The Urban Institute lets you put together tables showing the characteristics of the children of immigrants to the US. The American Community Survey does ask about citizenship status as well as where you were born. So, you may look at characteristics of children with parents who are/aren't citizens in general or you may look at data for children of parents who have immigrated from various regions around the world.
I had to try this once to see exactly what it generated - the labeling could be a little better - but it's a nice tool. It does a nice job of visualizing the demographic changes occurring in the US.
You can compare states and the nation to each other, you can also use the tool to compare characteristics of different parts of the US. So, for example, I compared the nation as a whole to Alabama (where I was born) to Minnesota (where I live now).
You can view tables, charts or both together onscreen or download PDF versions or export the data to Excel.
Nice tool. Thanks Urban Institute.
(Note that in the blogger's domain -- evolution -- as I understand it conference presentations do not have an accompanying proceedings of full papers)
Interesting post+comments: http://scientopia.org/blogs/proflikesubstance/2011/08/04/in-case-you-cant-read/
The Government Printing Office (GPO) begins the printing process. The GPO is the source of official versions of federal law. So that citizens can see and refer to new legislation quickly, the GPO first prints each piece of legislation as a "Slip Law". At the end of each session, the legislation that has been passed is bound together in volumes called the United States Statutes at Large. Even though they're bound together, each law is listed individually in the United States Statutes at Large.
Every six years the United States Code, the codification of general and permanent laws of the United States, is published. In the interim, supplements are published that account for legislation passed since the last revision or supplement.
Unlike slip laws or the United States Statutes at Large, the United States Code rearranges all the laws in force into subject areas - this is what it means to codify the law. However, that means that you no longer find each act as passed by Congress all in one spot like you would in the United States Statutes at Large unless that act happened to cover just one legal subject and those cases are rare! Instead, one act will be broken up into several pieces by legal subject and arranged in the United States Code accordingly.
East Asian Studies Librarian
The University Libraries invites applications for an energetic and service-oriented librarian to support research, instruction, and the life-long learning needs of students, faculty, and staff working in East Asian studies and with East Asian-language materials.
Core responsibilities include developing collaborative relationships with academic departments, providing research and instructional support services, developing and managing collections, embedding information literacy principles in core teaching and learning channels, and working in cross-library groups to address the major strategic directions of the Libraries and program needs of the campus.
Required qualifications include an ALA-accredited Masters degree in Library/Information Science or an advanced degree with relevant experience, fluency in Chinese and capability with Japanese and Korean languages. Preferred qualifications include an academic background or library experience in Asian Studies and fluency in Japanese and Korean.
For complete job description and qualifications, and to apply, go to: https://employment.umn.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=98383
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
But I find their statements on copyright, attribution and permissions a little strange. Copyright, if I understand correctly, is about the rights creators have with respect to uses of their works. Even under the most draconian interpretation, copyright still doesn't give the creator absolute control over all uses ever. With that in mind...
One, our copyright librarian argues that data don't fall within copyright (though possibly certain specific presentations of data such as the visualizations produced by the New York Times might be copyrightable). Since data != copyright works in my favor as a data librarian, I'm happy to take that as gospel.
Two, connecting attribution to copyright reflects a confusion of what copyrights actually do for owners (when indeed one is an owner) and best practices in academics. Whether or not something is copyrighted shouldn't be the determinant of whether one cites the original source. Attribution exists to help readers/other users to understand where the author is coming from, which sources were used and to facilitate academic debate by allowing others to retrace an author's argument.
Three, why demand written permission for reproduction/dissemination of large portions of the data when all of the data is posted on the web without restriction? Seems to me like the Center is already reproducing & disseminating their data so widely as to make this requirement nonsensical.
Again, I'm thrilled to have the data available! I think this is a great approach. So, if by chance anyone at the CSP sees this post, please don't stop! Just commenting on what feels like a disconnect between what the CSP is doing and how they view their relationship to their own content.
The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) not only works within a framework of federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, but also "enforces Executive Order 11246 (Executive Order) which requires Federal Government contractors and subcontractors to provide equal employment opportunity through affirmative action and nondiscrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex."
In order to determine whether there is compensation discrimination among federal contractors, the OFCCP is planning to develop a dataset which will track a variety of indicators on compensation by sex, race and ethnicity. As a first step, they have issued a "notice of proposed rulemaking" or the first step in the development of a federal regulation. See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OFCCP-2011-0005-0001 for the full text.
What's interesting about this approach is that the OFCCP is soliciting comments from the public on every part of the design of the dataset, from collection onwards. They ask for input on which indicators should be tracked, how the data should be collected and what kinds of analyses the data should support.
Note, "public" comment doesn't just mean comments from individual members of the public. The companies which will be required to report will certainly post their own comments on the questions (many of which revolve around the presumed burden on contractors of submitting this data). As noted in the article in Government Executive, these companies are not pleased with this development.
It's entirely possible that, based on comments received, the database will not be created at all or if it is, created in such a way as to satisfy the contractors. A contractor-approved database would probably not be particularly useful since the least effort by contractors would generate very little data. Then, of course, it's also possible that the agency will go with a plan that generates a significant new dataset even over the objections of contractors.
Regardless of how this turns out, this is not an uncommon method for government dataset development. So, the next time you're looking at some data from the US government and asking yourself "wait, what? why is it like this?", consider researching how the dataset was created. Data are never neutral and government data in particular are subject to political concerns from the outset. The dataset's genesis may explain at least some of its quirks.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the deficit ought to welcome the idea of private negotiations, since these are far more likely to yield a positive result by creating a venue for candid exchange and limiting the input of the forces that ordinarily shape the tax code. It's the special interests that have the greatest investment in transparency, since that would allow them to pressure the negotiators and poison the political atmosphere in advance of any deal."
So, even though working out of the public eye is what gained most special interests the power they currently have and which is indeed very difficult to fight, we should totally stick to the same methods for the Super Committee? I mean, did this guy even read what he wrote? Does he understand English? Because, good grief, this is just self-evidently absurd.
Make a Super Cheap Book Weight Out of Pennies and Duct Tape
Smaller books have the annoying habit of snapping shut if you don't hold the pages down with your hands. Throw together your own book weight
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of Google+ - O'Reilly Radar
(or: Why Johnny Can't Friend) Google+ is, of course, Google's second attempt at conquering the world of social networking (or third,