With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

In some cases, yes. There is plenty of data out there that shows that
certain minorities have lower levels of hs/college graduation, have lower
standardized test scores, etc. than the white majority. Conversely, there is
data that other minorities have higher test/graduation levels, than the
white majority. Is it a coincidence that the groups that statistically
perform better are "overrepresented", while those that statistically perform
worse are "underrepresented"? Is it "racism"? Or is it merely a logical
outcome based on the inputs?

More obfuscation to cover racism.

EEO and AA measure against the pool of job seekers for a particular class of jobs not the population as a whole. Whether colleges are producing unbalanced results is their problem (which colleges do take affirmative steps to deal with).

Once a company is large enough (the rules don't apply to small companies) you can compute the confidence that the company distribution matches the pool distribution. After the first wave of successful suits, people learned not explicitly express their bigotry; but the statistical evidence catches you anyway. Even when you manage to keep your mouth shut. Then you whine like a stuck pig about quotas.

What remedy do you propose to deal with discrimination? Ignore it and hope it goes away? Or pretend you can still get away with it?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Jack May" enscribed:

We know just throwing money at the problem seldom works.

So considering that we know that by the time a freeway is built or widened that it will be filled to capacity as soon as it's opened, what your suggestion?



--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Disgruntled Customer wrote:
So considering that we know that by the time a freeway is built or widened that it will be filled to capacity as soon as it's opened, what your suggestion?

Freeways don't relieve traffic; they cause traffic!
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

"Icono Clast" wrote in message
news:1118487483.6608157ce57061fe648150141a1a0ca1@t eranews...
Disgruntled Customer wrote:
So considering that we know that by the time a freeway is built or
widened that it will be filled to capacity as soon as it's opened, what
your suggestion?

Freeways don't relieve traffic; they cause traffic!


Wow! Two brain dead people in a row. Maybe the same person?

"Icono Clast" wrote in message
news:1118487483.6608157ce57061fe648150141a1a0ca1@t eranews...
Disgruntled Customer wrote:
So considering that we know that by the time a freeway is built or
widened that it will be filled to capacity as soon as it's opened, what
your suggestion?

Freeways don't relieve traffic; they cause traffic!

What is the mechanism for this effect. It can't be people traveling more
hours in the day because people travel about an hour a day all over the
world if they are using donkey cart or a car.

Can't be additional people moving to an area just because a new freeway is
built because people usually don't move to some place unless they have a
job. Its a strange thing about needing money to eat, live some place, and
move around.

Of course you probably have no experience having a job to live since you
parents pay for everything or you mental institution provides everything
which is paid for by the state

It can't be people filling up the freeway to get off of side streets that
were filled up before the freeway was built because that would not cause any
additional traffic.

What do claim is the reason or do you even have a reason?

To make it even worse there is a lot of research done in this area and it
disproves what you are saying.

Oh, it must be that you were abducted by aliens and they told you so. Maybe
it is you like to lie in public but that could be from the probe the aliens
put in you brain.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

In some cases, yes. There is plenty of data out there that shows that
certain minorities have lower levels of hs/college graduation, have lower
standardized test scores, etc. than the white majority. Conversely, there
is
data that other minorities have higher test/graduation levels, than the
white majority. Is it a coincidence that the groups that statistically
perform better are "overrepresented", while those that statistically
perform
worse are "underrepresented"? Is it "racism"? Or is it merely a logical
outcome based on the inputs?

More obfuscation to cover racism.

Oh yes, the race card used by people that have no proof. You have no reason
to make an assertion that is obviously false to anyone with experience
working in a company, which probably excludes you


EEO and AA measure against the pool of job seekers for a particular class
of jobs not the population as a whole. Whether colleges are producing
unbalanced results is their problem (which colleges do take affirmative
steps to deal with).

If they take affirmative steps, how come only a percent or two of electronic
engineering graduates are women. Seems a long ways away from any successful
solution.

Once a company is large enough (the rules don't apply to small companies)
you can compute the confidence that the company distribution matches the
pool distribution.

No you can't. You are just making an assertion that has no reasons from
you why it should be true

My company has a goal of hiring from the top few percent of the top schools.
We spend a lot of effort to accomplish that goal because the top people
accomplish so much more than the average graduate in the skill areas we
need. Obviously we don't meet the pool distribution for whites, Asians, and
Indians since our employees are way over represented for those groups.

We hire only US Citizen because that is require by the Federal Government.
That is obviously does not match the pool distribution pool of engineering
graduates who are overwhelmingly non-US Citizens. Is the Government running
an illegal segregation program with a very well known law?

I worked for a large company that hire in the bottom quarter of the class
because they just needed cheap bodies for their type work.

Neither company matches the pool distribution. There are a lot of
strategies by different companies and few if any hire along the lines of the
pool distribution.

By the way I make the hiring decision for the projects I run. I am given
zero input on who I should hire. My personal goal is to hire the best
qualified because they will tend to be more successful on doing the
sophisticate level of work that is required in my advanced technology type
contracts

After the first wave of successful suits, people learned not explicitly
express their bigotry; but the statistical evidence catches you anyway.
Even when you manage to keep your mouth shut. Then you whine like a stuck
pig about quotas.

You obviously are totally ignorant in how companies work. What advantage
does it give a company to reject a person that is well qualified to help the
company make more money than a less qualified person.

You have no mechanism, no proof, no rational for the actions of the company,
just a large amount of hate and bigotry for a lot of people. Maybe you
should take a course in managing your bigotry.

Jack May wrote:
"Icono Clast" wrote in message
news:1118487483.6608157ce57061fe648150141a1a0ca1@t eranews...

Disgruntled Customer wrote:

So considering that we know that by the time a freeway is built or
widened that it will be filled to capacity as soon as it's opened, what
your suggestion?

Freeways don't relieve traffic; they cause traffic!


What is the mechanism for this effect. It can't be people traveling more
hours in the day because people travel about an hour a day all over the
world if they are using donkey cart or a car.

Can't be additional people moving to an area just because a new freeway is
built because people usually don't move to some place unless they have a
job. Its a strange thing about needing money to eat, live some place, and
move around.

Of course you probably have no experience having a job to live since you
parents pay for everything or you mental institution provides everything
which is paid for by the state

It can't be people filling up the freeway to get off of side streets that
were filled up before the freeway was built because that would not cause any
additional traffic.

What do claim is the reason or do you even have a reason?

To make it even worse there is a lot of research done in this area and it
disproves what you are saying.

Oh, it must be that you were abducted by aliens and they told you so. Maybe
it is you like to lie in public but that could be from the probe the aliens
put in you brain.



The increase of convenience from the freeway generates more demand from
growth toward and beyond the end of the expanded freeway. When
construction delays occur this demand can actually precede the
construction. But yes, in some sense freeways increase traffic.

In many US cities there is little connection between job location and
residence location.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


The increase of convenience from the freeway generates more demand from
growth toward and beyond the end of the expanded freeway. When
construction delays occur this demand can actually precede the
construction. But yes, in some sense freeways increase traffic.

Mainly a long term effect at best as people move further away from high
priced areas to find an affordable house. That effect mainly happens in
high growth areas where Government strongly restricts the building of house
which drives up prices. The strong limit on providing housing to workers
is mainly a problem in California.

That is no where near your claim that the effect of building a freeway will
be for it to increase traffic as soon as it is built. The quick fill up
effect is almost zero according to reputable research.

Traffic congestion is a very strong effect of the total number of jobs and
the lack of building sufficient capacity to handle the increase in jobs.
Transit is such an insignificant part of transportation that it effectively
provides no increase in capacity while diverting funds away from roads that
do significantly increase actually used capacity and reduce congestion.

Here is what we learned in the dot-com bubble in Silicon Valley

1) The amount of traffic goes up directly with the increase in jobs even if
no capacity is added. (bubble inflation)

2) The amount of traffic goes down directly with the decrease in jobs
(bubble burst)

3) The reduction of bottle necks reduces congestion for the time that jobs
are not growing quickly (last several years). The reductions in congestion
have lasted a long time.

4) Not building extra capacity does not stop traffic increases (pre bubble)

5) Building transit has an immeasurably low effect on reducing congestion at
a price that is tens to hundreds of times more expensive than increasing
road capacity,

6) The cost of rail transit is roughly a million dollars for each person
that transit gets out of a car. from their car. The cost of supporting that
person that is attracted out of the car is in the range of $10
K to $20K per year per person.


In many US cities there is little connection between job location and
residence location.

The connection is that typical travel time per day is one hour. That
limits the distance between job and home. Lessons learned

1) Jobs change often which makes it almost impossible to buy a home that is
always close to work.

2) Sometimes the job stays the same at the same company but the company
moves which greatly increases the commute length.

"Icono Clast" wrote:
Freeways don't relieve traffic; they cause traffic!

Jack May wrote:
What is the mechanism for this effect.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
The increase of convenience from the freeway generates more demand
from growth toward and beyond the end of the expanded freeway.
When construction delays occur this demand can actually precede
the construction. But yes, in some sense freeways increase
traffic.

Thank you, Frank, for stating "my" case better than I would have.
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

"Icono Clast" wrote in message
news:1118573990.bcf3c2ba5a241a4c247075add5ab0988@t eranews...
"Icono Clast" wrote:
Freeways don't relieve traffic; they cause traffic!

Jack May wrote:
What is the mechanism for this effect.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
The increase of convenience from the freeway generates more demand
from growth toward and beyond the end of the expanded freeway. When
construction delays occur this demand can actually precede the
construction. But yes, in some sense freeways increase traffic.

Thank you, Frank, for stating "my" case better than I would have.

It is a extremely well studied situation. His point is well know to be
absolutely false in the short term with strong results proving that freeways
not fill up with increased traffic from new traffic when they are opened.

In the longer term, some people will move further from work for multiple
reasons. Their travel time will likely be about the same because of less
congestion resulting from the new freeway.

The filling up of freeways is almost always the result of existing traffic
altering their route to take advantage of less congestion. That reduces
congestion on other roads and get traffic out of neighborhood streets. Net
result is less pollution, less fuel consumption, and less CO2.

The primary cause of more traffic is an increase in the number of people
working. The main solution to more traffic is throw people out of work.
Not exactly a good solution.