Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115240

Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried

From	cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried
Date	2012-06-19 11:21 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<0d2ef3f1-3015-4ba6-abd9-4e336d38e70f@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <CC05E23A.39B3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <c8c913d5-2ab4-4b1c-b692-87979340dbd3@googlegroups.com> <CC05E93E.39D9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <6caed515-4527-48ad-9e98-c88e6cce771e@googlegroups.com> <CC0603B0.3A01%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23:44 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there.  There is
> *no* doubt.  Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
> 

You still don't get it. Really, this is basic stuff. When there are record lows in the winter, or record snowfall, or record Linux usage it does not mean that there were measurement errors, or that the records didn't actually happen. What it does mean is that these were blips or anomalies. So basing trends on global warming based on such a small sample size of outrageously anomalous numbers is fucking stupid. Same with Linux usage. Anyone with any basic knowledge of stats or even some decent common sense will tell you that. Since I can recognize these facts, and I know how to deal with them, that's why my trendline fit the data so much better and showed a different trend and blasted your asinine statements out of the water.

-- 
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

The "stats" debate. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 13:38 -0700
  Re: The "stats" debate. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-18 14:43 -0700
    Re: The "stats" debate which cc still runs from Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 14:53 -0700
  OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 16:14 -0700
    Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 21:13 -0700
      Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:21 -0700
        Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 16:26 +0200
          Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:51 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 07:59 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 17:16 +0200
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:23 -0700
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:01 -0700
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:20 -0700
          Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:00 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:13 -0700
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:30 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:58 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:46 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:23 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 11:21 -0700
                Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face.  Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:16 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:27 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:33 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:39 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:41 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:49 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 13:23 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:34 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 16:16 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:35 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 05:27 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:36 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 08:43 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:47 -0700
                Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:34 -0700
                Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:59 -0700
                OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 10:57 -0700
                Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:10 -0700
                cc and Carroll lie about their running. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 11:48 -0700
                Re: cc and Carroll lie about their running. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:57 -0700
                cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 12:26 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 12:39 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 13:56 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:15 -0700
                Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 14:59 -0700
                Re: Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:16 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:24 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 19:45 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-20 22:52 -0400
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 04:07 +0000
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 21:10 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-21 08:16 -0600
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 05:14 -0700
                Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 09:17 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 10:08 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 10:52 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:03 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 11:27 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:53 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 13:13 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 12:35 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 13:50 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 14:27 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 15:30 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:03 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:11 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:34 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:00 -0700
                cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 14:38 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-21 22:31 -0400
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 22:23 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:04 +0100
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:38 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:29 -0400
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:04 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:37 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 19:27 -0400
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-22 09:45 +0100
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time?  But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:30 -0400
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:33 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:13 -0700
                Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:14 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:59 -0700
          Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:45 -0700
      Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 23:00 -0700

csiph-web