Slashdot Mirror


Computers May Thwart 2010 Census

smooth wombat writes "With the Constitutionally mandated census of 2010 just around the corner, it appears the Commerce Department's attempt to use handheld computers to gather census information may not come to fruition. Originally, the contract was awarded at a cost of $596 million to Harris Corporation. However, the GAO has now estimated the revised contract, now costing $647 million, could grow to $2 billion and the equipment may still not work properly. There is consideration that the paper and pencil method might have to be employed to complete the census."

5 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. 1% error by Red+Jesus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He also said the computers actually are easy to use, with a failure rate of less than 1 percent when tested in the field.
    One percent of three hundred million is three million.
    1. Re:1% error by eepok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ya, people are really bad when it comes to big numbers. I was a part of a research study as an undergraduate with the following premise:

      You're on a jury for a murder case with the scenario that a tan/brown man seen running away from a murder scene on a college campus. There was not enough of the attacker's DNA at the scene, but they were able to extract a DNA derivative that has matched that of a tan man in custody. Given that this derivative has a 99.9% successful rate, do you feel comfortable convicting the man in custody.

      I was the only one in my group of 12 to say "No, I will not convict based on this evidence." No one else understood that .1% = 1/1000. Nor did they realize that our university alone had 20,000+ people on the campus at any time let alone that it was in the middle of a city of 200,000+.

      Most people know what "fifty" is. Many know what "one hundred" is. Few understand what "one thousand" is. Too few understand the effects of millions, billions, and trillions.
      There's no way I'd convict with a .1% error, there's no way I'd accept a 1% error in the business of millions.

  2. Are you serious? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Originally, the contract was awarded at a cost of $596 million to Harris Corporation. However, the GAO has now estimated the revised contract, now costing $647 million, could grow to $2 billion and the equipment may still not work properly.

    1.4 billion is one hell of an overrun...and after all that, the equipment may still not work properly?

    Is the Harris Corporation currently hiring? I'd like to get me some of that boondoggle.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  3. Re:Anyone have any idea... by petermgreen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government departments often have regulations that require them to put contracts out to tender and give them to the lowest bidder to prevent people handing out government contracts to thier friends.

    The problem is if they put them out for bidding as fixed price contracts they probablly wouldn't get any bids and if they did those bids would be very high. So the bids are only estimates. Of course this makes the bidding a farce as everyone tries to put in the lowest estimate they can and sponge more money later once the governement department is locked in.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  4. Re:Another waste of money by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BTW, I'm assuming here that a census should be just counting heads; that all of the other questions that the census people ask, such as level of education, are none of their business. The constitution requires that people be counted. The goal was to ensure proportional representation. It does not require all of the intrusive questions that they ask now.

    You are not required to answer any other question on the census, either.

    You can really just say "nine people live here, go away" and they will.

    All that information IS necessary for the government to provide all the services they provide today in a reasonable and efficient manner.

    Unfortunately, it would also require that those in charge be interested in reason or efficiency. All they want to do is separate you from money.

    So, I agree, but only in that the government should get their nose out of places it doesn't belong in a more general sense. Unfortunately, we could probably argue about what those things are all day.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"