"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
.. .

" David Eduardo wrote:
In fact, the Census Bureau fairly conclusively showed that the Census
could be done more accurately by a sample than a census... the problem
is the constitution requires, specifically, a census.


Say WHAT?????

I don't care how good your stats happen to be, there is no way in hell
that a sample of less than 100% can be as accurate, let alone MORE
accurate, than a sample of 100%.

That is because in today's America, doing a true Census where everyone is
counted, and only counted once, and counted in the proper place, is
impossible. That is why the Census has a significant margin of error.

That's blowing smoke into anal crevices. Period. That's the same warped
logic that tries to convince people that a 16Kb digital stream sounds as
good as a 15KHz analog signal.

You might read Bob Orban's statements on psychoacoustics. You are comparing
apples and oranges.

There's just not enough samples there to get an accurate representation of
the original analog. And I don't care what anyone says, there's no way that
digital will ever be 'as good as analog', let alone better, because to get
a perfect representation of the original analog waveform (especially a
complex waveform) you would have to have an infinite number of samples.

Are you suggesting an analog Census as opposed to a digital one? We were
discussing the Census, and you are backtracking.