A A A A
In the news
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 4th January 2013   #18901
prole art threat
 
prole art threat's Avatar
Heading for a triple-dip recession

Which excuse is Gideon going to use this time? Floods? Santa?

Osbornomics fails again.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18902
dublinkevin
 
dublinkevin's Avatar
FWIW I shed no tears for Jim Davidson, the guy is a scumbag.

But. He hasnt been charged with anything.
Being arrested is not an offence.
It does not mean you are guilty.

However, it does throw a cloud of suspicion over him. A massive one. Which as someone back up the thread says, it will stick to him like shit on a blanket.

Is that fair? It is "justice" ?

Look at what happened with Christopher Jefferies (that is Jo Yeates' landlord in Bristol), the guy gets arrested in a high profile case and his character gets assassinated, he's wrongly labelled as a rapist and a murderer, which must have been extremely traumatic for him.

I think that people, even if they are arrested, should be granted anonymity, until they are actually charged with the crime, and then have to go to court. Why ? Because guess what, the wonderful police services in the UK get it wrong sometimes, they fuck it up, they arrest innocent people, they convict innocent people.

In today's world, with people repeating shit via Twitter, FB, and forums, the merest hint of an accusation can be built up into guilt in a matter of hours. Lord McAlpine being a prime recent example.

Victims of sexual crimes are rightly entitled to anonymity.
(As abhorrent as it might sound to defend them in any way) Those accused of such crimes should also be granted anonymity, until a charge, or even a conviction, comes about. Because shit sticks, and if a person is innocent, it isnt 'justice' to them.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18903
Markyboy
 
Markyboy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
But it's the only logical reason I can think of at the minute.
Mick, you obviously have no idea how the police could treat allegations of rape back then (have a look at the infamous TV doc) and how rape victims were often treated. Add to that the impunity of celebrity and there's a very good logical reason for not coming forward at the time.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18904
n3il
 
n3il's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dublinkevin View Post
However, it does throw a cloud of suspicion over him. A massive one. Which as someone back up the thread says, it will stick to him like shit on a blanket.

Is that fair? It is "justice" ?

Look at what happened with Christopher Jefferies (that is Jo Yeates' landlord in Bristol), the guy gets arrested in a high profile case and his character gets assassinated, he's wrongly labelled as a rapist and a murderer, which must have been extremely traumatic for him.
This is a problem with the media, not the justice system. The problem for the justice system is that too many rapes go unreported.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18905
Markyboy
 
Markyboy's Avatar
Spot on
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18906
dublinkevin
 
dublinkevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3il View Post
This is a problem with the media, not the justice system. The problem for the justice system is that too many rapes go unreported.
Agreed. But the way to right an injustice is hardly to commit another one.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18907
Dammit
 
Dammit's Avatar
You must have missed the NRA's latest pronouncement on how to combat firearm offences.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18908
photoben
 
photoben's Avatar
Lets not forget that he's such a cunt even the masons kicked him out...
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18909
wiganwill
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ja...st-communities

However, Tories blamed the culture of poor people rather than betting companies for exploiting them. John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham in Surrey, which has three betting shops, said he had been "surprised" by the spread of bookmakers in poorer areas.

"I put it down to the fact that poor people believe there's one shot to get rich. They put getting rich down to luck and think they can take a gamble.

"They also have time on their hands. My voters are too busy working hard to make a reasonable income."

  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18910
j.m.f
sad facts^^

unashamed LCC post, if Spaniards can do this, why the fuck cant our ancient
senior leaders sort out our transportation? 20 years I reckon at least before they wake up out of the dopey slumber
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/seville-goes-dutch
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18911
bothwelldonor
 
bothwell's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiganwill View Post
"They also have time on their hands. My voters are too busy working hard to make a reasonable income."

If those poor people showed a bit of initiative they could easily get out of their situation. Maybe set up a little business, have people pay money to ride their horses or pick strawberries on their land, etc. Even if they sold off about a third of their silver and invested it in a few thousand pounds worth of low-risk share options they'd be fine. That's the trouble with the poor, of course, no imagination. It's what comes of selfish parents refusing sending their children to public school, you see.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18912
wiganwill
You want to lather a little more sarcasm on there Bothers?
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18913
RPM
Jesus did this to you.
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18914
prole art threat
 
prole art threat's Avatar
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8437730.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/04-votersprejudice2.jpg
  quote   reply
Old 4th January 2013   #18915
Scoot
 
Scoot's Avatar
Very nice. What annoys me is the data visualisation fail. Those circles are extremely inaccurate! If they didn't want the infographic to look weird by a having barely visible 0.7% circle they should have just used a different visual method to compare the figures, because it not only mis-represents the data, but makes the difference less pronounced than it actually is because the smaller circles should be much much smaller!

#designrage
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18916
eone
 
eone's Avatar
A circle with area 41 has a diameter of 7(ish), a circle with area 3 has a diameter 2(ish) so the bigger one should be 3.5 times wider.

#seemslegit
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18917
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
yep, spatial awareness fail there scoot. Anything else would have been misrepresentative.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18918
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
27 vs 0.7

one is about 38.5 times bigger than the other, which I can see from the infographic
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18919
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
were you maybe thinking that the blue circle was supposed to represent 0.7% of the red circle?
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18920
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
To elaborate

The first one, 41% vs 3%. If you scale that up to make it more easy to see what they are trying to represent you could make the larger circle 100%, the total of what the public are assuming. In that case, the smaller circle would be just over 7 (3 x 2.44, seeing as 100/41 = 2.44). Therefore, the red circle should be just over 14 times larger (in area) than the blue one, which looks fine above.

The second one, 27 vs 0.7, we have already covered, but for clarity, would be 100 vs 2.6, ergo 38.5ish times bigger.

The third one, 48 vs 27.8 would be 100 vs 57.9 : 1.7 times bigger.

Still all seems cushdy to me.

The third one
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18921
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
not to labour a point or anything...


#antidesignerrage
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18922
neudonor
 
neu's Avatar
The radii of the 27% and 0.7% circles are 21.1px and 4px respectively

The larger one is therefore roughly x28 the size of the smaller. It should be x38.57 however this would only require the radius of the smaller circle to be 0.6 px smaller, so the difference is most likely due to measurement error, and the graphic is correct.

Area of a circle is proportional to the radius squared. For a circle to be x38.5 larger, it would only need to be x6.2 wider.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18923
wiganwill
What size of a circle should be used for humble pie?
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18924
skydancerdonor
 
skydancer's Avatar
A pie chart would have made if easier to illustrate the points perhaps?

#prodesignimprovementsuggesttrage
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18925
Scoot
 
Scoot's Avatar
I'm confused, because I see the two circles as being arbitrary shapes used to represent percentages, which should be directly relative to the size of the hypothetical 100%

So say this 100x100mm circle represents 100% of the welfare budget:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle_zpsb809dfb3.jpg

This circle is 41x41mm: so is 41% of the size of the entire welfare budget, and the percentage that people perceive goes to unemployment benefits:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle2_zps474dd389.jpg

And this is 3x3mm: 3% the size of the 100% welfare budget, which is the actual amount spent on unemployment benefits

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle3_zps211de9a3.jpg

I agree with skydancer that two pie charts have been much more effective. Or even a bar chart.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18926
Scoot
 
Scoot's Avatar
See, look how much clearer this is!

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/graph_zpsbb88771b.jpg http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/graph-1_zpsc70bbc42.jpg
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18927
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoot View Post
I'm confused, because I see the two circles as being arbitrary shapes used to represent percentages, which should be directly relative to the size of the hypothetical 100%

So say this 100x100mm circle represents 100% of the welfare budget:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle_zpsb809dfb3.jpg

This circle is 41x41mm: so is 41% of the size of the entire welfare budget, and the percentage that people perceive goes to unemployment benefits:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle2_zps474dd389.jpg

And this is 3x3mm: 3% the size of the 100% welfare budget, which is the actual amount spent on unemployment benefits

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle3_zps211de9a3.jpg

I agree with skydancer that two pie charts have been much more effective. Or even a bar chart.
You are mixing up your dimensions, the most important thing is the area of these circles, not the diameter (which is also not described as A x B : that is for squares or rectangles). If you double the diameter of a circle you more than double it's area.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18928
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoot View Post
See, look how much clearer this is!

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/graph_zpsbb88771b.jpg http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/graph-1_zpsc70bbc42.jpg
Pie charts are unnecessary here and take up more space than the infographic needs. You leave people wondering what the "other" is.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18929
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoot View Post
I'm confused, because I see the two circles as being arbitrary shapes used to represent percentages, which should be directly relative to the size of the hypothetical 100%

So say this 100x100mm circle represents 100% of the welfare budget: Area of this circle is 7,850mm squared

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle_zpsb809dfb3.jpg

This circle is 41x41mm: so is 41% of the size of the entire welfare budget, and the percentage that people perceive goes to unemployment benefits: WRONG a 41mm diameter circle is 1,319.6mm squared, so 16.8% of the size of the 100mm diameter circle.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle2_zps474dd389.jpg

And this is 3x3mm: 3% the size of the 100% welfare budget, which is the actual amount spent on unemployment benefits: WRONG a 3mm diameter circle is 7.065mm squared, so 0.1% of the size of the 100mm diameter circle

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/circle3_zps211de9a3.jpg

I agree with skydancer that two pie charts have been much more effective. Or even a bar chart.
.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18930
fade
 
fade's Avatar
^^^but surely seeing as its harder to perceive the area of a circle it would have been better for the purposes of an infographic to use a shape that is more easily understandable, after all the point of infographics is to display complex data in a way easy for viewers to understand.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18931
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fade View Post
^^^but surely seeing as its harder to perceive the area of a circle it would have been better for the purposes of an infographic to use a shape that is more easily understandable, after all the point of infographics is to display complex data in a way easy for viewers to understand.
Seeing as shapes were one of the first things I learnt as a nipper, I wouldn't have said it was hard to perceive the relative* area of a circle in the first place.

*it's only necessary to understand the size relative to the next circle
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18932
wiganwill
What's so hard to understand about the difference between 3% and 41%?
Just possibly an info-graphic is not really needed at all in this case in what is supposed to be a serious paper for intelligent adults?
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18933
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiganwill View Post
What's so hard to understand about the difference between 3% and 41%?
Just possibly an info-graphic is not really needed at all in this case in what is supposed to be a serious paper for intelligent adults?
I reckon more readers of this forum would have understood more easily were the details displayed as triangles......
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18934
wiganwill
Though the graphics did help me get my head round the difficult concept of a couple with two school-age children.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18935
fade
 
fade's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo_com View Post
Seeing as shapes were one of the first things I learnt as a nipper, I wouldn't have said it was hard to perceive the relative* area of a circle in the first place.

*it's only necessary to understand the size relative to the next circle
Yes, but the point is its hard relative to other methods of displaying the data. If the point of designing an infographic is to make information easy for users to understand and visually pleasing, then using the relative area of circles may not be the best method because its not the easiest to understand. Lets not forget not everyone has the same ability to perceive the relative area of circles, whereas using something like a series of repeated square units would be much easier to understand for everyone, making the infographic a more powerful tool.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18937
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fade View Post
Yes, but the point is its hard relative to other methods of displaying the data. If the point of designing an infographic is to make information easy for users to understand and visually pleasing, then using the relative area of circles may not be the best method because its not the easiest to understand. Lets not forget not everyone has the same ability to perceive the relative area of circles, whereas using something like a series of repeated square units would be much easier to understand for everyone, making the infographic a more powerful tool.
Obviously, there are a myriad of ways (judging by a quick google search) to skin this particular moggy. The point is that using these circles is not a misleading way of representing the data, or that they were incorrect, as originally claimed.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18938
wiganwill
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiganwill View Post
What's so hard to understand about the difference between 3% and 41%?
Just possibly an info-graphic is not really needed at all in this case in what is supposed to be a serious paper for intelligent adults?
I am suffering some sort of bizarre syndrome where I assume everything I see comes from the Guardian. Anyway, there are other results in this poll that are worth reading about too

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/tuc-...misconceptions
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18939
Scoot
 
Scoot's Avatar
I'm saying that the area isn't how it should be measured, exactly because it's so much harder to gauge because of the stupid maths. The images I used are actually squares, if the white bits were filled in and used to represent the figures it would be correct, what makes it different because they are circles? They are still 41% or 3% of the size of the 100% even if the area isn't, and it's much easier for a layperson such as myself to immediately see the difference.

Bar chart then

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/thecaffeinefairy/graph_zpsc784fe4f.jpg

Clunky as hell, but the contrasts are much clearer I think
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18940
fade
 
fade's Avatar
^^^you're right, they're not incorrect, but it is a failure by the designer to make the data as easy to understand as possible, if there was no original intent to do that then they would have just stated the numbers on the page and moved on. Also that link posted shows that research has found that people are likely to underestimate the area of circles and through that practice has been developed to compensate for this.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18941
Scoot
 
Scoot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo_com View Post
Obviously, there are a myriad of ways (judging by a quick google search) to skin this particular moggy. The point is that using these circles is not a misleading way of representing the data, or that they were incorrect, as originally claimed.
Ok fine, they're not wrong, they're just obtuse.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18942
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoot View Post
The images I used are actually squares, if the white bits were filled in and used to represent the figures it would be correct, what makes it different because they are circles?
Really??

100 x 100mm square is 10,000mm squared

41 x 41mm square is 1,681mm squared which is 16.9% of the size of the 100x100 square, not 41%

This is not rocket surgery.

For example;

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UdKHLrHa05M/S1JEUxrq1bI/AAAAAAAAAdo/P8t1Z7l1FZs/s400/euler4.png

The smallest square is half as wide/tall as the middle square but is 4 times "smaller"
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18943
stevo_comdonor
 
stevo_com's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoot View Post
Ok fine, they're not wrong, they're just obtuse.
triangles, see?
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18944
Lynchmandonor
 
Lynchman's Avatar
Pie anyone?
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18945
horatio
 
horatio's Avatar
The graph isn't asking people to judge the area of a circle. It's giving the percentage, so that's not necessary. It is offering a very simple visual representation of differences. That is all. And it works. I can very easily see that the relative difference of the first two is 'a lot' and the third 'not so much'. If you find it confusing you're thinking about it too much.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18946
John H
 
John H's Avatar
This.

A big circle is bigger than another circle, which in turn is bigger than another.

Luckily the reader has the numbers in the circles, if they want the detail of it, and don't have to measure pixels to understand it.
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18947
dublinkevin
 
dublinkevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynchman View Post
Pie anyone?
Yes please

http://www.seriouseats.com/images/potd_pi-pie.jpg
  quote   reply
Old 5th January 2013   #18948
skydancerdonor
 
skydancer's Avatar
This ^ ^^^needs own thread?
Poll¿
42% yes
0.0007% no
  quote   reply
Old 6th January 2013   #18949
Balkidonor
 
Balki's Avatar
I like the circles
  quote   reply
Old 6th January 2013   #18950
RPM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balki View Post
I like the circles
Filth!

Stop ogling those figures and go ride your bike.
  quote   reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://www.lfgss.com/thread13146.html


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In other news... Platini Miscellaneous & Meaningless 12 26th April 2010 09:37
In the news... Walkersan General 7 29th August 2008 13:51
Why is this headline news? sweatpee General 5 29th April 2008 13:15
On the News |³|MA3K General 11 23rd April 2008 12:56
Langsters all over the news Scrapper General 18 26th July 2007 22:07

All times are GMT. The time now is 00:42.
Creative Commons License, BY-SA v2.0
no new posts