Miscellaneous desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 7

General Manager of Bullocks Wilshire in 1980

I worked there for a number of years and for the life of me cannot remember his name. Even though I thought his name would be emblazended on my memeory forever. Will you help me with this. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.34.226 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those not understanding the question, Bullocks is (or was) a department store, and the Bullocks Wilshire store was on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help translate this page and give information on this magazine

Indian opposition party of the right BJP's followers are actively disseminating the scans linked below. http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/8/6/6/0/3/Page-1-37404403089.jpeg http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/8/6/6/0/3/Page-2-37404472764.jpeg Is that some Swiss magazine? Is it an RS by WP standard? What does it say in the caption under the photo of Rajeev Gandhi? (The news that is going round is that the magazine report refers to Rajiv Gandhi as having hoarded millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Is that the case? --117.253.191.41 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a scan from the Swiss news magazine Schweizer Illustrierte (there's no English Wikipedia article about it, but there is a German Wikipedia article here). The magazine is probably a reliable source, but scans of the magazine themselves aren't, because what we have isn't verifiable - it doesn't give the date or edition of the magazine, so someone couldn't easily go to a library or news archive and verify that the scan is accurate and hasn't been altered. If someone could find out the date etc. then that would make the scan verifiable. Even then, for politically contentious things like this, it's much better to support a claim with multiple independent sources. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is not so hard to find. My rather vague recollection, though, is that this magazine might not be a 100% reliable source. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, according to the German web page, it's a "people magazine", i.e., roughly in the same category as the US magazine People. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies and especially for pointing to the original source. Can somebody please say what the caption under the photo of Rajiv Gandhi says? --117.253.190.156 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Dead. 2.5 Billion Franks in indian secret accounts in Switzerland"Tobyc75 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Mumba

Hi

As a born and raised Dubliner I am really curious to know where Palmer Street Hospital Dublin is . Samantha Mumba is listed as born there but I have never heard of it ? Can you help ? Thanks Kath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.13.143 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Google searches for "Palmer Street Hospital, Dublin" (and indeed "Palmer Hospital Dublin" and "Palmer Dublin") find no references to it (or to any Palmer Street in Dublin) at all except in articles mentioning Samantha Mumba's place of birth, many of them derived from our Wikipedia article which contains this 'fact', which is referenced to the All Music Guide to Soul, p. 486. ISBN 978-0-87930-744-8. If it existed in 1983 and has since closed one would still expect to find some mention of it; this suggests (though does not of course prove) that it is an error - perhaps a mis-remembering - or a deliberate mis-statement (conceivably to prevent annoying fan gatherings at the actual location). As you may know, the name Palmer is associated with the founding of Dublin's first mediaeval hospital in Thomas Street, which may have prompted its use. You will probably also know that Dublin has a Palmer Park, and a Palmer Road, Court and Avenue (all in Rush), none with any apparent Hospital presence. Further sleuthing is evidently required! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.197 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that somebody asked where she was born, and somebody else answered "the hospital in Parnell Street" (i.e. the Rotunda Hospital), which was misremembered or misheard as "Palmer Street Hospital". Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly Palmerstown, a Dublin suburb? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going with Marco Polo. The Coombe is near Thomas Street, but I have never heard it referred to as Palmer's. Can't think of any hospital n Palmerstown that would provide maternity services. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this just makes the problem more baffling than ever, but The Encyclopedia of Popular Music and a whole load of websites say that Samantha Mumba was born in the Drumcondra district of northern Dublin. --Antiquary (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the content of the source, the section on Mumba can be found with Amazon's look inside feature. It doesn't mention a hosptial but merely describes her birthplace as "Dublin, Ireland". 129.234.53.36 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the information as it wasn't supported by the source. 129.234.53.36 (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karce desk calculator

My calculator model KC-030 has the usual buttons plus two slideswitches that are labelled .UP.5/4.CUT and .F.3.2.0.A. Please tell me what the slidewitches mean. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second selector sets the number of decimal places shown (except for A, which is "add mode"); this calculator has the same selector (except it's F43210A). The first selector looks like the rounding selector, which the page I linked to has as UP.DOWN.5/4 -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the decimal point selector positions A and 2 ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, A actually inserts a decimal point before the last two digits. So, in A mode, if you typed 1234567 it would treat that as 12345.67. I guess you'd use that for calculations used in shops. It would make particular sense for a calculator, or a till, that also had a 00 key. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 08:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following happens in the A mode:

Enter             Display
1 2 3 4 5 6 7        1'234'567
x 1 =             1'234'567.00
+ 1 =             1'234'567.01

It treats 1234567 correctly but appends .00 . Then subsequent entries are treated as cents to add to the initial value in dollars. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safety record

How do aeroplanes compare with railways compare with cars? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to measure exactly, because many people use cars much more often than airplanes, while airplanes travel further. So do you compare the two over the same route, by distance, by time, by journey, do you take into account the number of passengers, or calculate your chance of dying in a car against that of dying in a train or plane? And airplanes tend to crash on takeoff or landing, so the length of the flight is almost irrelevant.

From air safety: "It is often reported that air travel is the safest in terms of deaths per passenger mile. The National Transportation Safety Board (2006) reports 1.3 deaths per hundred million vehicle miles for travel by car, and 1.7 deaths per hundred million vehicle miles for travel by air. ... The number of deaths per passenger mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 1995 and 2000 is about 3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles."

A BBC article says about the UK "When compared against all other modes of transport on a fatality per mile basis air transport is the safest - six times safer than travelling by car and twice as safe as rail."[1]

This article[2] has charts per hour and per mile: per mile air and rail are similar, and road much more dangerous, but per hour, rail is still safe but air and road are very dangerous. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously for safety reasons one should cut down the time one spends on the road by driving as fast as possible ;-) Dmcq (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought the "per hour" metric was flat nonsense. Who cares what the risk is per hour? It's not my goal to spend a certain amount of time in transit. (Well, occasionally it is, but not usually.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful. For example, a person might decide they can travel up to 2 hours to work each day, be that by road, train, or plane. They would then need to get a job and house and select a mode of transport to achieve that goal. It might therefore be reasonable to ask which would be safer, 2 hours of driving, riding the train, or flying. By that measure, a job where you have to fly there and back each day is quite dangerous, especially when you add in the drive to and from the airport. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Part of it is comparing the two different types of vehicles. When I am flying, the amount of time I will be in the air is very important, the amount of miles I will travel is secondary. I have five hours of fuel on board. The number of miles I will go in those five hours (of course in reality we will land well before the time is up to refuel) can vary drastically, depending on winds, altitude, etc, but at a typical cruise RPM, I know I can go five hours (minus the reserve). The number of miles is mostly only relevant in so far as determining the estimated time en route, and stating the current position of the aircraft (i.e. 10 miles west of the _____ airport), and the estimated time en route is what I use for navigation and planning. Along those lines, I don't keep track of the miles that I fly, I log the hours that I flew. If I were to hypothetically fly into a 140mph headwind for an hour, I would go almost no miles, whereas with that as a tailwind, I would go approximately 280 miles in that same amount of time. Yet, in both cases I would still have been flying the plane for exactly one hour, burn 10 gallons of fuel, and put the same amount of wear on the aircraft. I hope that all that makes sense. It makes far more sense to measure aircraft by the hour, and one can't compare miles in cars to hours in planes for obvious reasons. Falconus^{p t c} 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think that's just silly. I want to go to Los Angeles. What's my risk flying versus driving? That's what I care about. The "per mile" is not a perfect proxy for that, but it's enormously better than "per hour". --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be just as practical to look at the risk of having a car accident in an hour of driving, realizing that you will be spending 72 hours driving (just made up that number) to get to Los Angeles, and comparing it to the four or five hours that you will spend in the airplane (assuming you are flying in the airlines)? Including in the risk assessment of course, the time driving to and from the airport. I think both miles and hours are practical ways to look at it. Also, measuring airplane travel in hours is anything but silly. It would be "silly" to measure it in miles, because, for one thing, we would have to make a wild guess at when we could expect to refuel and when we would get to the destination. It simply is not practical in my mind. Falconus^{p t c} 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The executive-summary question is, "which is more dangerous, flying or driving"? The most reasonable interpretation of that question is, "which has a higher risk when you want to get to the same destination"? The miles to the destination are pretty well fixed (OK, you can go more directly in the air, but this is a factor of less than two). However air travel is much faster. If you compare by hours, you're penalizing air travel in the comparison, for no good reason. --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what I would do, is calculate the risk of me dying in the car during that trip (probably best represented by miles), and then caculate the same risk in the airplane (best represented by hours) during that particular trip and compare the two. Maybe somebody has a better way? Falconus^{p t c} 23:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's if you want to make a detailed risk analysis for a specific trip. What we're getting at here is, which form of transport is safer in general, and by how much? It's not a completely well-defined question. But "per mile" comes much much much closer to it than "per-hour". --Trovatore (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the destination is always fixed. For example, if I have a week's vacation, I could go to a distant destination, which would require that I fly, or a closer destination, by train, bus, or car. I'd be likely to aim for about the same proportion of travel time under each method. Part of my decision process for whether I pick the distant destination, and fly, or the closer destination, would be the relative safety of each choice.

For another example, consider the crew of airplanes versus trains. The airline crew is at much higher risk, because they will travel far more miles. Assuming they travel for about the same number of hours each day, the comparison of deaths per hours of travel would be more meaningful than deaths per mile. StuRat (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that there's a huge difference between small planes and big planes, with big planes much safer. I believe there hasn't been a plane crash with more than 50 deaths in the U.S. since American Airlines Flight 587 in November 2001. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one way to make it concrete. Suppose you drive an average amount, say about 12000 miles per year. How much would you need to fly in order to have an equal risk of dying in a plane crash as of dying in an auto accident? Using the numbers above, the answer I come up with is about 500,000 miles per year -- which means approximately flying back and forth across the United States every day for the whole year. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary factor to consider here is that we're defining "safety" purely in terms of fatalities. While this is reasonable for air travel - commercial aviation accidents usually either kill people or leave them mostly unscathed - it's less so for car travel; you may have an overall rate of only 1.3 deaths per hundred million vehicle miles, but that will represent another half-dozen cases with serious though not-quite-fatal injuries, and at least a few dozen more with moderate trauma injuries (broken bones, concussion, etc). Quite how you factor that into the figures is anyone's guess, but it's worth bearing in mind. Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to remember is that most airplane fatalities occur at the start and end of flights; takeoff, climb, descent, approach and landing. According to Boeing, only 20% of commercial flight fatalities result from incidents during the cruise phase of the flight. So longer flights don't significantly increase the risk of death. But any minute in a car is more or less as dangerous as any other so a two hour drive is about twice as dangerous as a one hour drive. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a similar rule applies to driving, since more dangerous stop-and-go driving is expected at both ends, with safer highway travel in the middle of longer trips. Thus, when comparisons are made with airplane travel, those would be longer car trips, so safer per mile or minute than the average car trip. StuRat (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP never asked for comparisons of transport exclusively on personal safety. One seldom has a choice between all 3 modes of travel. For example, don't bother trying to buy an air ticket to these countries without an airport or to drive to a Pacific island. As planetary resources per person become less, the Carbon footprint of travel becomes relevant. The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, see Environmental impact of aviation. Everyone should ride on Norwegian trains that run on renewable hydroelectric power. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot use Norwegian State Railways here. Astronaut (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then everyone should move to Norway. Although they would either have to fly or take a ship, both of which have safety issues.

I can't speak to other environmental issues, but as I understand it, a big commercial jet runs at about 3 miles per gallon. That sounds horrible until you divide the distance by the number of passengers and re-compute the consumption if all those folks were to drive their cars instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft, a Boeing 747 does 91-109 miles per passenger per gallon (depending what you mean by gallon), and this says it uses 5 (US?) gallons per mile. Maximum passenger capacity is 624 so these agree reasonably closely. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's also close to what you'd get in a car full of people. I suspect that a bus full of people would do better, and a train better yet. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially an electric train. Googlemeister (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially on electricity generated by a nuke instead of fossil fuels, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A convenient nuclear fusion power source is the core of the Sun and Hydroelectricity is the way to use it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...assuming you have big rivers and a low population and don't mind damming up those rivers, both damaging the ecology and flooding historic areas. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of running a gas AGA cooker in UK?

I am asking about 3 oven + plate warmer. It does not include House heating. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, which you link, gives a (cited) figure for consumption of 22,100 kWh/yr for a 'small, 2 oven' AGA. Table 2.3.1 from the DECC's quarterly review of energy prices says that an expected annual fuel bill for 18,000 kWh would be around £658. Scaling this up for the consumption listed gives an annual bill of about £810 due to the AGA alone. You might need to scale this up a little further yet for a 3 oven. 131.111.255.9 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...impressively, this suggests that running a large Aga uses almost twice as much gas as the heating for a mid-sized suburban house in southern England! Shimgray | talk | 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proper term for adding machine

What is the proper terminology for a calculator where "25+25+25-10" can be entered as "25+++10-", and what calculator input method and/or notation (e.g. infix notation, postfix notation, polish notation) is it?

I usually call them "adding machines", but Wikipedia doesn't use this terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.30.236 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Polish notation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. 25+++10- doesn't work in RPN. Also, in this notation, multiplication is infix ("25+25+25+10*3" is "25+++10*3=+" or sometimes "25+++10*3+"). See http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp10.htm for a better description. These calculators are actually somewhat popular with accountants even to this day. A modern (windows software) example is http://www.auditor2000.co.il/aucalcdl.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.30.236 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also call this an Adding Machine. The input method is similar to a cash register, where you enter the amount followed by the plus (or minus) key, and (as per the example) the amount can be added into the sum several times over with a single keypress. An adding machine is more convenient than a calculator when the main operations needed are plus/minus rather than multiply, divide etc. You can sometimes simulate the adding machine input method on a calculator by using the M+ and M- keys. Sussexonian (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a comptometer? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film suggestion by analogy

Is there a site where you can get film suggestions based on the films that you liked? For example, if you like Star Trek, you probably also will like Star wars, so it makes sense to recommend these films in both directions. 2.139.12.164 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using Netflix now for about 3 years (with break in between for 6 months or so). It costs me $10 USD a month to get unlimited streaming + 1 DVD at a time. Judging by your IP address, you're in Spain. This Source says that y'all should have Netflix by 2012. As far as the recommendations function, I find it works very well. I discovered Fringe (TV series) because Netflix suggested it based on my preference for "mind-bending dark sci-fi," among other enjoyable recommendations. It is, although, not a perfect system and have had the unfortunate experience of seeing Following. Schyler (one language) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix's recommendations function works pretty well once you've inputted a few hundred opinions into it. I find it occasionally extrapolates quite wildly in genres where I've only rated a few things (I like Hayao Miyazaki's work, so Netflix is always recommending me all of this manga that I find pretty idiotic by comparison), but for genres I've heavily rated, it's pretty good at guessing whether I'd give something 4 or 5 stars, even things I've never seen before. Occasionally its algorithm makes a huge blunder (it decided that since I liked Capturing the Friedmans, a documentary about alleged child rape, that I'd probably also like Kate and William - Inside The Royal Wedding or something like that), but it's the best such movie-based algorithm I've seen so far, and they've spent a lot working to improve it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case how can an algorithm know you really want: more documentaries or just anything with child rape in it? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that one of them is the sort of art house thing that someone like me would like (and I've watched a lot of other art house style documentaries), and one is just royal fluff. Unless I've underestimated the Kate and William movie... perhaps the algorithm is right, and I'm wrong! ;-) But usually Netflix is better about genres than that — it doesn't just do "documentaries" but has all sorts of more refined genre categorizations (Capturing the Friedmans is an "Emotional, Dark, Crime documentary" for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that imdb.com recommend similar films (scroll down the example). You can also enter the name of a DVD at www.amazon.com - Search Movies & TV. Besides the actual DVD it will list other DVDs that it rates as similar, probably based on what other buyers have chosen. If I see a film that is well made, I become interested in seeing other work by the same director. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article is Recommender system. Recury (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]