Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #116606
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics |
| Date | 2012-06-28 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC121250.425D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | <CC11DB9D.4221%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <dcd526a4-0e6a-4167-ad8d-d4ae6c05ddbb@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/28/12 11:35 AM, in article dcd526a4-0e6a-4167-ad8d-d4ae6c05ddbb@googlegroups.com, "cc" <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >> 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 > > Yes, you were totally wrong. Most of us knew that from the get go. Now it's > been proven to you beyond a doubt. Why shouldn't the upswing be taken all that > seriously? Oh right, because it's anomalous data, aka outliers. What a > self-nuke. > >> >> 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. >> >> > > In the original thread you understood I was making fun of you. Have you gotten > dumber since then? It seems as though you have. 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. -- 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>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:59 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 11:35 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 13:53 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:21 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 14:38 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:45 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 15:16 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Onion Knight <onionknightgot@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-29 05:10 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 10:36 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 10:45 -0700
Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 12:49 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Big Steel <YouCanRun111277@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> - 2012-06-29 15:59 -0400
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 13:11 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Big Steel <YouCanRun111277@ButYouCannotHide111277.com> - 2012-06-29 16:18 -0400
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-29 16:40 -0400
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-29 17:48 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 17:46 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 22:22 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 11:06 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-30 08:36 -0400
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:12 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Tattoo Vampire <fake@fakeemail.com> - 2012-06-30 09:55 -0400
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 10:51 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:33 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 11:38 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 13:54 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 12:56 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 15:34 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 16:34 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 17:05 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 18:49 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-07-05 12:42 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-07-05 11:10 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-07-31 11:36 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-07-31 11:31 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2012-06-30 16:15 -0600
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 18:40 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2012-06-30 22:19 -0600
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 23:16 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 17:36 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-30 08:26 -0400
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:14 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 10:55 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:46 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 13:44 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 11:58 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-30 14:12 -0500
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 22:00 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 11:01 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-30 13:51 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 14:48 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-30 21:11 -0700
Re: Long term desktop Linux trend is going up Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 23:09 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 21:59 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:59 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 21:57 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-29 23:02 -0600
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-30 08:49 -0400
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:07 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 10:55 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 10:03 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 09:48 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 21:41 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-29 22:59 -0600
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-02 04:31 -0700
Re: That "Anomaly" in Linux Statistics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-07-02 08:20 -0700
csiph-web