Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115493
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? |
| Date | 2012-06-20 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC07D8E3.3BD2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <CC077211.3B51%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <f38e2317-d48b-4bbc-8e92-ad5b423f3edb@googlegroups.com> <CC078703.3B69%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <fc44314d-bff1-4e6f-9db7-116b33b54b1b@googlegroups.com> <1b104b9d-7f75-474f-9889-f80eac9610e4@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
On 6/20/12 6:24 PM, in article 1b104b9d-7f75-474f-9889-f80eac9610e4@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight" <onionknightgot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 9:15 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, in article >>> f38e2317-d48b-4bbc-8e92-ad5b423f3edb@googlegroups.com, "cc" >>> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:26:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/12 11:57 AM, in article >>>>> 8b61531f-ec5a-47d8-b487-5cab7981b3ff@googlegroups.com, "cc" >>>>> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> .... >>>>>> You picked months that are so out of wack with every other data point >>>>>> that >>>>>> they are statistically insignificant. >> >>>>> You mean you did not see the significance... even though the R^2 value, >>>>> which before you worshiped, was so high (above 0.98). >> >>>> LOL! The R^2 value has nothing to do with the statistical insignificance of >>>> the outliers. >> >>> I am glad you have given up on your worshipping of the R^2 Gods. >> >> You are totally clueless as to when R^2 values are relevant and when they are >> irrelevant. >> >> R^2 values are relevant when: >> Someone creates a trendline using the same dataset that shows a different >> trend from yours. That means the trendline with the best R^2 value shows the >> correct trend. > > Based on this Snit's trendline for the second half of 2011 with its > excellent R^2 value is much better than any trendline you created. Well, he did say for the same data. Then again, he admitted for his trend line he did not use the same data, but a data set *based* on the same data where he weighted points for the purpose of getting a better R^2 value. Then he was shocked - just shocked - that his R^2 value was higher. He is completely lost on the topic. > Good to see you admit you fucked up in your attempts to make > trendlines. He does not realize how he made such an admission. And my stalker will back him. He will ignore logic and reason and suck up the slop of my stalker. Count on it. >> R^2 values are irrelevant when: >> Determining if the dataset you are using is made up of erroneous data. > > But you claimed your trendline was better because of its R^2 value and > thus showed the data for 2011 was in error. The R^2 value Snit showed > proves to you his trendline is better than yours and proves to you > that your claim about the data being in error is shit. > > You admit you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Of course he has no idea what he is talking about. He claims this data: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png> is erroneous because it does not fit his wishes. He has *no* other evidence. "Erroneous data" does not form such a clear trend - not unless there is a systemic problem in the data collection... something he has not shown. He is just spewing nonsense because the facts do not fit his wishes. Compare that with me: I do not *want* Linux usage to drop for multiple reasons - it goes against my prediction and, more importantly, I *want* desktop Linux to succeed. But I accept the data: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg> I hope the downward trend does not continue but I will not call the data showing it is doing so "erroneous data" just because I do not like it. I will not sink to cc's level. >> For example, using the latter half of 2011 data, and using my method I can >> get an even better (although only slightly) R^2 value than you. Good for me! >> But that doesn't change the fact that those data points are statistically >> insignificant because they are outliers. So both trendlines are completely >> useless in this case, even though they have high R^2 values. > > Those data points are insignificant to you because they prove you > wrong. Exactly... that is the sole determiner for cc as to if data is good or "erroneous" - does it fit his wishes. He has *no* evidence to back his claims. None. >> Another example: if you took 6 temperatures points throughout the summer, and >> 4 of those points were record lows, and decided to create a trendline, the >> R^2 value would be very high, and it would be showing a downward trend. If >> you tried to use that to disprove global warming you would be laughed >> at. > > Just because you have four record lows that does not mean the > trendline for those four data points would be going down. If you > looked at record lows in March, April, May, and June then the > trendline for those points would likely being going up. As to why you > would want to use such data to disprove global warming is just fucked > up. You are displaying your stupidity for all to see. Well put. Yes: his whole temperature analogy just is another avenue for him to run from the actual discussion *and* show off his ignorance. Oh, and just because four of six points are record lows does not mean that any trend line you created would have a "very high" R^2 value. Once again cc is just showing off his ignorance. >> One final example: if you took a larger dataset of temperature points >> throughout the summer, but didn't deal with the outliers, you would have a >> trendline with a low R^2 value that showed the temperature actually dropped. >> If I came along, did a proper statistical analysis and had a flat trendline >> with a better R^2 value for that same dataset, then everyone would know your >> trendline is wrong. > > The only reason you think you can prove the trend of Linux usage was > not going up in 2011 is because it goes against your wishes. This > shows you are a fucking idiot. cc has created a new field of math: statistics by wishes. That is *all* he has. He *wishes* things so he figures he can keep making trend line based on whatever sets of data he wants, re-weighing data points as he wishes, until his point is "proved". Utter stupidity on his part. >> So once again you're confused about how the R^2 value factors in. When >> comparing one trendline to another, the R^2 value is very important, but not >> when seeing if your data is composed of anomalies. That's why the R^2 value >> was important before (when comparing your trendline to mine), but it's not >> important now (just discussing how stupid it is for you to use those points >> to make a trendline). > > There is no doubt Steve that you are the dumbest fuck to ever roam > usenet no matter what name you post under. Funny how Steve never did get around to posting that list of names he used. LOL! >> -- >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's >> ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis > -- 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
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? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:57 -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? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:35 -0400
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. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:02 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:24 -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
Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:51 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:42 -0400
Re: Help with understanding outliers Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:22 +0200
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 14:32 +0000
Re: Help with understanding outliers Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-23 11:02 -0400
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:31 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:21 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2012-06-23 16:45 +0100
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 18:58 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 19:55 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 22:48 -0400
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:04 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:22 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:20 +0200
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:12 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-24 14:59 -0500
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:58 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-23 09:09 +0200
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2012-06-23 00:25 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:22 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:59 -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