...making Linux just a little more fun!
[ In reference to "Gnuplot in Action" in LG#158 ]
Ville Herva [v at iki.fi]
Jesus, that must have been an Ethiopian marathon race - alsmost nobody finishing after 3:15. 3:15 is not easy - try it if you like. I could understand the big bunch of people arriving around 2:30 if this was a big country championship, but if there are amateurs present the big bunch would definetely arrive between 3:15 and 4 - even after that.
-- v --
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Ville Herva wrote:
> Jesus, that must have been an Ethiopian marathon race - alsmost nobody finishing > after 3:15. 3:15 is not easy - try it if you like. I could understand the > big bunch of people arriving around 2:30 if this was a big country > championship, but if there are amateurs present the big bunch would > definetely arrive between 3:15 and 4 - even after that.
Since this is the only comment on it we've seen so far, I guess there aren't too many marathon runners among our readers... or possibly everyone figured that the data was essentially arbitrary and constructed to illustrate a point (bi-modal distribution and drawing too many conclusions from too little information.) In other words, it probably wasn't intended to be precisely representative.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Ville Herva [v at iki.fi]
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:37:15PM -0500, you [Ben Okopnik] wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Ville Herva wrote: > > Jesus, that must have been an Ethiopian marathon race - alsmost nobody finishing > > after 3:15. 3:15 is not easy - try it if you like. I could understand the > > big bunch of people arriving around 2:30 if this was a big country > > championship, but if there are amateurs present the big bunch would > > definetely arrive between 3:15 and 4 - even after that. > > Since this is the only comment on it we've seen so far, I guess there > aren't too many marathon runners among our readers... or possibly > everyone figured that the data was essentially arbitrary and constructed > to illustrate a point (bi-modal distribution and drawing too many > conclusions from too little information.) In other words, it probably > wasn't intended to be precisely representative.
Yeah, and I wasn't precisely serious (although I did bad job at pointing that out.) A great article, otherwise!
-- v --