. He will focus on
the areas where you have admitted you were wrong and pretend this
means he is more intelligent than you. He will misdirect and he will
run. Steve will be right by his side the whole time.
> But cc *will not* show his work. Where is his alleged spreadsheet?
> Repeatedly well respected methods are showing results contrary to his
> claims... his claims he was so cock-sure about. He was, in a word, wrong.
Sounds exactly like your old fights with Steve. He would lie through
his teeth and act so sure of himself while all the time being a fucked
up obsessed reject.
> Most likely: he just made things up - the more data is compiled the more
> certain that seems. And Carroll backed him saying he was able to replicate
> cc's work. No doubt Carroll was lying.
I bet they are working their asses off trying to find some method that
would back their claims. I wonder if they will find one?
> --
> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
> On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
You could add 20 more posts where you have ripped those idiots to
shreds. They have fucked themselves over with their lies.
>
> > I found an online calculator for it here
> >http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/box-plot/
>
> > I do not think this is the same as the quartile method. Can you look
> > at this tool as you did the others? Maybe this will find data that
> > matches what CC claimed to find? I doubt it but it is fun to look at
> > all the methods.
>
> No problem: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
That is perfect. How long does it take you to make your PDFs?
> > I found an online calculator for it here
> >http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/box-plot/
>
> > I do not think this is the same as the quartile method. Can you look
> > at this tool as you did the others? Maybe this will find data that
> > matches what CC claimed to find? I doubt it but it is fun to look at
> > all the methods.
>
> No problem: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
> First, cc's claims:
>
> cc:
> -----
> There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
> -----
> There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
> early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
> out for yourself.
> -----
> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
> statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
> -----
> There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
> determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
> you did not.
> -----
>
> So we are looking for outliers from late 2007, early 2008, and four of the
> six from the latter half of 2011.
> So I went to the site and added the full set of data (0.66, 0.69, 0.72,
> 0.75, 0.73, 0.76, 0.89, 0.87, 0.83, 0.83, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, 0.99, 0.91,
> 0.99, 1.02, 1.07, 1.18, 1.01, 1.06, 0.95, 0.96, 0.98, 1.02, 1.03, 1.03,
> 1.00, 1.05, 1.08, 1.15, 1.10, 0.96, 0.87, 0.87, 0.89, 0.96, 1.00, 1.00,
> 0.96, 1.00, 0.99, 0.95, 1.00, 0.97, 1.07, 1.11, 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.56,
> 1.16, 0.98, 0.98, 1.03).
>
> Page 1: Outliers: 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 1.56 1.41 1.31
>
> Page 2: Marking where these are:
> Two from the 2007 and two from 2008
> This matches cc's "There are some low numbers sprinkled
> in there from late 2007, early 2008...", so maybe this
> is the method he used (it is the only one that has
> matched that part of his claim).
>
> But, there are only two from the latter half of 2011
> and one from Jan 2012. This does *not* match cc's
> claims of "four outliers in the latter half of 2011"
claimed to find with multiple methods and the fucked up suck up Steve
said he was able to replicate. And you still think CC is not a Carroll
sock? How else would they both somehow end up with the same arbitrary
results?
> Page 3: I removed the points identified as outliers and graphed
> the data. Still shows an upward trend. I also marked
> the data from the latter half of 2011 and early part of
> 2012 which, I believe, was tied to the CA data. I did
> not double check this, I simply marked the data in that
> area that went over 1%.
showing up at all for any of the methods. He made it up. He lied. He
is a liar. Steve backed his lies.
Funny how both of them have disappeared ever since you have been
showing this. They are no doubt frantically emailing each other if
they are not the same person. They need new lies to try to counter the
facts you show.
> Page 4: I re-charted the data with the CA data removed. The
> trend line *still* shows an upward trend.
>
> So nothing has changed (other than getting more data proving cc wrong):
entirely and lie and attack you. Count on it.
> * The claims cc made about outliers were not replicated. Still
> seems he just made up his claims. Even if he can find *a*
> method that shows his findings, which is quite unlikely,
> his whole BS about people being stupid to not be able to
> replicate his claimed findings and his BS about which points
> are outliers being based on "fact" and not being a subjective
> finding based on many factors is absurd.
> * There still seems to be an upward slope to the trend line,
> contrary to what cc claimed and accordance with my wishes.
>
> I am happy to see that, even is slight, there seems to be an upward trend in
> Linux usage. And, again, the data shown does not show the growing
> percentage of non-desktop devices, so the trend is, if anything, more than
> is shown on the charts I have shown.
then desperately try to find flaw with your findings.
> Also, of note, cc's claims have not been replicated with any of the
> following mathematical models:
>
> 1) Median() and Array
> 2) Grubbs
> 3) Quartile
> 4) Box Plot
>
> So what method does he claim he used? At one time he specifically mentioned
> Grubbs... and I believe also referenced the Median() and Array method, but
> that seems false (I am open, though, to hearing his explanation - if nothing
> else it would be amusing).
never show details. He will lie and make up stories. He will focus on
the areas where you have admitted you were wrong and pretend this
means he is more intelligent than you. He will misdirect and he will
run. Steve will be right by his side the whole time.
> But cc *will not* show his work. Where is his alleged spreadsheet?
> Repeatedly well respected methods are showing results contrary to his
> claims... his claims he was so cock-sure about. He was, in a word, wrong.
his teeth and act so sure of himself while all the time being a fucked
up obsessed reject.
> Most likely: he just made things up - the more data is compiled the more
> certain that seems. And Carroll backed him saying he was able to replicate
> cc's work. No doubt Carroll was lying.
would back their claims. I wonder if they will find one?
> --
> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
> On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
shreds. They have fucked themselves over with their lies.
GreyCloud
Jul 1, 2012, 12:19:42 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/30/2012 7:40 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 3:15 PM, in article Ba2dndu8h7cX53LS...@bresnan.com,
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>
>>> <screed snipped>
>>>
>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>
>> I've got Ubuntus latest, but it is a bit weird to use. Not used to
>> seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
>> intuitive at all.
>
> It is like they tried to copy Apple and failed. Just oddly done... but I
> have gotten used to most of the rest.
>
>> Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
>> I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
>> the snags were resolved tho.
>> Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
>> stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
>
> Never used it.
>
>
I purchased a copy back in 2000. It had the best system management gui
> On 6/30/12 3:15 PM, in article Ba2dndu8h7cX53LS...@bresnan.com,
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>
>>> <screed snipped>
>>>
>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>
>> I've got Ubuntus latest, but it is a bit weird to use. Not used to
>> seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
>> intuitive at all.
>
> It is like they tried to copy Apple and failed. Just oddly done... but I
> have gotten used to most of the rest.
>
>> Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
>> I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
>> the snags were resolved tho.
>> Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
>> stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
>
> Never used it.
>
>
program I've ever used or seen, and haven't seen anything like it since.
It was very well organized. Back then the fonts weren't all that hot,
but at least I found no bugs that I ran into. Most of the newer distros
on just trying things out and I run into a few snags.
Snit
Jul 1, 2012, 2:09:27 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/30/12 9:11 PM, in article
0bde8259-1c57-4d08...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
the print to PDF (just the first page). I already had the graphs so I just
enter and remove data as needed... only takes a few minutes. Print that out
and combine the PDFs (did it in Preview in this case... though if I have a
lot I have a separate program that I sometimes prefer). Then using Preview
I added the Page numbers with annotations - literally a couple seconds per
page. Save and upload... whole process was maybe 10 minutes or so.
>> First, cc's claims:
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
>> -----
>> There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
>> early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
>> out for yourself.
>> -----
>> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
>> statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
>> -----
>> There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
>> determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
>> you did not.
>> -----
>>
>> So we are looking for outliers from late 2007, early 2008, and four of the
>> six from the latter half of 2011.
>
> Should be what you find if CC is not a liar.
Even if I found that - which I did not - or even if cc finally shows some
method where he can show it - it still means he lied about how he found it
from multiple methods and the findings he came to were a "fact" that is
indisputable. Clearly the determination of what data points are or are not
outliers is not a simple "fact" but based on subjective determinations as
far as what method you want to use and even if the methods are appropriate
for the type of data.
>> So I went to the site and added the full set of data (0.66, 0.69, 0.72,
>> 0.75, 0.73, 0.76, 0.89, 0.87, 0.83, 0.83, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, 0.99, 0.91,
>> 0.99, 1.02, 1.07, 1.18, 1.01, 1.06, 0.95, 0.96, 0.98, 1.02, 1.03, 1.03,
>> 1.00, 1.05, 1.08, 1.15, 1.10, 0.96, 0.87, 0.87, 0.89, 0.96, 1.00, 1.00,
>> 0.96, 1.00, 0.99, 0.95, 1.00, 0.97, 1.07, 1.11, 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.56,
>> 1.16, 0.98, 0.98, 1.03).
>>
>> Page 1: Outliers: 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 1.56 1.41 1.31
>>
>> Page 2: Marking where these are:
>> Two from the 2007 and two from 2008
>> This matches cc's "There are some low numbers sprinkled
>> in there from late 2007, early 2008...", so maybe this
>> is the method he used (it is the only one that has
>> matched that part of his claim).
>>
>> But, there are only two from the latter half of 2011
>> and one from Jan 2012. This does *not* match cc's
>> claims of "four outliers in the latter half of 2011"
>
> Yet anther method of finding outliers which does not show what CC
> claimed to find with multiple methods and the fucked up suck up Steve
> said he was able to replicate. And you still think CC is not a Carroll
> sock? How else would they both somehow end up with the same arbitrary
> results?
Carroll lies to try to piss me off... but ends up just showing how much of a
suck-up and idiot he is... completely consumed by his hatred. He will do
and say anything to attack me... or anyone who agrees with anything I say.
Look at how he forged your name - again, no proof, but also no real doubt
that it was him. Just too much circumstantial evidence to consider the idea
it could be anyone else. The sad thing for him is even if it is not, he has
lied about it so many times his denial would mean nothing.
I mean, really, how many times did you and I and others ask him to list the
names he has used? Not even Carroll could come up with a list - just too
many for him to recall. And he has gone back and forth admitting and then
denying names he has used... he is just a complete and utter liar so
consumed with hatred he cannot function.
>> Page 3: I removed the points identified as outliers and graphed
>> the data. Still shows an upward trend. I also marked
>> the data from the latter half of 2011 and early part of
>> 2012 which, I believe, was tied to the CA data. I did
>> not double check this, I simply marked the data in that
>> area that went over 1%.
>
> The data CC claimed he found first, the late 2011 data, is not even
> showing up at all for any of the methods. He made it up. He lied. He
> is a liar. Steve backed his lies.
Well, there are *two* points for late 2011... which is contrary to what cc
claimed: "There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011."
But cc cannot show his method. He used the yank numbers out of your rear
method.
> Funny how both of them have disappeared ever since you have been
> showing this. They are no doubt frantically emailing each other if
> they are not the same person. They need new lies to try to counter the
> facts you show.
Carroll and Sandman made it clear they planned their trolling via email. I
do not doubt Carroll still does that with others. He longs to have a herd
like the COLA crowd. The best he can get, though, is some weak-minded
followers and some sick people to co-troll with. Coalitions of sorts, but
nothing like the COLA herd.
>> Page 4: I re-charted the data with the CA data removed. The
>> trend line *still* shows an upward trend.
>>
>> So nothing has changed (other than getting more data proving cc wrong):
>
> He will deny this. Steve will agree with CC or ignore the question
> entirely and lie and attack you. Count on it.
Absolutely correct. Neither of them will show their work, they might work
to find some flaw in my work, then call me names over it... cowering under
their covers as they refuse to show anything of substance on their
calculations.
Completely predictable.
>> * The claims cc made about outliers were not replicated. Still
>> seems he just made up his claims. Even if he can find *a*
>> method that shows his findings, which is quite unlikely,
>> his whole BS about people being stupid to not be able to
>> replicate his claimed findings and his BS about which points
>> are outliers being based on "fact" and not being a subjective
>> finding based on many factors is absurd.
>> * There still seems to be an upward slope to the trend line,
>> contrary to what cc claimed and accordance with my wishes.
>>
>> I am happy to see that, even is slight, there seems to be an upward trend in
>> Linux usage. And, again, the data shown does not show the growing
>> percentage of non-desktop devices, so the trend is, if anything, more than
>> is shown on the charts I have shown.
>
> I would love to see CC's and Steve's faces when they read this and
> then desperately try to find flaw with your findings.
Oh, they will dig through it with a fine toothed comb. And, I admit, there
*might* be some errors - but I bet less than what they have in their work
they *refuse* to show.
>> Also, of note, cc's claims have not been replicated with any of the
>> following mathematical models:
>>
>> 1) Median() and Array
>> 2) Grubbs
>> 3) Quartile
>> 4) Box Plot
>>
>> So what method does he claim he used? At one time he specifically mentioned
>> Grubbs... and I believe also referenced the Median() and Array method, but
>> that seems false (I am open, though, to hearing his explanation - if nothing
>> else it would be amusing).
>
> It will be desperate and pathetic. He will insist he is right but
> never show details. He will lie and make up stories. He will focus on
> the areas where you have admitted you were wrong and pretend this
> means he is more intelligent than you. He will misdirect and he will
> run. Steve will be right by his side the whole time.
Exactly correct. And they will work to change the topic by making personal
accusations (such as the claims of you and others being my sock), will use
socks themselves (or forge IDs, as they did with you), will get all excited
about the areas I have been wrong - ignoring the fact that unlike them when
I am wrong I admit to it. Nothing wrong with being human and making
mistakes - it is how you handle your mistakes which shows your character.
And neither of them are capable of admitting to their mistakes.
>> But cc *will not* show his work. Where is his alleged spreadsheet?
>> Repeatedly well respected methods are showing results contrary to his
>> claims... his claims he was so cock-sure about. He was, in a word, wrong.
>
> Sounds exactly like your old fights with Steve. He would lie through
> his teeth and act so sure of himself while all the time being a fucked
> up obsessed reject.
Exactly correct. He would insist he was right and I and lawyers and Supreme
Court Justices and logic and dictionaries and all other forms of evidence
were wrong. Very much like cc in that way.
>> Most likely: he just made things up - the more data is compiled the more
>> certain that seems. And Carroll backed him saying he was able to replicate
>> cc's work. No doubt Carroll was lying.
>
> I bet they are working their asses off trying to find some method that
> would back their claims. I wonder if they will find one?
Even if they do, their claim was that *many* methods showed this and that
such determinations were "fact" and not based on subjective decisions as to
what methods to use... they have been completely proved wrong.
>> --
>> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
>> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
>> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
>> On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
>> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
>
> You could add 20 more posts where you have ripped those idiots to
> shreds. They have fucked themselves over with their lies.
They always do. But they never admit to it.
I should point you to the old debate I had with cc over GUI and HCI issues.
He made just as big of an idiot of himself then. It was a lot of fun.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
0bde8259-1c57-4d08...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> In another forum I found information on the Tukey-type box-plot which
>>> seems to be yet another method.
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.stat.spss/msg/564307078...
>>
>>> I found an online calculator for it here
>>> http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/box-plot/
>>
>>> I do not think this is the same as the quartile method. Can you look
>>> at this tool as you did the others? Maybe this will find data that
>>> matches what CC claimed to find? I doubt it but it is fun to look at
>>> all the methods.
>>
>> No problem: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
>
> That is perfect. How long does it take you to make your PDFs?
Well, first page was just plopping the data in and submitting the data...
>>> seems to be yet another method.
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.stat.spss/msg/564307078...
>>
>>> I found an online calculator for it here
>>> http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/box-plot/
>>
>>> I do not think this is the same as the quartile method. Can you look
>>> at this tool as you did the others? Maybe this will find data that
>>> matches what CC claimed to find? I doubt it but it is fun to look at
>>> all the methods.
>>
>> No problem: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
>
> That is perfect. How long does it take you to make your PDFs?
the print to PDF (just the first page). I already had the graphs so I just
enter and remove data as needed... only takes a few minutes. Print that out
and combine the PDFs (did it in Preview in this case... though if I have a
lot I have a separate program that I sometimes prefer). Then using Preview
I added the Page numbers with annotations - literally a couple seconds per
page. Save and upload... whole process was maybe 10 minutes or so.
>> First, cc's claims:
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
>> -----
>> There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
>> early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
>> out for yourself.
>> -----
>> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
>> statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
>> -----
>> There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
>> determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
>> you did not.
>> -----
>>
>> So we are looking for outliers from late 2007, early 2008, and four of the
>> six from the latter half of 2011.
>
> Should be what you find if CC is not a liar.
method where he can show it - it still means he lied about how he found it
from multiple methods and the findings he came to were a "fact" that is
indisputable. Clearly the determination of what data points are or are not
outliers is not a simple "fact" but based on subjective determinations as
far as what method you want to use and even if the methods are appropriate
for the type of data.
>> So I went to the site and added the full set of data (0.66, 0.69, 0.72,
>> 0.75, 0.73, 0.76, 0.89, 0.87, 0.83, 0.83, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, 0.99, 0.91,
>> 0.99, 1.02, 1.07, 1.18, 1.01, 1.06, 0.95, 0.96, 0.98, 1.02, 1.03, 1.03,
>> 1.00, 1.05, 1.08, 1.15, 1.10, 0.96, 0.87, 0.87, 0.89, 0.96, 1.00, 1.00,
>> 0.96, 1.00, 0.99, 0.95, 1.00, 0.97, 1.07, 1.11, 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.56,
>> 1.16, 0.98, 0.98, 1.03).
>>
>> Page 1: Outliers: 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 1.56 1.41 1.31
>>
>> Page 2: Marking where these are:
>> Two from the 2007 and two from 2008
>> This matches cc's "There are some low numbers sprinkled
>> in there from late 2007, early 2008...", so maybe this
>> is the method he used (it is the only one that has
>> matched that part of his claim).
>>
>> But, there are only two from the latter half of 2011
>> and one from Jan 2012. This does *not* match cc's
>> claims of "four outliers in the latter half of 2011"
>
> Yet anther method of finding outliers which does not show what CC
> claimed to find with multiple methods and the fucked up suck up Steve
> said he was able to replicate. And you still think CC is not a Carroll
> sock? How else would they both somehow end up with the same arbitrary
> results?
suck-up and idiot he is... completely consumed by his hatred. He will do
and say anything to attack me... or anyone who agrees with anything I say.
Look at how he forged your name - again, no proof, but also no real doubt
that it was him. Just too much circumstantial evidence to consider the idea
it could be anyone else. The sad thing for him is even if it is not, he has
lied about it so many times his denial would mean nothing.
I mean, really, how many times did you and I and others ask him to list the
names he has used? Not even Carroll could come up with a list - just too
many for him to recall. And he has gone back and forth admitting and then
denying names he has used... he is just a complete and utter liar so
consumed with hatred he cannot function.
>> Page 3: I removed the points identified as outliers and graphed
>> the data. Still shows an upward trend. I also marked
>> the data from the latter half of 2011 and early part of
>> 2012 which, I believe, was tied to the CA data. I did
>> not double check this, I simply marked the data in that
>> area that went over 1%.
>
> The data CC claimed he found first, the late 2011 data, is not even
> showing up at all for any of the methods. He made it up. He lied. He
> is a liar. Steve backed his lies.
claimed: "There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011."
But cc cannot show his method. He used the yank numbers out of your rear
method.
> Funny how both of them have disappeared ever since you have been
> showing this. They are no doubt frantically emailing each other if
> they are not the same person. They need new lies to try to counter the
> facts you show.
do not doubt Carroll still does that with others. He longs to have a herd
like the COLA crowd. The best he can get, though, is some weak-minded
followers and some sick people to co-troll with. Coalitions of sorts, but
nothing like the COLA herd.
>> Page 4: I re-charted the data with the CA data removed. The
>> trend line *still* shows an upward trend.
>>
>> So nothing has changed (other than getting more data proving cc wrong):
>
> He will deny this. Steve will agree with CC or ignore the question
> entirely and lie and attack you. Count on it.
to find some flaw in my work, then call me names over it... cowering under
their covers as they refuse to show anything of substance on their
calculations.
Completely predictable.
>> * The claims cc made about outliers were not replicated. Still
>> seems he just made up his claims. Even if he can find *a*
>> method that shows his findings, which is quite unlikely,
>> his whole BS about people being stupid to not be able to
>> replicate his claimed findings and his BS about which points
>> are outliers being based on "fact" and not being a subjective
>> finding based on many factors is absurd.
>> * There still seems to be an upward slope to the trend line,
>> contrary to what cc claimed and accordance with my wishes.
>>
>> I am happy to see that, even is slight, there seems to be an upward trend in
>> Linux usage. And, again, the data shown does not show the growing
>> percentage of non-desktop devices, so the trend is, if anything, more than
>> is shown on the charts I have shown.
>
> I would love to see CC's and Steve's faces when they read this and
> then desperately try to find flaw with your findings.
*might* be some errors - but I bet less than what they have in their work
they *refuse* to show.
>> Also, of note, cc's claims have not been replicated with any of the
>> following mathematical models:
>>
>> 1) Median() and Array
>> 2) Grubbs
>> 3) Quartile
>> 4) Box Plot
>>
>> So what method does he claim he used? At one time he specifically mentioned
>> Grubbs... and I believe also referenced the Median() and Array method, but
>> that seems false (I am open, though, to hearing his explanation - if nothing
>> else it would be amusing).
>
> It will be desperate and pathetic. He will insist he is right but
> never show details. He will lie and make up stories. He will focus on
> the areas where you have admitted you were wrong and pretend this
> means he is more intelligent than you. He will misdirect and he will
> run. Steve will be right by his side the whole time.
accusations (such as the claims of you and others being my sock), will use
socks themselves (or forge IDs, as they did with you), will get all excited
about the areas I have been wrong - ignoring the fact that unlike them when
I am wrong I admit to it. Nothing wrong with being human and making
mistakes - it is how you handle your mistakes which shows your character.
And neither of them are capable of admitting to their mistakes.
>> But cc *will not* show his work. Where is his alleged spreadsheet?
>> Repeatedly well respected methods are showing results contrary to his
>> claims... his claims he was so cock-sure about. He was, in a word, wrong.
>
> Sounds exactly like your old fights with Steve. He would lie through
> his teeth and act so sure of himself while all the time being a fucked
> up obsessed reject.
Court Justices and logic and dictionaries and all other forms of evidence
were wrong. Very much like cc in that way.
>> Most likely: he just made things up - the more data is compiled the more
>> certain that seems. And Carroll backed him saying he was able to replicate
>> cc's work. No doubt Carroll was lying.
>
> I bet they are working their asses off trying to find some method that
> would back their claims. I wonder if they will find one?
such determinations were "fact" and not based on subjective decisions as to
what methods to use... they have been completely proved wrong.
>> --
>> Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
>> Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
>> More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
>> On cc's claims about Grubbs and Quartiles: <http://tinyurl.com/75yvo8z>
>> Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
>
> You could add 20 more posts where you have ripped those idiots to
> shreds. They have fucked themselves over with their lies.
I should point you to the old debate I had with cc over GUI and HCI issues.
He made just as big of an idiot of himself then. It was a lot of fun.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Four method compared to cc's absurd claims: <http://tinyurl.com/7efkuzm>
Snit
Jul 1, 2012, 2:16:40 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/30/12 9:19 PM, in article LJydnTwO6P55UnLS...@bresnan.com,
> It was very well organized. Back then the fonts weren't all that hot,
> but at least I found no bugs that I ran into. Most of the newer distros
> on just trying things out and I run into a few snags.
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 6/30/2012 7:40 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/30/12 3:15 PM, in article Ba2dndu8h7cX53LS...@bresnan.com,
>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>>
>>>> <screed snipped>
>>>>
>>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>>
>>> I've got Ubuntus latest, but it is a bit weird to use. Not used to
>>> seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
>>> intuitive at all.
>>
>> It is like they tried to copy Apple and failed. Just oddly done... but I
>> have gotten used to most of the rest.
>>
>>> Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
>>> I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
>>> the snags were resolved tho.
>>> Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
>>> stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
>>
>> Never used it.
>>
>>
> I purchased a copy back in 2000. It had the best system management gui
> program I've ever used or seen, and haven't seen anything like it since.
Might look it up...
> On 6/30/2012 7:40 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/30/12 3:15 PM, in article Ba2dndu8h7cX53LS...@bresnan.com,
>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Right on my desktop. Running Ubuntu and loving it. No command line or
>>>> Web Kiosk here either.
>>>>
>>>> <screed snipped>
>>>>
>>>> <Astroturfing for Apple snipped>
>>>
>>> I've got Ubuntus latest, but it is a bit weird to use. Not used to
>>> seeing the menu line hidden at the very top of the screen. This isn't
>>> intuitive at all.
>>
>> It is like they tried to copy Apple and failed. Just oddly done... but I
>> have gotten used to most of the rest.
>>
>>> Otherwise, the rest of the layout is rather nice, but
>>> I still run into a few snags even after getting the updates. Not all of
>>> the snags were resolved tho.
>>> Now, do you remember the old Caldera Linux? Now that one had their
>>> stuff together, until SCO bought them out.
>>
>> Never used it.
>>
>>
> I purchased a copy back in 2000. It had the best system management gui
> program I've ever used or seen, and haven't seen anything like it since.
> It was very well organized. Back then the fonts weren't all that hot,
> but at least I found no bugs that I ran into. Most of the newer distros
> on just trying things out and I run into a few snags.
cc
Jul 2, 2012, 7:31:31 AM7/2/12
to
On Friday, June 29, 2012 8:10:27 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>
>
> Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't. Did CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did. Did California skew the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? Yes, he did. Did correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? No, you didn't. You even claimed there were no outliers at all. So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire time and his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world results.
Well I believe that says it all.
> Why are you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
>
He's upset because now he looks like an idiot. He can't duplicate what I did because he's an idiot, but any time I offer to help, he refuses it.
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
>
>
> Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't. Did CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did. Did California skew the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? Yes, he did. Did correctly identify which points were skewed using outliers? No, you didn't. You even claimed there were no outliers at all. So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire time and his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world results.
Well I believe that says it all.
> Why are you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
>
He's upset because now he looks like an idiot. He can't duplicate what I did because he's an idiot, but any time I offer to help, he refuses it.
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Snit
Jul 2, 2012, 11:20:52 AM7/2/12
to
On 7/2/12 4:31 AM, in article
272dd28e-4fab-42cf...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
You made some specific claims.
cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----
But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
-----
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
you did not.
-----
And when asked how you came up with your results you pretended it was a
forgone conclusion (you even called your list of outliers a "fact", even
though there is a lot of subjective decision making in such
determinations)... and of course you never showed your work. So I did the
work for you:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
In the end, your claims could not be replicated with any of the following
lied and were busted. As for me, I used reason and logic and looked a the
long term trend:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
I am happy to see that even with perhaps overly aggressive removal of
outliers, both mathematically found ones and those *not* found by any of the
above mathematical procedures (even though you lied and claimed they should
be found), the desktop usage trend of Linux does seem to be going upward,
even if only slowly.
Unfortunately for you this is contrary to your claims about it always being
the same.
And, of course, you made a bunch of other claims where you were proved
wrong. See my .sig for more examples. You were *always* lost and *always*
lying in this whole "debate".
272dd28e-4fab-42cf...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2012 8:10:27 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>
>> Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't. Did
>> CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your
>> trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did. Did California skew
>> the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which points were skewed
>> using outliers? Yes, he did. Did correctly identify which points were skewed
>> using outliers? No, you didn't. You even claimed there were no outliers at
>> all. So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire
>> time and his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world
>> results.
>
> Well I believe that says it all.
>
>> Why are you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
>>
>
> He's upset because now he looks like an idiot. He can't duplicate what I did
> because he's an idiot, but any time I offer to help, he refuses it.
Give it up. Carroll's forgery does not amount to anything.
> On Friday, June 29, 2012 8:10:27 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>
>> Was there an increase in Linux usage anywhere in the world? There wasn't. Did
>> CC's trendline show an increase in Linux usage? No, it didn't. Did your
>> trendline show an increase in Linux usage? Yes it did. Did California skew
>> the results? Yes, it did. Did CC correctly identify which points were skewed
>> using outliers? Yes, he did. Did correctly identify which points were skewed
>> using outliers? No, you didn't. You even claimed there were no outliers at
>> all. So it seems like you're just upset that CC has been right this entire
>> time and his graphs and analysis matched up perfectly with real-world
>> results.
>
> Well I believe that says it all.
>
>> Why are you so upset that CC is right and you are wrong?
>>
>
> He's upset because now he looks like an idiot. He can't duplicate what I did
> because he's an idiot, but any time I offer to help, he refuses it.
You made some specific claims.
cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----
But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are
statistically insignificant because they are outliers.
-----
There is a well-defined (several actually) method for
determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers,
you did not.
-----
forgone conclusion (you even called your list of outliers a "fact", even
though there is a lot of subjective decision making in such
determinations)... and of course you never showed your work. So I did the
work for you:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
In the end, your claims could not be replicated with any of the following
mathematical models:
1) Median() and Array
2) Grubbs
3) Quartile
4) Box Plot
You will *never* show your work being that you simply made things up. You
1) Median() and Array
2) Grubbs
3) Quartile
4) Box Plot
lied and were busted. As for me, I used reason and logic and looked a the
long term trend:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
I am happy to see that even with perhaps overly aggressive removal of
outliers, both mathematically found ones and those *not* found by any of the
above mathematical procedures (even though you lied and claimed they should
be found), the desktop usage trend of Linux does seem to be going upward,
even if only slowly.
Unfortunately for you this is contrary to your claims about it always being
the same.
And, of course, you made a bunch of other claims where you were proved
wrong. See my .sig for more examples. You were *always* lost and *always*
lying in this whole "debate".
Nobody
Jul 5, 2012, 1:42:13 PM7/5/12
to
On 06/30/2012 08:49 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 6/30/12 3:05 PM, in article jsnt81$9jb$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 04:39 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>>>>> are boring.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line:
>>>>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>>>>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>>>>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>>>
>>> I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
>>> low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
>>> Windows when they can afford to.
>>
>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>
> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
> On 6/30/12 3:05 PM, in article jsnt81$9jb$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 04:39 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/30/12 2:34 PM, in article jsnrct$5p2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You have proved my point: you are unable to support your claims. And you
>>>>> are boring.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line:
>>>>> * Desktop Linux has not proved itself on the desktop - even being free
>>>>> it is still at the 1-2% usage range. At least some of the reasons for
>>>>> this are clear: usability and productivity issues, software selection,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Is that why you have "clients" on Ubuntu? *snicker*
>>>
>>> I use it when I think it will serve them best: when their needs are tied to
>>> low cost or low requirements. Even then they generally upgrade to OS X or
>>> Windows when they can afford to.
>>
>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>
> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
on Ubuntu.
> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
supporting on Ubuntu.
> Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab was
> a Mac lab).
> 2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
> gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
> Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
> to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words. It
> just did not feel like a unified system.
>
> I have had others but those are representative.
>> How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
>
> In neither case described above did they need that
yourself!
> but I pointed you to the
> Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
> head.
Apple and one for Linux, and tried to use that to prove Apple
superiority without understanding what you were reading.
>>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>>
>>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>>
>>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>>
>> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
>> with your rants against your enemies.
>
> What I claimed? Click the links... really not hard!
own school to replace a Linux lab with a Mac lab.
>>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>>
>>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>>
>>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
>>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
>>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>>
>> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
>
> Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
> That *must* be it.
wrong with you.
> LOL!
>
> Really... that is absurd.
>> A downright ridiculous attempt too. Why should most people care about
>> scanning across a network?
>
> Networked all-in-one machines are common... and people use the features of
> them.
about?
> But great excuse... does not matter how bad it is on Ubuntu because why
> would anyone want to do that. Same excuse was made when I showed people how
> image rotation was so much easier on the competition:
> <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
> The COLA herd could not believe how easy it could be on other
> environments... so they made up the same excuse claiming nobody does that.
> Well, on Linux it is likely true few do! Who would when the feature is so
> messed up?
>>>>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>>>>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>>>>> the desktop.
>>>>
>>>> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
>>>
>>> I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
>>> you. I also note you have no counter.
>>>
>>>>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it
>>>>> does
>>>>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>>>>
>>>> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
>>>
>>> Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
>>> As predicted.
>>
>> Give me something sane to respond to.
>
> LOL! I have given you plenty to run from as you show off your ignorance to
> my amusement. Thanks!
Snit
Jul 5, 2012, 2:10:08 PM7/5/12
to
On 7/5/12 10:42 AM, in article jt4jlm$jp2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
>> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
>> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
>> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
>> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
>
> A public computer lab doesn't count as the clients you claimed to be
> supporting on Ubuntu.
Why do the users of a computer lab not count as users in your world? That
makes no sense.
>> Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab was
>> a Mac lab).
>
> Not a Mac lab? Imagine that!
Again I do not follow your point. Do you have one?
>> 2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
>> gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
>> Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
>> to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words. It
>> just did not feel like a unified system.
>
> So this is not an example of the Ubuntu "clients" you claim to have either.
How not? I mean, sure, he came to the reasoned conclusion that another
system would serve him better... but he did use it for some time (6 months
or more). But in your world that does not count.
>> I have had others but those are representative.
>
> Representative of nothing.
Nothing you understand... I can accept that.
>>> How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
>>
>> In neither case described above did they need that
>
> Yet you continue to make a big deal about it, in spite of not needing it
> yourself!
How do you figure? I do scanning somewhat regularly.
>> but I pointed you to the
>> Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
>> head.
>
> Not at all. It's clear all you did was find two bullet lists, one for
> Apple and one for Linux, and tried to use that to prove Apple
> superiority without understanding what you were reading.
You fabricated that. There was a discussion on network scanning - I showed
how easy it was on OS X... trivial to set up (automatic).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
-----
I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
-----
Only after JEDIDIAH showed how out of touch he was with the modern
competition did I even look to see the process was described on the Apple
and Ubuntu sites. Your claim about is a complete fabrication. A lie on
your part.
>>>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>>>
>>> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
>>> with your rants against your enemies.
>>
>> What I claimed? Click the links... really not hard!
>
> Did it. No support for you.
No support your understand. I can accept that. What I cannot do is help
you to understand something so simple.
> Much like how you couldn't convince your
> own school to replace a Linux lab with a Mac lab.
I made no effort to convince them to do so. I worked to solve their needs
with the tools best suited - including capabilities and price. Again, you
fabricated a claim about me trying to convince someone of something I did no
such thing.
>>>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>>>
>>>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>>>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>>>
>>>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
>>>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
>>>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>>>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>>>
>>> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
>>
>> Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
>> That *must* be it.
>
> If you really believe that's what I meant, you have something seriously
> wrong with you.
You claimed the link showing how things are done on Ubuntu is a "contrived
attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light". How is it? Again, you are just
spewing nonsense.
>> LOL!
>>
>> Really... that is absurd.
>
> Of course, but then you said it, so absurdity is to be expected.
You have no point to make.
This is simple:
<http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
The only thing not shown on the video is the "Import from Scanner" sometimes
does not show the network devices the first time you select it... which is
weird but not that big of a deal.
This process is greatly easier than what Ubuntu offers - so much so that
JEDIDIAH could not even believe the competition could be so easy. He
convinced himself that contrary to the proof he saw the facts were not true.
>>> A downright ridiculous attempt too. Why should most people care about
>>> scanning across a network?
>>
>> Networked all-in-one machines are common... and people use the features of
>> them.
>
> You can't even think of why you would need the thing you're whining
> about?
What do you mean by that? You need reasons why people scan documents? Is
this something so far outside of your realm of experience you have no
understanding of it?
This is typical herd BS: you cannot understand why people do common tasks -
tasks done much better on the competition - so you discount them.
>> But great excuse... does not matter how bad it is on Ubuntu because why
>> would anyone want to do that. Same excuse was made when I showed people how
>> image rotation was so much easier on the competition:
>> <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
>
> Time for some obfuscation?
I am noting other examples. This, too, went over your head.
>> The COLA herd could not believe how easy it could be on other
>> environments... so they made up the same excuse claiming nobody does that.
>> Well, on Linux it is likely true few do! Who would when the feature is so
>> messed up?
>
> Is anything as messed up as you are yourself?
You just made clear you know you are trolling - you know you have no counter
to the facts I have shown you.
>>>>>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>>>>>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>>>>>> the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
>>>>
>>>> I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
>>>> you. I also note you have no counter.
>>>>
>>>>>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
>>>>
>>>> Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
>>>> As predicted.
>>>
>>> Give me something sane to respond to.
>>
>> LOL! I have given you plenty to run from as you show off your ignorance to
>> my amusement. Thanks!
>
> Must have thanked the nurse for bringing you your meds.
Again: you are waving your white flag. It is not as if you really have any
counter to my comments... just the waving of your white flag.
But it was fun to read.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
>>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>
>> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
>
> The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
> on Ubuntu.
I do not understand what you mean by that.
>>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>
>> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
>
> The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
> on Ubuntu.
>> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
>> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
>> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
>> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
>
> A public computer lab doesn't count as the clients you claimed to be
> supporting on Ubuntu.
makes no sense.
>> Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab was
>> a Mac lab).
>
> Not a Mac lab? Imagine that!
>> 2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
>> gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
>> Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
>> to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words. It
>> just did not feel like a unified system.
>
> So this is not an example of the Ubuntu "clients" you claim to have either.
system would serve him better... but he did use it for some time (6 months
or more). But in your world that does not count.
>> I have had others but those are representative.
>
> Representative of nothing.
>>> How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
>>
>> In neither case described above did they need that
>
> Yet you continue to make a big deal about it, in spite of not needing it
> yourself!
>> but I pointed you to the
>> Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
>> head.
>
> Not at all. It's clear all you did was find two bullet lists, one for
> Apple and one for Linux, and tried to use that to prove Apple
> superiority without understanding what you were reading.
how easy it was on OS X... trivial to set up (automatic).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
-----
I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
-----
competition did I even look to see the process was described on the Apple
and Ubuntu sites. Your claim about is a complete fabrication. A lie on
your part.
>>>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>>>
>>> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
>>> with your rants against your enemies.
>>
>> What I claimed? Click the links... really not hard!
>
> Did it. No support for you.
you to understand something so simple.
> Much like how you couldn't convince your
> own school to replace a Linux lab with a Mac lab.
with the tools best suited - including capabilities and price. Again, you
fabricated a claim about me trying to convince someone of something I did no
such thing.
>>>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>>>
>>>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>>>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>>>
>>>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
>>>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
>>>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>>>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>>>
>>> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
>>
>> Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
>> That *must* be it.
>
> If you really believe that's what I meant, you have something seriously
> wrong with you.
attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light". How is it? Again, you are just
spewing nonsense.
>> LOL!
>>
>> Really... that is absurd.
>
> Of course, but then you said it, so absurdity is to be expected.
This is simple:
<http://youtu.be/CvaOs8uy3lQ?hd=1>
The only thing not shown on the video is the "Import from Scanner" sometimes
does not show the network devices the first time you select it... which is
weird but not that big of a deal.
This process is greatly easier than what Ubuntu offers - so much so that
JEDIDIAH could not even believe the competition could be so easy. He
convinced himself that contrary to the proof he saw the facts were not true.
>>> A downright ridiculous attempt too. Why should most people care about
>>> scanning across a network?
>>
>> Networked all-in-one machines are common... and people use the features of
>> them.
>
> You can't even think of why you would need the thing you're whining
> about?
this something so far outside of your realm of experience you have no
understanding of it?
This is typical herd BS: you cannot understand why people do common tasks -
tasks done much better on the competition - so you discount them.
>> But great excuse... does not matter how bad it is on Ubuntu because why
>> would anyone want to do that. Same excuse was made when I showed people how
>> image rotation was so much easier on the competition:
>> <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
>
> Time for some obfuscation?
>> The COLA herd could not believe how easy it could be on other
>> environments... so they made up the same excuse claiming nobody does that.
>> Well, on Linux it is likely true few do! Who would when the feature is so
>> messed up?
>
> Is anything as messed up as you are yourself?
to the facts I have shown you.
>>>>>> * Google recognizes this and is working on ChromOS as a, mostly, web
>>>>>> kiosk - one of the few niches where Linux has a chance to do well on
>>>>>> the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you still think ChromeBooks are portable Web Kiosks?
>>>>
>>>> I stick with what I have said on the topic and the evidence I have shown
>>>> you. I also note you have no counter.
>>>>
>>>>>> As has been noted: the herd is not well able to support its claims - it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not have the technical knowledge to understand the topics well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your insanity is at a full gallop.
>>>>
>>>> Gee, what a clever response... the best you can do. You have no response.
>>>> As predicted.
>>>
>>> Give me something sane to respond to.
>>
>> LOL! I have given you plenty to run from as you show off your ignorance to
>> my amusement. Thanks!
>
> Must have thanked the nurse for bringing you your meds.
counter to my comments... just the waving of your white flag.
But it was fun to read.
Nobody
Jul 31, 2012, 12:36:16 PM7/31/12
to
On 7/5/2012 1:10 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 7/5/12 10:42 AM, in article jt4jlm$jp2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>>>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>>
>>> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
>>
>> The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
>> on Ubuntu.
>
> I do not understand what you mean by that.
Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
>>> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
>>> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
>>> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
>>
>> A public computer lab doesn't count as the clients you claimed to be
>> supporting on Ubuntu.
>
> Why do the users of a computer lab not count as users in your world? That
> makes no sense.
Sure it makes sense. You set the lab up according to what you thought
> On 7/5/12 10:42 AM, in article jt4jlm$jp2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>>>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>>
>>> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
>>
>> The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
>> on Ubuntu.
>
> I do not understand what you mean by that.
Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
>>> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
>>> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
>>> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
>>
>> A public computer lab doesn't count as the clients you claimed to be
>> supporting on Ubuntu.
>
> Why do the users of a computer lab not count as users in your world? That
> makes no sense.
it should be, not according to the wants of the "clients" you claimed to
serve.
>>> Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab was
>>> a Mac lab).
>>
>> Not a Mac lab? Imagine that!
>
> Again I do not follow your point. Do you have one?
>
>>> 2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
>>> gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
>>> Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
>>> to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words. It
>>> just did not feel like a unified system.
>>
>> So this is not an example of the Ubuntu "clients" you claim to have either.
>
> How not?
> I mean, sure, he came to the reasoned conclusion that another
> system would serve him better... but he did use it for some time (6 months
> or more). But in your world that does not count.
clients you claimed to have, in anybody's world.
>>> I have had others but those are representative.
>>
>> Representative of nothing.
>
> Nothing you understand... I can accept that.
>>>> How do they get along without network scanning? *snicker*
>>>
>>> In neither case described above did they need that
>>
>> Yet you continue to make a big deal about it, in spite of not needing it
>> yourself!
>
> How do you figure? I do scanning somewhat regularly.
>>> but I pointed you to the
>>> Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
>>> head.
>>
>> Not at all. It's clear all you did was find two bullet lists, one for
>> Apple and one for Linux, and tried to use that to prove Apple
>> superiority without understanding what you were reading.
>
> You fabricated that.
> There was a discussion on network scanning - I showed
> how easy it was on OS X... trivial to set up (automatic).
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
[boiler plate text snipped]
>
>>>>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
>>>> with your rants against your enemies.
>>>
>>> What I claimed? Click the links... really not hard!
>>
>> Did it. No support for you.
>
> No support your understand. I can accept that. What I cannot do is help
> you to understand something so simple.
Your insults do not make your case for you.
>>>>>>> A specific example of network scanning was used and you had no
>>>>>>> reasoned response for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was too mixed up with your rants against your enemies.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! It was quotes from the Ubuntu and Apple sites... nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> It was nothing more that what you claim those sites are saying, mixed
>>>> with your rants against your enemies.
>>>
>>> What I claimed? Click the links... really not hard!
>>
>> Did it. No support for you.
>
> No support your understand. I can accept that. What I cannot do is help
> you to understand something so simple.
>> Much like how you couldn't convince your
>> own school to replace a Linux lab with a Mac lab.
>
> I made no effort to convince them to do so. I worked to solve their needs
> with the tools best suited - including capabilities and price. Again, you
> fabricated a claim about me trying to convince someone of something I did no
> such thing.
We're still left with this though:
Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
user as your list of "clients" you "support" on Ubuntu.
>>>>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>>>>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>>>>
>>>>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to say
>>>>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real world
>>>>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>>>>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>>>>
>>>> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
>>> That *must* be it.
>>
>> If you really believe that's what I meant, you have something seriously
>> wrong with you.
>
> You claimed the link showing how things are done on Ubuntu is a "contrived
> attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light". How is it?
Ubuntu, one for OSX, with the unsupported conclusion "it's so much
easier for OSX, for something you don't even do yourself, is a contrived
example to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
[...]
Steve Carroll
Jul 31, 2012, 12:48:27 PM7/31/12
to
On Jun 29, 11:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
(snip)
> What it does do is very strongly weaken my claim of cause and effect.
> Correlations and cause-and-effects are not the same. The only ones who
> confuse these concepts as you just did are cc and Carroll
The same "Carroll" who pointed out that you did make a cause and
effect statement (which was my point the entire time, so your claim
that I was 'confused' is ludicrous... you were confused), despite your
repeated insistence that you didn't. Nice to know I was instrumental
it getting you to admit to a reality you fought like the restraints
used on you when they strap you in for the night; )
(snip)
> What it does do is very strongly weaken my claim of cause and effect.
> Correlations and cause-and-effects are not the same. The only ones who
> confuse these concepts as you just did are cc and Carroll
The same "Carroll" who pointed out that you did make a cause and
effect statement (which was my point the entire time, so your claim
that I was 'confused' is ludicrous... you were confused), despite your
repeated insistence that you didn't. Nice to know I was instrumental
it getting you to admit to a reality you fought like the restraints
used on you when they strap you in for the night; )
Steve Carroll
Jul 31, 2012, 1:03:02 PM7/31/12
to
On Jun 30, 11:55 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/12 9:57 PM, in article
> 0e27c416-da1b-40f0-b76d-eabb44f92...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
>
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 10:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
> >> e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
> > You have already shown you know
For years Snit has "shown" he 'knows' lot of things that have nothing
to do with reality. What about it?
> > this post was a forgery by Steve
> > CCarroll.
>
> Likely from Steve Carroll - but not proved. Still, I think we can say with
> pretty high confidence it is *most likely* Carroll. And in a day or two he
> will suddenly reappear and act all bent out of shape that someone would
> suspect him, even though it fits his pattern very well:
Being that I don't have a "pattern" this delusion of yours isn't
possible.
> This is not proof... but there really is no other reasonable suspect.
Incorrect, you are much more likely a "reasonable suspect"... you
know, given your "pattern".
Breaking in a new crack pipe? ;)
> On 6/29/12 9:57 PM, in article
> 0e27c416-da1b-40f0-b76d-eabb44f92...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
>
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 10:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/29/12 5:10 AM, in article
> >> e7229162-dc55-4e74...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
> > You have already shown you know
For years Snit has "shown" he 'knows' lot of things that have nothing
to do with reality. What about it?
> > this post was a forgery by Steve
> > CCarroll.
>
> Likely from Steve Carroll - but not proved. Still, I think we can say with
> pretty high confidence it is *most likely* Carroll. And in a day or two he
> will suddenly reappear and act all bent out of shape that someone would
> suspect him, even though it fits his pattern very well:
Being that I don't have a "pattern" this delusion of yours isn't
possible.
> This is not proof... but there really is no other reasonable suspect.
Incorrect, you are much more likely a "reasonable suspect"... you
know, given your "pattern".
Breaking in a new crack pipe? ;)
Snit
Jul 31, 2012, 2:31:18 PM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/12 9:36 AM, in article jv91ij$3dd$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
with whom I have moved to Ubuntu or other desktop Linux distro... even
listed who it was appropriate for in another post today.
>>>> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
>>>> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
>>>> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
>>>> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
>>>
>>> A public computer lab doesn't count as the clients you claimed to be
>>> supporting on Ubuntu.
>>
>> Why do the users of a computer lab not count as users in your world? That
>> makes no sense.
>
> Sure it makes sense. You set the lab up according to what you thought
> it should be, not according to the wants of the "clients" you claimed to
> serve.
Incorrect. You just make things up.
>>>> Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab
>>>> was
>>>> a Mac lab).
>>>
>>> Not a Mac lab? Imagine that!
>>
>> Again I do not follow your point. Do you have one?
>>
>>>> 2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
>>>> gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
>>>> Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
>>>> to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words.
>>>> It just did not feel like a unified system.
>>>
>>> So this is not an example of the Ubuntu "clients" you claim to have either.
>>
>> How not?
>
> A person with a Windows laptop doesn't count as an Ubuntu client of yours.
Even when using Ubuntu he does not count, in your world, as a Ubuntu user.
Ok, you are just lost. I have no problem with it.
>> I mean, sure, he came to the reasoned conclusion that another
>> system would serve him better... but he did use it for some time (6 months
>> or more). But in your world that does not count.
>
> A person with a Windows laptop does not count as one of the Ubuntu
> clients you claimed to have, in anybody's world.
He used Ubuntu for many months... but that is not something you find
relevant. Right: you and logic are not in the same world. I accept that.
...
understand. And I do it on a fairly regular basis... scanning is something
many modern computer users do. Really, do you need *that* justified?
>>>> but I pointed you to the
>>>> Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
>>>> head.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It's clear all you did was find two bullet lists, one for
>>> Apple and one for Linux, and tried to use that to prove Apple
>>> superiority without understanding what you were reading.
>>
>> You fabricated that.
>
> The thread proves that's a lie.
Boring baseless accusation on your part. Hey, you keep asking me to back
things (most of which I have) but you refuse to back your claims. Here is a
partial list:
1) Your claims about what the Linux distro sites say (I have proved my
point about their believe they offer their own OS, you have just
offered nay-saying).
2) Your claims about sock puppetry (not true and no support)
3) Your claim about how it two OSs have the same shell commands
then they are the same OS (this is just stupid)
4) Your claim about me not knowing what a shell is or how it
works.
5) Your claim that desktop Linux has about 5% user base
6) Your claim that companies are paying MS simply to not have to
pay court costs as opposed to the publicly stated reasons.
7) Apple's computer sales are from " just updates and upgrades to
existing users"
8) I wish for people to be anything other than intelligent.
You just make things up and hope you are not called on your BS. Come on,
"Nobody", why not try to back *anything* you say? You sure demand others
do so! But you do not... because you are a lying coward. And a boring one
at that.
>> There was a discussion on network scanning - I showed
>> how easy it was on OS X... trivial to set up (automatic).
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>
> Yes, you referred to bullet lists, just as I said.
I also showed a video of how easy it is.
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>>
>> JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
>> -----
>> I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
>> video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
>> -----
>>
>> Only after JEDIDIAH showed how out of touch he was with the modern
>> competition did I even look to see the process was described on the Apple and
>> Ubuntu sites. Your claim about is a complete fabrication. A lie on your
>> part.
Funny - no comment on your part about how JEDIDIAH is so far out of touch
with the ease of use of modern computing he could not accept even when given
video *proof*. You just snip and run.
Oh well, speaking of technology scares you... you know you are in over your
head. I can accept that.
...
them well.
> We're still left with this though:
>
> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
Because Windows served them better... for the reasons I have covered (and
are pretty obvious to people who know technology well). If you want more
details start defending your own claims... here is the partial list,
*AGAIN*:
1) Your claims about what the Linux distro sites say (I have proved my
point about their believe they offer their own OS, you have just
offered nay-saying).
2) Your claims about sock puppetry (not true and no support)
3) Your claim about how it two OSs have the same shell commands
then they are the same OS (this is just stupid)
4) Your claim about me not knowing what a shell is or how it
works.
5) Your claim that desktop Linux has about 5% user base
6) Your claim that companies are paying MS simply to not have to
pay court costs as opposed to the publicly stated reasons.
7) Apple's computer sales are from " just updates and upgrades to
existing users"
8) I wish for people to be anything other than intelligent.
You just make things up and hope you are not called on your BS. Come on,
"Nobody", why not try to back *anything* you say?
> So far you have one Lab that's running Windows, and one Windows laptop
> user as your list of "clients" you "support" on Ubuntu.
Poor you... I have not listed all examples of my clients when I gave you a
list of *some* examples. Man, sucks for you!
>>>>>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>>>>>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>>>>>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
>>>> That *must* be it.
>>>
>>> If you really believe that's what I meant, you have something seriously
>>> wrong with you.
>>
>> You claimed the link showing how things are done on Ubuntu is a "contrived
>> attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light". How is it?
>
> I told you your comparison of two bullet lists of procedures, one for
> Ubuntu, one for OSX, with the unsupported conclusion "it's so much
> easier for OSX, for something you don't even do yourself, is a contrived
> example to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
Don't even do do myself? You are just asking for attention, right?
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 1:10 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/5/12 10:42 AM, in article jt4jlm$jp2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>>>>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
>>>
>>> The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
>>> on Ubuntu.
>>
>> I do not understand what you mean by that.
>
> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
So you have no explanation for your comment. Ok. I have been very clear
> On 7/5/2012 1:10 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/5/12 10:42 AM, in article jt4jlm$jp2$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
>>>>> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of the users I have moved to Ubuntu:
>>>
>>> The following are neither users nor the "clients" you claimed to support
>>> on Ubuntu.
>>
>> I do not understand what you mean by that.
>
> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
with whom I have moved to Ubuntu or other desktop Linux distro... even
listed who it was appropriate for in another post today.
>>>> 1) A secondary computer lab at a high school where they had a bunch of
>>>> donated computers with no OSs. Ubuntu handled most of the computers fine
>>>> and worked well... mostly used for web use but also some simple word
>>>> processing and even a typing program (it was not great but it was free).
>>>
>>> A public computer lab doesn't count as the clients you claimed to be
>>> supporting on Ubuntu.
>>
>> Why do the users of a computer lab not count as users in your world? That
>> makes no sense.
>
> Sure it makes sense. You set the lab up according to what you thought
> it should be, not according to the wants of the "clients" you claimed to
> serve.
>>>> Once they could afford new computer they got a Windows lab (the main lab
>>>> was
>>>> a Mac lab).
>>>
>>> Not a Mac lab? Imagine that!
>>
>> Again I do not follow your point. Do you have one?
>>
>>>> 2) A user of a laptop who had lost his OS media and the computer's OS had
>>>> gone belly up. He also had repeatedly gotten malware. He did later buy a
>>>> Windows machine and I set him up with malware protection. He did get used
>>>> to Linux but felt it was held together with duct tape, to use his words.
>>>> It just did not feel like a unified system.
>>>
>>> So this is not an example of the Ubuntu "clients" you claim to have either.
>>
>> How not?
>
> A person with a Windows laptop doesn't count as an Ubuntu client of yours.
Ok, you are just lost. I have no problem with it.
>> I mean, sure, he came to the reasoned conclusion that another
>> system would serve him better... but he did use it for some time (6 months
>> or more). But in your world that does not count.
>
> A person with a Windows laptop does not count as one of the Ubuntu
> clients you claimed to have, in anybody's world.
relevant. Right: you and logic are not in the same world. I accept that.
...
>> How do you figure? I do scanning somewhat regularly.
>
> You do network scanning on a regular basis? Please tell why.
To scan from my networked device. Really, this is not a challenge to
>
> You do network scanning on a regular basis? Please tell why.
understand. And I do it on a fairly regular basis... scanning is something
many modern computer users do. Really, do you need *that* justified?
>>>> but I pointed you to the
>>>> Ubuntu page that describes how to set that up! Clearly it went over your
>>>> head.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It's clear all you did was find two bullet lists, one for
>>> Apple and one for Linux, and tried to use that to prove Apple
>>> superiority without understanding what you were reading.
>>
>> You fabricated that.
>
> The thread proves that's a lie.
things (most of which I have) but you refuse to back your claims. Here is a
partial list:
1) Your claims about what the Linux distro sites say (I have proved my
point about their believe they offer their own OS, you have just
offered nay-saying).
2) Your claims about sock puppetry (not true and no support)
3) Your claim about how it two OSs have the same shell commands
then they are the same OS (this is just stupid)
4) Your claim about me not knowing what a shell is or how it
works.
5) Your claim that desktop Linux has about 5% user base
6) Your claim that companies are paying MS simply to not have to
pay court costs as opposed to the publicly stated reasons.
7) Apple's computer sales are from " just updates and upgrades to
existing users"
8) I wish for people to be anything other than intelligent.
You just make things up and hope you are not called on your BS. Come on,
"Nobody", why not try to back *anything* you say? You sure demand others
do so! But you do not... because you are a lying coward. And a boring one
at that.
>> There was a discussion on network scanning - I showed
>> how easy it was on OS X... trivial to set up (automatic).
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>
> Yes, you referred to bullet lists, just as I said.
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98663c5f8d9a2332>
>>
>> JEDIDIAH, on seeing how easy scanning is on OS X:
>> -----
>> I think you are full of it and chances are that if there is a
>> video that appears to confirm your claims then it is faked.
>> -----
>>
>> Only after JEDIDIAH showed how out of touch he was with the modern
>> competition did I even look to see the process was described on the Apple and
>> Ubuntu sites. Your claim about is a complete fabrication. A lie on your
>> part.
with the ease of use of modern computing he could not accept even when given
video *proof*. You just snip and run.
Oh well, speaking of technology scares you... you know you are in over your
head. I can accept that.
...
>> I made no effort to convince them to do so. I worked to solve their needs
>> with the tools best suited - including capabilities and price. Again, you
>> fabricated a claim about me trying to convince someone of something I did no
>> such thing.
>
> So you talked them into a Windows lab?
I discussed options and pros and cons and we came to a solution that served
>> with the tools best suited - including capabilities and price. Again, you
>> fabricated a claim about me trying to convince someone of something I did no
>> such thing.
>
> So you talked them into a Windows lab?
them well.
> We're still left with this though:
>
> Elaborate: tell what kind of users, what kind of applications, and why
> they need you when anybody can download and install Ubuntu on their own.
are pretty obvious to people who know technology well). If you want more
details start defending your own claims... here is the partial list,
*AGAIN*:
1) Your claims about what the Linux distro sites say (I have proved my
point about their believe they offer their own OS, you have just
offered nay-saying).
2) Your claims about sock puppetry (not true and no support)
3) Your claim about how it two OSs have the same shell commands
then they are the same OS (this is just stupid)
4) Your claim about me not knowing what a shell is or how it
works.
5) Your claim that desktop Linux has about 5% user base
6) Your claim that companies are paying MS simply to not have to
pay court costs as opposed to the publicly stated reasons.
7) Apple's computer sales are from " just updates and upgrades to
existing users"
8) I wish for people to be anything other than intelligent.
You just make things up and hope you are not called on your BS. Come on,
"Nobody", why not try to back *anything* you say?
> So far you have one Lab that's running Windows, and one Windows laptop
> user as your list of "clients" you "support" on Ubuntu.
list of *some* examples. Man, sucks for you!
>>>>>> It showed the recommended methods from each company. Here are the pages:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4505>
>>>>>> <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ScanningHowTo>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The differences in ease of use could not be more clear (which is not to
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> this is true of all features and functions, but it is tied to a real
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> example discussed in COLA... not an example specifically selected to put
>>>>>> Ubuntu in a bad light).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a painfully contrived attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu puts up contrived attempts to put themselves in a bad light. Yeah.
>>>> That *must* be it.
>>>
>>> If you really believe that's what I meant, you have something seriously
>>> wrong with you.
>>
>> You claimed the link showing how things are done on Ubuntu is a "contrived
>> attempt to put Ubuntu in a bad light". How is it?
>
> I told you your comparison of two bullet lists of procedures, one for
> Ubuntu, one for OSX, with the unsupported conclusion "it's so much
> easier for OSX, for something you don't even do yourself, is a contrived
> example to put Ubuntu in a bad light.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
0 new messages