Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:



"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:

"vey" wrote in message

...

George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.

That does not mean any of the comments are valid.

Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained, but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.

The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, the Census IS an estimate.

The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution says.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.

-------

This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based on the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.

Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. Even you can do it.

Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.

United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675

Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.

George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.


Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained, but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.
They frequently revise their figures for non-political reasons like -
let me just pull something out of my ass here - undercounts. Around
here, because of the awful balance of payments in favor of the feds,
revisions are a yearly occurrence. Two years ago, the census bureau
accepted its statewide numbers were wrong based upon construction
figures. It meant a few million extra dollars in aid for the city.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with states and municipalities
working to get more accurate figures, regardless of their motivations.

Cities who end up overestimated keep their mouths shut. But on the
average, the figures are accurate. No city wants accurate figures. They
all want them biased in their favors.

It's not just cities. It's states and counties too. Everybody wants to
maximize their favor. You haven't shown any convincing evidence that
the Census Bureau accepts such changes on specious grounds, however.

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:



"Pat" wrote in message


...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:

"vey" wrote in message

...

George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.

That does not mean any of the comments are valid.

Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.

The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, the Census IS an estimate.

The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.

-------

This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.

Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. Even you can do it.

Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.

United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675

Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.

First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.


Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained, but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.
They frequently revise their figures for non-political reasons like -
let me just pull something out of my ass here - undercounts. Around
here, because of the awful balance of payments in favor of the feds,
revisions are a yearly occurrence. Two years ago, the census bureau
accepted its statewide numbers were wrong based upon construction
figures. It meant a few million extra dollars in aid for the city.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with states and municipalities
working to get more accurate figures, regardless of their motivations.

Cities who end up overestimated keep their mouths shut. But on the
average, the figures are accurate. No city wants accurate figures.
They
all want them biased in their favors.

It's not just cities. It's states and counties too. Everybody wants to
maximize their favor. You haven't shown any convincing evidence that
the Census Bureau accepts such changes on specious grounds, however.

The census does not even bother with areas that don't complain, so the
"corrections" are political.

On Mar 24, 8:43*am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:

"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:

"vey" wrote in message

...

George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.

That does not mean any of the comments are valid.

Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.

The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, the Census IS an estimate.

The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. *No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.

-------

This is facutally totally incorrect. *I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based on
the
census. *You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.

Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. *Even you can do it.

Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.

United States * Total: *105,539,122
Less than $10,000 * 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 * 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 * 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 * 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 * 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 * 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 * 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 * 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 * 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 * 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 * 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 * 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 * 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 * 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 * 2,322,038
$200,000 or more * 2,502,675

Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. *Again, George, a very simple
test. *Show the chart using 100% data. *I used sample data.

* * First, data are not the same as statistics. *Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). *You seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

* * Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. *It is not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. *I said,
"wrong." *I still say wrong. *You don't know a thing about data collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless. For most things/
most purposes, sample data is used. For the apportionment of
congressional districts, that's what BOC wanted to use because it is
more accurate, not less. They (and everyone else) recognizes that
they have a serious undercount issue.

So back to my question. If 100% data is so much better, show me the
same chart using 100% data. The VAST majority of what people use the
census for is things like this. They want to see an income
distribution or such. Very few people apportion congressional seats.
Not even you do that.

Come on, George, let's see that chart.

On Mar 24, 8:44*am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message

...





George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

* Cities in decline often beat up on the census because otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
* That does not mean any of the comments are valid.

Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained, but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.
* * The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. *As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. *Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.
They frequently revise their figures for non-political reasons like -
let me just pull something out of my ass here - undercounts. *Around
here, because of the awful balance of payments in favor of the feds,
revisions are a yearly occurrence. *Two years ago, the census bureau
accepted its statewide numbers were wrong based upon construction
figures. *It meant a few million extra dollars in aid for the city.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with states and municipalities
working to get more accurate figures, regardless of their motivations..

* * Cities who end up overestimated keep their mouths shut. *But on the
average, the figures are accurate. *No city wants accurate figures.
They
all want them biased in their favors.

It's not just cities. *It's states and counties too. *Everybody wants to
maximize their favor. *You haven't shown any convincing evidence that
the Census Bureau accepts such changes on specious grounds, however.

* *The census does not even bother with areas that don't complain, so the
"corrections" are political.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if they don't correct overcounts because no one complaints but they
do correct undercounts when people complain, doesn't that mean the
Census is wrong. If fact, it overcounts by the amount of the non-
compainers.


In NY, the corrected the total by 364. It is a correction in that it
is an adjustment to correct unadjusted numbers. Think of that concept
George, they are adjusting numbers to correct them.

On Mar 24, 8:44*am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message

...





George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

* Cities in decline often beat up on the census because otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
* That does not mean any of the comments are valid.

Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained, but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.
* * The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. *As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. *Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.
They frequently revise their figures for non-political reasons like -
let me just pull something out of my ass here - undercounts. *Around
here, because of the awful balance of payments in favor of the feds,
revisions are a yearly occurrence. *Two years ago, the census bureau
accepted its statewide numbers were wrong based upon construction
figures. *It meant a few million extra dollars in aid for the city.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with states and municipalities
working to get more accurate figures, regardless of their motivations..

* * Cities who end up overestimated keep their mouths shut. *But on the
average, the figures are accurate. *No city wants accurate figures.
They
all want them biased in their favors.

It's not just cities. *It's states and counties too. *Everybody wants to
maximize their favor. *You haven't shown any convincing evidence that
the Census Bureau accepts such changes on specious grounds, however.

* *The census does not even bother with areas that don't complain, so the
"corrections" are political.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and btw, they do adjust things down:
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/notes/cqr-ny.pdf
Some places must have complained that their populations were too high
and they were overcounted.

George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.


Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained, but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.
They frequently revise their figures for non-political reasons like -
let me just pull something out of my ass here - undercounts. Around
here, because of the awful balance of payments in favor of the feds,
revisions are a yearly occurrence. Two years ago, the census bureau
accepted its statewide numbers were wrong based upon construction
figures. It meant a few million extra dollars in aid for the city.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with states and municipalities
working to get more accurate figures, regardless of their motivations.
Cities who end up overestimated keep their mouths shut. But on the
average, the figures are accurate. No city wants accurate figures.
They
all want them biased in their favors.
It's not just cities. It's states and counties too. Everybody wants to
maximize their favor. You haven't shown any convincing evidence that
the Census Bureau accepts such changes on specious grounds, however.

The census does not even bother with areas that don't complain, so the
"corrections" are political.

The police don't bother investigating most crimes if they aren't
reported either. Does that make police investigations exclusively
political?

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:

"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:

"vey" wrote in message

...

George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.

That does not mean any of the comments are valid.

Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.

The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.

The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, the Census IS an estimate.

The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.

-------

This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.

Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. Even you can do it.

Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.

United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675

Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.

First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for facts and
get away with it. WRONG.

George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for facts and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about. This isn't some classroom where you can
stand there and pompously spout out whatever you want to whimpy little
freshman who won't challenge you. Too bad they won't challenge you. It
would show your level of incompetence. Go get a job where knowing what
you are talking about counts for something.