[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)





jw <jwas@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<58ct4f$mqu@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...

<snip>

> >>     1995     5,691,417,794       1.41     80,933,222
> >>     1996     5,772,351,016       1.38     80,362,443
> >>     1997     5,852,713,459       1.36     79,912,950
> >>     1998     5,932,626,409       1.33     79,640,559
> >>     1999     6,012,266,968       1.31     79,210,215
> >> 
> >>     2000     6,091,477,183       1.28     78,710,475
> >> 
> >
> >First of all, by listing 10 significant figures (even for the year
> 2000
> >estimate) you show a lack of understanding of this kind of data.
> 
> My poor friend, I only "show" accuracy in quoting my
> source. The "lack of understanding" reproach must be addressed
> to that source:
> 
Fine, but if you had enough 'statistical' common sense to understand that
the above numbers are meaningless beyond the second or third significant
figure, you would have 'editted' this table before posting.

> ||Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base.
> ||Updated 2-28-96
> 
> Please write to them and teach them how to publish
> statistics Tarara-wise.

I'm sure they know better.  The data base is just running a simple program
to ESTIMATE population.  It is assumed that users of the data base are savy
enough to understand the level at which these numbers are meaningful.  Its
not clear that you do.

> [Sorry: I had no time to read Mr Tarara's further - no doubt
> interesting - remarks...]

Me too--think I'll go watch a football game rather than worrying about jw's
(whoever this is) 'fantasies' about trillions of people enhabiting the
earth and solar system.

RWT



References: