December 12

When the United Nations presents data on life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and death rate, etc, it often gives them as for example, 2000-2005 or 1965-1970. I don't understand. What does this mean? What does it mean, when it says, for example, 2000-2005, or 1950-1970?

When the Australian Bureau of Statistics gives data on life expectancy, it often gives it as 1901-1910, 1932-1934, or 1999-2001. I don't understand. What does this mean? What does it mean when it says, for example, 1901-1910, 1932-1934, or 1999-2001?

Bowei Huang (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that the data represents an average for the years 2000-2005. It is important to define the time frame you wish to analyze so that you have a meaningful sample size. As an extreme example, we could ask for the life expetency of someone born between 11:01AM and 11:03AM on March 17, 1954. We are unlikely to be able to make a meaninful statement about life expetency from such a small time frame. By averaging data across longer time frames, data becomes more reliable. There's nothing magical about a "year" as a time frame for this purpose. A 5-year period may be more useful than a 1-year period. --Jayron32 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy in a particular year is calculated by in effect assuming a person lives out the rest of their lives in that year. For each year you look at what percentage of people died at that age. So if people lived at most 3 years and in year 2000 .3 of those aged 0 died just as they go to 1, .4 of those aged 1 died as they got to 2 and all aged 2 died the moment they reached 3 the life expectancy at birth in 2000 would be 1×0.3 + 2×(1-0.3)×0.4 + 3×(1-0.3)×(1-0.4) = 2.12 years. That's the basic calculation anyway but I'm sure life insurance companies do something a bit cleverer as just a small difference can make a bit difference to their profits Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find lyrics to Evil Nine's "All the Cash" anywhere, would anyone be so kind as to spend a minute looking as I search myself? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.237.183 (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might get a better response by posting this on the Entertainment desk. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click her and write down what you hear, if you want to endure such rubbish. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when and how did john white who was in virginia meet an eskimo? his water painting of an eskimo woman is thought to be somewhere between 1577 and 1590 and i find no record of his going farther north then virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.65.34.178 (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this page about White says "There is some evidence that he sailed with Martin Frobisher, who explored the Arctic in 1577, during which expedition he created detailed pictures of the Eskimos and their lifestyles." --LarryMac | Talk 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all (UK calling). I recently stumbled across an automated prisoner filing system used by a handful of US jails called "Jail view" e.g. [1]. Apparently, if I lived nearby, I could just google my local jail, and then get the names and mugshots of all (I think civil) prisoners being held there (or after they had been released), their stated address, bail bond, list of (alleged?) crimes, and even the exact cell number in which they are being held.

This strikes me as being a bit odd (or at least unfamiliar). Is it more usual in the US? I mean, these people could be entirely innocent - one worries for their safety, quite frankly.

Just interested. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think these kind of things are usually required by ballot initiatives, rather than regular legislation. Ballot initiatives tend to result in the tyranny of the majority more than other forms of democratic decision making - I think this is an example of that. --Tango (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

↑^{[citation needed]} I didn't find much on this system but it seems, to me, more like something a bureaucrat would create than a politician. Rmhermen (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a citation, as I said: "I'm not sure". While the system was almost certainly created by bureaucrats, I wouldn't be surprised if they did so in order to comply will a ballot initiative. Local legislatures also pass these kinds of laws, though (eg. the law that gave rise to the Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony), so it could be that. --Tango (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US is very big on the idea that once you have been convicted of a crime you are not longer "entirely innocent" and depending on the nature of the crime, even serving your sentence does not free you from the stigma of being a criminal. So in some states nobody who has been convicted of a felony is allowed to ever vote again, for example. If you are convicted of a sex-related crime in some states, it can require compulsory registration wherever you move, put limits on where you can live in the future, and so forth. Most experts seem to agree that such post-sentencing requirements actually increase the rate of recidivism (as they prevent full integration back into legal society) at the worst and do a lot of individual harm at best, but they are easy things to pass by ballot initiative (as Tango points out), because lots of people are scared of former criminals, especially if it involves children in any way. It is one of the great penal reform issues playing out in the United States at the moment—the politics of the situation seem to lead only to an increasing strictness of laws, even while it is clear to those who study these things carefully that this can easily raise rather than lower the overall crime rate (a classic unintended consequences case), and has ethical/moral problems as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} I do not doubt that on face value, however it would be helpful to provide links to such studies. --Jayron32 17:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to remember that the OP isn't just talking about convicted criminals, the site appears to list anyone who has been booked by the 'St. Johns County Sheriff's Office' and some other places which I presume are in the same jurisdiction or something. It's possible some people are excluded for various reasons but in general I see no evidence that all people listed there are criminals. It's possible or even likely that for some of them the charges will be dropped or they will be found not guilty. It doesn't appear all of these are serious crimes either, there's one case which I'm purposely not naming per WP:BLP where the sole count appears to be loitering and the person received a $200 bond. (It's possible of course the person is a convict although it seems unlikely they were on parole since there's no parole violations listed so they must have served their time.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the OP linked is what is called a "booking log". This is a log of arrests kept by the police. This sort of thing is considered a public record in most if not all states in the United States and is available to the public. I'd say a minority of police departments post their booking logs online. Of those that do, an even smaller minority post mug shots of people arrested. There may be states or other jurisdictions (counties) that require the posting of mug shots online. If so, it is probably because of legislative action by legislators who think that they will benefit from seeming "tough on crime". Alternatively, it may be a form of public relations for the police department, which can say, "Look at these scary criminals that we've protected the public against." There might be grounds for a lawsuit if a person arrested and immortalized with a mugshot were later acquitted in court but unable to find a job because employers Google their name and get their mug shot. But I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether such a legal challenge might succeed. Marco polo (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a spectrum between privacy and openness ranging from countries like Germany on the one hand, where just about everything is private, to Sweden on the other, where even income tax returns are public record. The U.S., while not as extreme as Sweden in that regard, is firmly on the side of openness in government over privacy compared to many other countries. Generally the attitude in the U.S. is everything that a government does should be public record unless there is an overwhelming reason why it should be kept secret. For example, in the town where I used to live, there was a computer at the city hall where you could type anyone's name in it and find any dealing he or she had with the municipal court -- any DUIs, domestic violence arrests, etc. No one complained about it because it's expected in the U.S. that if you do something that involves the government, say, buying real estate, getting a divorce or registering to vote, it becomes a matter of public record for anyone to view for any reason. In many counties, you can someone's name into the county government's website and find a picture of the person's house with its assessed value and everything that may contribute to its valuation, including the number of rooms, whether it has central air, and so on. There are exceptions, such as juvenile court records, census forms and income tax returns, as well as whatever the Bush administration was trying to keep secret.

So for the local jail to post records of who's in there certainly isn't that odd when considering the U.S. view of government openness and privacy. Indeed, it's quite common for small local newspapers to report the names of everyone who's even been arrested in a "police blotter" column. People just have to understand that just because someone has been accused of a crime doesn't mean he is guilty. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reporting on a meeting of the Berkeley, California, City Council in the 1970's that was disrupted by two female city workers with very loud complaints about sexism. When they were arrested and taken down the street to the city jail, I was a little shocked to see that anyone could see their names on a public booking record. But then it dawned on me that this is to protect the detainees and avoid the greater danger of letting the police hold an unknown number of people anonymously. We read all too many news stories today of too many countries where people suddenly aren't around, and no one can be sure why.

While everyone holds to the belief of innocent until proven otherwise, factors like the Internet, easy retrieval of news archives, and the ability of digital data to persist on line (or in some unknown person's computer) indefinitely make this far more problematic than before. In the past, if you'd been mistakenly picked up, say, for joy-riding in Guerneville, California in 1947, and then moved to Indianapolis after your military service, a Hoosier would have to have needed a tip or a hunch in 1963 to know which issues of which newspapers to search in order to find that earlier "Police Blotter" (or more importantly, that that record even existed). In 1967, the FBI established the National Crime Information Center to allow law-enforcement agencies at all levels to share and retrieve criminal records, starting with the more serious or dangerous felonies. But nowadays with the Internet....

Since people were looking for sources, The Economist had a cover story a month or two ago about the dangers of popular but ineffective (or counter-productive) sanctions against released sex offenders. No politician dare vote or act to loosen the restrictions for fear of the next election ("the attack ads write themselves" is roughly how the magazine put it), only to strengthen them, or at least not to speak or vote on the record against a zealot's or demagogue's proposal to tighten the rules. The Economist said that similar pressures would spread the process to other countries with similar deleterious effects. But this is a Reference Desk, not a soapbox, so I'll stop giving opinions on matters of current public controversy. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are protected from false imprisonment by the police by habeas corpus - they have to take the person to court and get permission to hold them (after X hours, anyway). Those court proceedings are public in most western countries, as far as I know (baring exceptional circumstances). While the people proposing the laws to require the police to publish this information may claim it is for their benefit, I find it very unlikely that that is the genuine reason. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Sweden was mentioned earlier, I just want to point out that even though most records are public posting them on the Internet is a completely different thing. Information about natural persons crimes is considered "sensitive information" and there are restrictions to when they can be posted. Any police department with a web site like the one the OP gave would find themselves in serious trouble.Sjö (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having nokia 5130 express music mobile. But its battery life is very poor . the battery won't stand for a single day , even though if it is fully charged.Please help me. Which software i need to download. Thank you in advance....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.242.131 (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Updating your firmware.You can contact nokia here--NotedGrant Talk 17:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But on the face of it I would suspect a hardware rather than a software fault, though one shouldn't completely rule out software. --ColinFine (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET review says: "The 5130 has a rated battery life of six hours talk time and 12 days standby time. The promised multimedia battery life varies as follows: 4 hours of video playback time, 1 hour of video recording time, and 20 hours of music playback time. We received a talk time of 7 hours and 2 minutes in our tests." SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The battery is probably perma-dead. How long have you had the phone? Have you ever let the battery run completely dead? According to this one shouldn't discharge Li ion batteries and they only have around 300-500 charge cycles before needing a replacement. --Mark PEA (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's possible. Did the phone ever have good battery life? Has it just gotten gradually worse? If so, then I agree with Mark. However, if you are using the phone more or less constantly to play music, video and (especially) talking on the phone a lot - then 12 hours isn't unreasonable. I really don't think software will help. Unless there is some horrible bug that causes the phone to fail to turn off the radio transmitter when it's idling or something - then upgrading the software is most unlikely to change the battery life. A bug that bad would have been noticed by the manufacturers long before the phone went to market - and would have been noticed in the CNET review I referred to above. So there are two possibilities:

1. That your battery has slowly been getting worse and worse due to your recharging habits - or just because the phone is getting old. In that case, you need a new battery - if the phone is still under warranty, then get a replacement under warranty - otherwise you're going to have to buy a new one, which might cost more than the phone is worth.
2. That your expectations of the phone are beyond it's capabilities. If you are listening to music on it all day long - watching the odd video and making a bunch of calls - then 12 hours is about all you could hope to get. There isn't much you can do about that.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]