Internet Explorer Tied To Murder Rate?

*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.

Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny :)
 
The graph is one of those misleading scales where they're compressing one side. Clearly the % of market share vs. the % of murders is not equal.

Still, funny anyway.
 
I would have to blame the media instead of IE. "Monkey see monkey do!" so lets just silent any story of murder.
 
time to ban autoloading browsers, and they may not exceed 16GB ram, limited to 10 tabs, must be used with a flat mouse grip, no Flash extension
 
Damn, I only use IE to log on the library internet so I don't screw up FF when it resumes my 200 tab session.
 
sfsuphysics said:
*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.

Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny :)
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a proper graph if it didn't have misleading information. Most people don't even know what you are talking about, which makes this graph perfect.
 
Both the murder rate and the market share of IE are tied to the global temperature and number of pirates.
 
SO basically all the people that used IE have been murdered?
 
sfsuphysics said:
*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.

Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny :)
Click to expand...
So there's an offset. When IE use goes to zero, there will still be about 12000 murders.

I mean you can't blame IE for everything. Just a large part.

Basically you don't need

Murder Rate = K*(IE use)

to have correlation

Murder Rate = K*(IE use) + B

is also a valid correlation.
 
Microsoft IE is to browsers what Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is to talking doors. Almost every time I use it I get frustrated. Oh? Trying to go to a server name? You must mean bing search. Let me help you. No? Not that? Let me add a .com to the end of it! I enjoy helping you!
 
sfsuphysics said:
*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.

Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny :)
Click to expand...

Obviously this graph is supposed to be a joke but I don't mind such graphs. From a scientific perspective I have no problem with scaling and offsetting axes. I've done it myself in a peer reviewed and published paper to show that a trend in experimental data was very close to quadratic but in discrete drops rather than continuous. If I'd displayed the entire range, you wouldn't have been able to see that level of detail unless I blew the image up to a full page. It was clearly labelled on the graph what I'd done.

The question then becomes do you trust your average person to actually look at the scales or just go "derr, this green bar is bigger than that green bar!", which is why it's questionable in graphs intended for mainstream consumption.

What I have a larger problem with is graphs with plot data against each other without mentioning the bazilllion assumptions, so even if you do see a trend the chances are it's completely meaningless. People on both sides of the gun debate fucking love to do this. Plot gun statistics against some sort of crime statistic to show one thing or another, as if NOTHING else happened that might have caused a difference, it must only be the presence or absence of guns that caused the statistics the way to be what they are. :rolleyes:
 
Tudz said:
Obviously this graph is supposed to be a joke but I don't mind such graphs. From a scientific perspective I have no problem with scaling and offsetting axes. I've done it myself in a peer reviewed and published paper to show that a trend in experimental data was very close to quadratic but in discrete drops rather than continuous. If I'd displayed the entire range, you wouldn't have been able to see that level of detail unless I blew the image up to a full page. It was clearly labelled on the graph what I'd done.

The question then becomes do you trust your average person to actually look at the scales or just go "derr, this green bar is bigger than that green bar!", which is why it's questionable in graphs intended for mainstream consumption.

What I have a larger problem with is graphs with plot data against each other without mentioning the bazilllion assumptions, so even if you do see a trend the chances are it's completely meaningless. People on both sides of the gun debate fucking love to do this. Plot gun statistics against some sort of crime statistic to show one thing or another, as if NOTHING else happened that might have caused a difference, it must only be the presence or absence of guns that caused the statistics the way to be what they are. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I want to point out that the '94 ban wasn't renewed because the FBI showed that it had made no discernible difference to crime rates. So you are right when it comes to anti-gunners as it has been proven they are full of crap.
 
darkstarcow said:
I want to point out that the '94 ban wasn't renewed because the FBI showed that it had made no discernible difference to crime rates. So you are right when it comes to anti-gunners as it has been proven they are full of crap.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm being critical of people on both sides of the debate. I've just as equally read comments and graphs saying that less guns = more crime, but always comparing cases which are not comparable or ignoring a ton of other information that may be a cause.
 
Ban the Assault Explorers. Ban high cap tab lists.

BAN THEM ALL *Foams at mouth*
 
Tudz said:
Yes, but I'm being critical of people on both sides of the debate. I've just as equally read comments and graphs saying that less guns = more crime, but always comparing cases which are not comparable or ignoring a ton of other information that may be a cause.
Click to expand...

No you're not! You're just looking for a way to justify your claim that Fantail goldfish owning residents of the US are all crazed murderers because of Internet Explorer.
 
Tudz said:
Obviously this graph is supposed to be a joke but I don't mind such graphs. From a scientific perspective I have no problem with scaling and offsetting axes. I've done it myself in a peer reviewed and published paper to show that a trend in experimental data was very close to quadratic but in discrete drops rather than continuous. If I'd displayed the entire range, you wouldn't have been able to see that level of detail unless I blew the image up to a full page. It was clearly labelled on the graph what I'd done.
Click to expand...

Just say "enhancing" and zoom in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top