Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115201
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried |
| Date | 2012-06-19 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC05E93E.39D9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <fc1aa36f-5db3-4b90-becd-3025bf6a1637@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <8d14b0df-821e-41a4-89e6-f511e27e7bc3@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <561ulbnzrv.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <CC05E23A.39B3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <c8c913d5-2ab4-4b1c-b692-87979340dbd3@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/19/12 8:13 AM, in article
c8c913d5-2ab4-4b1c-b692-87979340dbd3@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:00:58 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is, of course, true... but showing the correlation I did (with the
>> increase in users) did not prove causation.
>>
>
> Funny, but you did neither. Repeating yourself won't change that fact.
You keep denying I did as though if you deny it just one more time it will
not be true. Remember, you are the one running from facts:
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend line
in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.
There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.
There is also no reasonable debate about the fact that in the latter half of
2011 there was an increase in desktop Linux usage:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Even your idiot friend in the debate has agreed to that. And then there was
a drop in 2012.
Your "better" model lead you to missing these things... you made up a story
about those data points being "erroneous", even though you never did find
any evidence of for *any* of the data points you asked us to use to be more
or less accurate than any others.
With your worship of R^2 values you *missed* facts... you looked at just
your trend lines and not at the data. If you look at the data, though, the
change of trend is easy to see:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Wow... things change a *lot* at the start of 2012. And sometimes you even
admitted this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But other times you denied it:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
You flip flopped and got yourself all confused.
> You're like the people who see record snowfall for three weeks and use it to
> "disprove" global warming.
Nope.
> Three straight record high months for Linux usage,
> followed by a sharp drop back to normal is not a trend in either direction.
LOL! So an increase and then a decrease shows no sign of a change in trends
for you. None. You just do not see it. Got it. LOL!
> It's an abnormality. It's useless data.
It is data you cannot make use of - not quite the same as it being useless.
> This is common sense stuff. You s howed no correlation (you can't even give a
> coeffificent, or any meaningful numbers at all, so by definition you showed no
> correlation), because there was no correlation, because there was no trend
> upward, no matter how much you and your butt buddy Hadron want there to be.
This has already been proved wrong. Why do you keep repeating your BS?
> Are you sure you two aren't Rex Ballard socks?
That and Onion Knight and Kaba. Yeah, everyong who proves you wrong is the
same person.
> I mean fuck, the difference between Rex claiming Linux is actually at 50%
> usage and you two crowing about UI fixes bringing in new Linux users is
> negligible at this point. Desktop Linux is 1%, and you're just going to have
> to deal with that fact.
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
How about that guy... is he me, too? LOL!
You change your story more often than most change their socks. Wait...
maybe a bad analogy... given how you pal around with Carroll these days.
LOL!
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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
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. 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