| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/BayArea] UID:42178 Activity:nil |
3/10 Looking for data that supports the claim from the 10/13 motd that
Bay Area prostitution is decreasing. I can't find anything that
supports this claim.
For reference: http://csua.org/u/f70
\_ Look at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5text2.htm . That'll
have the raw numbers. I'm too lazy to do the math myself, but I
like to see the answer after you've figured it out.
\_ You're going to have a hard time finding hard data since there
really isn't any. The census is once per 10 years, it's self
reporting and then they further manually munge the data to fit
their idea of who they think should be there. There are other
methods that take place on a local level but they're not that
accurate either. Until everyone gets RFID'd, processed, scanned,
enumerated, and entered in the computer, these numbers will always
just be guesstimations at best. IMO, it's better that way.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/l4j5n (was declining)
http://tinyurl.com/m4sf3 (now rising a bit)
\_ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-10-topstrip-usat_x.htm |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/f70 -> www.csua.com/2005/10/13/#40068 com) FEMA paying avg $59/night to put 600,000 post-Katrina/Rita victims in hotels, because conservative ideology kept FEMA from giving vouchers to families for much cheaper apartments, like in pre-Dubya days. com/id/9629463/site/newsweek Conservative columnist George Will: "Conservatives are not supposed to be cuddly, or even particularly nice. And to know that scarcity--of money, virtue, wisdom, competence, everything--forces choices. Furthermore, they are supposed to have an unsentimental commitment to meritocracy and excellence. The fact that none of those responsible for the postwar planning, or lack thereof, in Iraq have been sacked suggests--no, shouts--that in Washington today there is no serious penalty for serious failure. Conservatives are supposed to say "praise Jesus" all day and strive for theocracy. html Review on CIA performance "acknowledged the deep failures in the agency's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs but said 'the analysis was right' on cultural and political issues related to postwar Iraq. heavy reliance on 'technical analysis' for what proved to be misleading or inaccurate information about Iraq's weapons programs." I strongly suggest everyone read the minutes from the last meeting. Both changes to the motd and soda itself were discussed. The decision stands and is not debatable, but the flavor of it is up to you guys. The current proposition is to enable kernel auditing, such that only root can view the logs. If you have a more palatable idea, you're welcome to submit your opinions to root@csua. Of course, 'ideas' are not nearly as useful as 'implementations', if you propose something non-trivial. I just like to ask if you guys can consider making the list of people who have root public, and tighten access control to only those who should have root. Secondly, I'd like to ask if you guys can make all user complaints and requests to expose offenders public. I'd hate to see root exercising power under the hood without any form of auditing. Without public auditing there is no check and no balance. Somehow I doubt this is gonna raise the quality of the discourse around here. I'd like to know who the root-type people are and that there is some official (as official as the csua can get) process in place to a) make sure no one else has root and b) make sure the very limited set of people with root are known and c) revoke root privs of abusers. I was once in favor of a totally anon motd, but given some of the vicious and excessive personal attacks, threats, and named posts clearly intended to destroy other people, I've changed my mind on the topic. Free speech is a good thing but yelling fire in a theatre is not ok nor is abusing anonymity to harass or ruin others. Furthermore, abuse of root power by anyone to un-anonymify someone for any reason other than official business is an immediately squishable offense in my book. If I caught someone using root logs to spite someone on the motd, I would not hesitate to not only revoke the root cookie, but also sorry that person's account. I would even take such action on a current member of Politburo if they did such. I consider the privacy of the people on this server, and the professionalness of those who have access to priviledged information on this server very important. This is less "fire" in a theater and more theater of the absurd. How else am I supposed to make my snide "yermom" comments without looking like a total sleeze? We'll get an automatic reset when we switch to new soda, we should set up some new rules then. The soda log will show that the creator of the interface is making changes, even though it could be Joe Loser off the Internet. I suppose at the first abuse then that interface should be shut off? There was a big push to get it working at the end of last year, and as far as I know it was. This is not intended to be a put down as such, but failing to get bsd to boot may be \_ How competent is the vp? Failing to get bsd to boot may be meaningful or meaningless, depending on vp cluefulness. i have some crunching farms and the people who run them for me appear to slowly be moving toward 26 tnx. The fact that Politburo has had to make the decision to put a system in place to keep a log is not a symptom of a "totalitarian regime," but rather a forum where people's blatant disrespect for each other caused a problem that had to be addressed. You will still have your anonymity so you can troll away at each other, but root will finally have the ability to look at a private log IF AND WHEN the need arises to take care of issues that get out of hand. No one will be monitoring the log, lording over you with the wiggling finger. But finally, those anonymous cowards who use unconventional motd posting means to threaten others will have to check themselves knowing that if they make a real threat and someone complains, that there will be judgment on their not-so-anonymous self. The only people complaining about root having logs are those who are the people doing the threatening and are worried that they cannot continue to do so anonymously. Get a life, grow up, and be civil to each other (insult each other all you want, we don't care. I'm rather uncomfortable knowing that we are giving power to tantrumy admins without any real limitations or clear standards of application. Honestly, don't our stewards have more important things to do than chase after lackwit trolls? What the cowards who like censorship fail to understand is how many of the trolls have the personality that tends to tell people to go fuck themselves straight to their face. Overall, I don't think the level of debate is really that much lower here than at the national level anyway. Don't forget we recently had the Vice President of the United States tell a senator to go fuck himself, on record, in the senate. If you're going to get ballistic when someone posts a random link you deserve what you get. I see the problem being with people who instead of saying "fuck you" (which is just stupid), make threats to life, limb, reputation, etc. At that point there needs to be recourse, otherwise the CSUA is just providing a means to attempt to ruin another person with no way for the victim to even know who is doing it much less have a chance of stopping it. That is harassment at a minimum and shouldn't be tolerated. This comes back to the question raised several weeks ago about fresh blood on the motd. Why would any new person want to step into such an environment? And why can't we have an environment better than the rest of the net or the Senate floor, or where ever? Just because another place sucks is no reason we have to emulate that. We were thinking that it really wasn't a constructive thing for people to be abusing the anonimity to threaten others. This is absolutely not intended to be a "politburo intends to be the thought police" system. The logs will also be root-only accessible and we're toying with putting in a system such that you need two members of root to access them. Is there a binding definition of "harassment" from any authority that governs the CSUA? Just because they didn't file some sort of 'official' complaint with politburo, it is ok they left after enough abuse? Why does someone have to be beaten with a bat for it to matter? We must chase unto the hundreds, the thousands, the hundreds of thousands. We don't want to be in trouble with libel, slander, threats, etc. the people whoa re being attacked are not complaining about it, it's not really a problem! we are sorta sanctioning this simply by keeping it there and not responding to these kind of threats" I read this to mean Politburo (4 out of 5) got freaked out about the GUN DUEL references, even though it was a troll. entry=39902 I suppose it's good they haven't heard about GUN DUEL yet ... If it was jblack hater being a weenie, and jblack complaining, that's one thing, but I don't seem to recall either of the parties involved in GUN DUEL raising a stink. " \_ So the people who are being attacked are not complaining. Just because they didn't file an official complaint and fill out some paper work, you think it's ok they're not here... |
| www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5text2.htm Governor's Home Page Welcome to California - Images of the Golden Gate Bridge, a sunset over the Pacific Ocean, the Angel Falls waterfall in Yosemite National Park, golden poppy wildflowers, the San Diego bay, and the Great Seal of the State of California. California Department fo Finance - Demographic Research Unit search My CA E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2005, Revised 2001-2004, with 2000 DRU Benchmark May 2005 Acknowledgments Daniel Sheya and Linda Gage prepared this report. Daniel Sheya and Paula Flores prepared the city estimates, Linda Gage prepared the state and county estimates, Evaon Schnagl provided technical support for state and county estimates, Douglas Kuczynski prepared the group quarter's estimates, and Dolores Lykins provided administrative support. Mary Heim, Chief of the Demographic Research Unit, and John Malson, Research Manager over the city estimates unit, provided general direction. Suggested Citation State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2005, Revised 2001-2004, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. pdf, PowerPoint, and Word file formats provided on this website. Contents This Excel file provides the current population estimates for the state, counties and cities for January 1, 2001, through January 1, 2005. The DRU population estimates benchmark for April 1, 2000, is also provided. The state's population grew 15 percent in 2004, adding 539,000 residents. This continues the annual pattern of a reduced population growth rate since 2001. Los Angeles County continues to be the most populous in the nation. The January state, county, and city series population counts are each estimated independently using change models benchmarked to base year 2000 that corrects for census omissions and geocoding errors. The state population estimate is produced using the Driver License Address Change method. County population proportions result from the average of three separately estimated sets of proportions, as described below. The final distribution of county proportions is applied to the independently estimated state total to derive the county estimates. The city estimates, produced using the Housing Unit method detailed below, are raked to be consistent with the state and county estimates. Through the raking process, city and unincorporated area estimates are aligned with the more robust state and county estimating models that employ multiple data sets available only at the higher geographic levels. The Housing Unit (HU) Method estimates total and occupied housing units, household size, household population, and group quarter's population. HUs are estimated by adding new construction and annexations, and subtracting demolitions and conversions from the 2000 benchmark or a prior year's estimate. The HU changes are supplied by local jurisdictions, the US Census Bureau, and Military Installations. Of the 535 reporting jurisdictions, 517 provided data and 18 did not respond. Of the 18 non-respondents, residential permits from the Census Bureau were used in 17 cases for housing change. The remaining jurisdiction was held to no change in housing as this jurisdiction was not included in Census Bureau data. Occupied HUs are estimated by applying a derived civilian vacancy rate, based on 2000 benchmark data, to the estimated civilian HUs. Occupied military units are added to civilian occupied units to calculate total occupied HUs. Military surveys are used to track military changes, including base realignments and closures. The household population estimate is derived by multiplying the number of occupied HUs by the current persons per household. The persons per household estimates are based on 2000 benchmark data and are updated by incorporating the current county population series into these estimates. The benchmark group quarter's population is updated using the reported population change in group quarter's facilities. The household and group quarter's populations are summed to produce the initial city population estimates. These estimates are aligned to the county estimates described below. County population proportions result from averaging three methods. A modified version of the State Driver License Address Change method is used for counties. County proportions of the State total result from changes in county population values for births, deaths, school enrollment, foreign and domestic migration, medical aid enrollments, and group quarters population. This method models change in household population as a function of changes in the distributions of driver licenses, school enrollments, housing units, and deaths. County proportions are derived by the US Census Bureau using matched federal income tax returns to estimate intercounty migration along with vital statistics, group quarters, and other information for the population aged 65 and over. The state population is estimated using the Driver License Address Change (DLAC) Method. This composite method separately estimates the population under age 18, 18 through 64, and 65 years and older. Administrative records such as births, deaths, driver license address changes, tax return data, Medicare and Medi-Cal enrollment, immigration reports, elementary school enrollments, and group quarters population are among the data used in this method. All data are in summary tables and do not reveal the identity of any individual. Data used in estimation models come from administrative records of several state and federal government departments and agencies, as well as numerous local jurisdictions. Since timeliness and coverage in these series vary, corrections, smoothing, and other adjustments may be applied. Data and models used to produce population estimates are subject to measurement and nonmeasurement errors. The data and estimating models were thoroughly tested with decennial census results that provide benchmarks for the estimates series. Data and methods are further refined and modified throughout the decade. |
| tinyurl.com/l4j5n -> sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/09/BAGBN62H9Q17.DTL Email This Article While Southern California and the Central Valley added thousands of new residents in 2002-03, four Bay Area counties experienced population declines, with San Francisco losing more than any in the state, according to new census data released today. Stymied by a slowly rebounding economy and saddled with a low birthrate, San Francisco lost 10,301 people from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003, by far the most -- both in sheer numbers and percentage-wise -- of the seven counties statewide that saw population losses. Alameda, San Mateo and Marin counties, as well as Santa Cruz County and two others, also experienced a drop in residents, according to the data released by the Census Bureau. All together, the nine Bay Area counties, home to 68 million residents, lost about 600 people in 2002-03, while the state as a whole grew by almost half a million people. "The bigger picture is Bay Area population growth has largely slowed if not ceased altogether," said Hans Johnson, a demographer with the Public Policy Institute of California. "It's basically three reasons: the economy, the economy, the economy." The losses were almost offset by gains in Contra Costa County, which added 11,796 people, along with Solano, Napa, Sonoma and Santa Clara -- where an increase of 995 people was hailed as a welcome sign after the county hemorrhaged 12,511 residents a year earlier. Carl Guardino, chief executive of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, said it appeared that the high-tech economy was nearing the end of its freefall and would be poised soon to begin growing again. "I don't think U-Haul is doing quite as big of business these days," Guardino said. "We are seeing across the industry, if not a rise in the economy, certainly a leveling off. After you feel like you've been in a airplane as it plummets to earth, leveling off feels awfully good." Guardino said Silicon Valley's growth would be more measured this time around. The trade group expects to return to the job levels of the dot-com boom by 2010, he said. Several demographers said it appeared many Bay Area residents were fleeing for cheaper digs in Sacramento, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, which all grew by at least 2 percent. But they said the end of the exodus was in sight and was likely to reverse itself in a year or two as jobs returned in force. "What we've seen for the Bay Area over the past many decades is these declines are very cyclical," said Hing Wong, a demographer with the Association of Bay Area Governments. "Overall, there will be an increase in population in the long term. While the Bay Area shrank slightly, Los Angeles County added 103,270 residents, while Riverside County, the fastest-growing county in the state, added 87,281. Eight of the state's fastest growing counties were in the Central Valley and interior of California. Demographers say the Bay Area remains unsettled as the region continues to recover from the heady days of the technology bonanza of the late 1990s. The prolonged downturn has finally chased away some residents who may have been holding out for a timely economic turnaround, Wong said. "Some people were hoping to have a quicker rebound than we've seen," he said. "Eventually the money ran out, they couldn't make their house or car payments, so they had to find a second scenario of what to do." The population loss might have been more acute had it not been for a healthy number of births in many of the Bay Area counties. For instance, Santa Clara County had 11,332 people move out of the county but compensated for the loss in large part through births, according to the California Department of Finance, which uses a different set of numbers for its population estimates. Alameda and San Mateo also lost a significant number of residents but made up a good portion of the drop through births. The state agency's more optimistic numbers show only two counties losing population -- Alpine, which lost 30 people out of 1,240, and San Francisco. The Department of Finance numbers show San Francisco losing 2,950 people to migration during 2002-03, and it wasn't able to replace them because of a historically low birthrate in the city. "San Francisco has a much older population than the rest of the state," said Mary Heim, a demographer with the state Department of Finance. "It's not a place where people tend to have children and live, so you don't see the natural increase offsetting the migration there." While most California counties gained population from 2002 to 2003, the numbers went the other direction in four Bay Area counties - Alameda, San Mateo, Marin and San Francisco, which led the state in population loss. |
| tinyurl.com/m4sf3 -> www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050414-0005-ca-census-counties.html By Lisa Leff ASSOCIATED PRESS 12:05 am April 14, 2005 SAN FRANCISCO - The population in the San Francisco Bay area grew for the first time in three years, while greater Los Angeles continued a growth spurt that has redefined the region's outer reaches, the US Census bureau reported Thursday. "What we're seeing is the continuation of a slow recovery in the Bay Area and in the south, still-robust growth," said Hans Johnson, a demographer with the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California. Despite population declines in three of its nine counties, the Bay Area added nearly twice as many residents as it dropped from 2003 to 2004, for a net gain of 9,695 people. The increase was the first since 2001, when a 69 million-person region already reeling from the implosion of its technology sector saw its tourism and financial services industries take a beating. The five counties in and around Los Angeles added 260,002 people, but the pace of Southern California's population growth last year was set in the Inland Empire. For the first time, Riverside County eclipsed Los Angeles County as the state's top people magnet, attracting 89,128 residents to Los Angeles' 77,357, according to census estimates. That gave Riverside the second biggest population increase of any county in the nation behind Maricopa County in Arizona. Los Angeles was third among the counties with the largest numerical gains, while San Bernardino County, which is also part of the Inland Empire, placed fifth nationally after absorbing 58,936 more people. "For whatever reason, people from across the country and around the world are attracted to Southern California," said John Husing, an economist who tracks the Inland Empire. "But today, the available space is all in the Inland Empire and it drives all of that force into this area." San Francisco, which had 7,678 fewer residents in July 2004 than it had a year earlier, again led the state both in the size and rate of its population decline. Since 2000, the city has lost 32,435 people, or 42 percent of its population, according to the Census Bureau. The Bay Area's rebound was fueled in part by a turnaround in Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley. After shrinking by 15,492 people between 2001 and 2002, Santa Clara gained 1,317 residents in 2003 and another 9,273 last year. Paul Sassinger, research director at the Association of Bay Area Governments, said it would take for some time for a region that lost 300,000 jobs since the turn of the century to regain its economic footing. In that context, last year's population gains are "nothing terribly dramatic. But when compared with the negatives we've seen in previous years, it makes us hopeful," Sassinger said. Along with employment, housing supplies and prices are contributing to California's shifting settlement patterns as residents abandon the dream of settling along the coast and seek shelter in lower-cost communities farther inland, according to Johnson. Besides Riverside and San Bernardino, other inland California counties also saw their populations swell last year. Eight counties in the central part of the state - Placer, San Joaquin, Calaveras, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Kern and El Dorado - rounded out California's top 10 fastest-growing counties. Since the start of the decade, California has grown by about 22 million residents. But Johnson said the population estimates prepared by the Census Bureau vary significantly from the figures calculated by the California Department of Finance, which show the state has gained 27 million people since 2000. The difference is significant because federal funding is often predicated on population, he said. |
| www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-10-topstrip-usat_x.htm High-tech bust drains Bay Area population By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY San Francisco is losing population faster than any other big US city, evidence that the dot-com bust is pushing people away from some of the nation's most attractive regions. Sunnyvale and Daly City, also in the Bay Area, were among the Top 10 losers. Experts attribute the population losses to sweeping layoffs in the high-tech sector. The Bay Area lost an estimated 313,000 jobs from December 2000 to December 2002. "This confirms the sinking feeling we've had," says Sunne Wright McPeak, president of the Bay Area Council, which represents the 275 largest employers in the region. "There was a time when all you had to say was 'Bay Area' and everyone wanted to be here. Clearly, now we need to work for it just like everyone else," McPeak says. Austin, another high-tech center, slipped 02% to 671,873. The nation's fastest population growth continues to be concentrated in the Sun Belt. Seven of the 10 fastest growing cities were in Arizona, California and Nevada. Many cities that are growing are doing so more slowly than in earlier years. Seventy-six of the 242 cities that have populations above 100,000 lost ground from 2001 to 2002, compared with 41 in the 1990s. The Bay Area's losses are small compared with those that many industrial cities have experienced for decades. In the 1990s, Buffalo lost almost 11% of its population and Gary almost 12%. |