Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 August 14

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.

August 14

How does Wal-Mart "remember" banned patrons?

If anyone gets banned-for-life from Wal-Mart, pictures may be taken, but faces may look unrecognizably different even as soon as 10 years later. (30 would be a safer bet.)

Moreover, the managers/employees who banned them eventually change their places of employment, hence their replacements won't "remember" those patrons, having never met them.

So how does Wal-Mart overcome those variables, if they do? --70.179.163.168 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First, what's your source for WalMart "banning" someone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Woman banned from every WalMart in America for life (okay to come back as a zombie?) Why Was I Banned From Walmart For Not Showing My Receipt?. This guy got banned and set up a website about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I recall hearing on the radio about an elderly man who was banned from Walmart, for pulling practical jokes because he was bored. Maybe they get personal information, since the police become involved, and keep some kind of updating database. Just a guess. Sarujo (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

They don’t (just think about all the time, money and effort require, and the $ they gain from enforcing such bans). I think the following comment from Clarityfiend’s second link explain this nicely:

“ myrna_minkoff March 5, 2010 2:53 PM

I imagine those bans are largely unenforced -- but they do it because if there is another incident involving you in one of their stores, they have proof that you shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Just a little bit of legal CYA.

”

Royor (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Still... wow, that's amazing stuff. I can't imagine how that kind of story could help Walmart's reputation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who cares if some troublemakers and bolshy customers are banned? It means happier staff and a better environment for other shoppers. How many people are going to avoid them because of that? Have any of these people ever tried apologising for the unnecessary trouble they caused? Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Do other national chains do this kind of thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason, but I'm guessing incomplete. For starters, being banned for life also means you're banned for the first few months. It seems like the ban may be actively enforced initially, and it may not be that hard since most people are only going to frequent one or a few stores. And the person's appearance is still likely to be similar to that in photos, there may even be staff on duty who recognise the person from experience. (Of course how strong and long they enforce it will likely depend on how much of a problem you have been.) In other words, while the 'for life' part may be a bit overkill, the ban itself is useful. Secondly, even if they don't recognise you, if you do cause problems, other then CYA being banned also means if they do call the police on you there's a greater chance you will be arrested or charged with a criminal offence like trespass, which is also likely to be useful from their POV. And of course all these probably discourage at least some trouble makers from reappearing. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Casinos also "ban" people - what the practical meaning is -- anyone who enters who has been banned can be prosecuted for trespass. This is generally enough of an inconvenience that people do not test the ban. Collect (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(Of course, how you would enforce that would depend on what jurisdiction you were in. I assume we're thinking Walmart/casinos in the US here, rather than Walmart/casinos worldwide. My understanding of the British Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is poor, but I gather that to end up at the prosecution stage in the UK, you have to commit aggravated trespass, i.e. disrupt to the proper running of the store/casino. So you wouldn't be commiting an offence just to shop or gamble or gamble there, or indeed just to walk through the door. You could get a 3 month ban if the police got involved in forcing you off the premises, however. Still not lifetime though, by any stretch of the imagination. 92.8.188.189 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC) )

An issue here is the right of the operator of a shop or club to use force to eject anyone they don't want. Jobs as "bouncers" seem to provide employment for the more voluminous, if not more intelligent, type of gentle(?) man. The situation in London, UK is that clubs in the Soho area routinely use force to eject clients that do not keep buying drinks at wildly inflated price. The clubs are licensed, the police do not interfere and the government favours abolishing the licensing of "door supervisors" (bouncers). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is probably a bit like the situation in Wikipedia. Here, if a banned editor creates a new account and then edits in a way that never causes any trouble, nobody really cares about the ban. It is only if the editor causes enough trouble to draw attention that the ban comes into play. Same, I expect, for Walmart. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem still: Walmart might be an essential service for some people, casinos and clubs in London's Soho are not. Quest09 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Casinos usually only ban people who engage in card counting or outright theft. They want to be the only ones allowed to fix the odds in their establishments. They employ a lot more sophisticated security tactics than your average box store, including using facial recognition software to detect banned individuals. Check out how being banned from Walmart ruined this woman's life, costing her her job and her husband. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That source had nothing to do with being banned, just an accusation of theft which is now being addressed by a civil suit which will get the woman a huge payout if she wins. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not directly about being banned, but it does seem to reflect a similar bloody-mindedness in their corporate culture. Or then again it could have been just that particular security guard (overruling the assistant manager, a security guard? really?). But it's a data point in any case. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the slant reported in the article is true, the megalomaniac should be fired, charged if possible, countersued by WalMart and a quick settlement sought. Consider also that the husband who was supposedly deported for this (was he convicted of a crime?) was deported, if deported, by the Feds, not the overzealous WalMart goon. It may seem bizarre to some doubters on the left, but this sort of incident is not good for profit, which is what mgmt wants. You have to assume that mgmt is evil for evil's sake in order to think they encourage this. Evil for evil's sake is much more likely from immigration bureacrats with guns and an agenda. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a weird story. If as reported I hope the guard gets it in the neck. I always count the number of items I've bought so I've got a quick cross-check at a supermarket checkout. Only yesterday I spotted where the checkout person had done the same thing twice by mistake because of this. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In answer to the OP's question, I'm not convinced that Walmart has that much problem with people evading a 'lifetime' ban 30 years after it was imposed. The person in question would likely have matured. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bible question

The New Testament begins by describing the lineage from Abraham to Jesus, generation by generation. I counted 41 generations, though this might be a little bit off. How many people can recite all these generations from memory, in order? JIP | Talk 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking how many people in the entire world have memorized this information? How could that possibly be answered? --Daniel 18:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I'm really asking how common such a thing would be. JIP | Talk 18:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(WP:OR warning) I've heard that it's a bit of a point of pride for some Bible nerds to memorize more and more of the Bible. I also once knew a guy who, during some hard times in his life which may have involved some prison time (it's been a few years since I knew him), he tried to refocus his life on something positive and therefore had committed the first couple books of the Bible to memory. He rattled a bit off for me as we were standing there. Dismas|^(talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he's asking how common is it for people to be able to recite their lineages that far back. My understanding is that in pre-literate people memorizing such lineages and traditional histories is quite common. Although 41 generations sounds unlikely and obviously the chance that at some point someone changed or made up an ancestral link for the sake of prestige cannot be discounted. This list of ancestors in the gospels is obviously problematic, since one can hardly claim both to be the son of God and to have inherited the line of Abraham through Joseph. It shows the work of different hands with different intentions and beliefs in the history of the texts. Although they do not directly answer your question see Genealogy, Kinship, and Confucius (whose genealogy ios the longest known). μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting take on the question. I took "these generations" to mean those specific ones, as in the generations from the Bible. Dismas|^(talk) 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, why couldn't God chose to incarnate himself into the line of Abraham, or whatever? Is that not the usual interpretation? There were prophecies and such to fulfill. By the way, memorizing the Bible used to be more common, especially before it was given a set of verse numbers. Memorizing the Qur'an is still a thing that people do. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) many times over. It depends on which communities you are talking about. Among seminary students in certain Christian denominations, memorizing such lists may be akin to students of history memorizing the list of Kings of England or presidents of the United States, neither of which is unheard of in their own context. (Now, I wouldn't necessarily expect every single British schoolchild to have memorized Willie willie harry stee, but there are enough for there to be a mnemonic about it). Also, you should note that there are not one, but two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels, and there is nothing internal to the text to resolve the conflict between them, though there have been some extrabiblical explanations which attempt to resolve the problem. See Genealogy of Jesus, especially the "Explanations for divergence" section. --Jayron32 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can recite all the Presidents of Finland from memory, in order, at any time. But there have only been eleven of them, not over forty. I guess it's a matter of how focused people are at memorising something. I have heard that there are people who can recite tens of thousands of digits of pi from memory. I could never manage to do such a thing. JIP | Talk 19:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but at that point you're generally talking about people with more severe forms of autism and not necessarily the more general/average public. No offense to autistics but I hope you get what I mean. Dismas|^(talk) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In pre-literate societies, memory was THE only way to preserve lots of knowledge, including Oral tradition. Lots of stuff can be kept accurately in human memory; see Art of memory for some historical treatment. In a modern society where, not only can everyone read, but everyone has access to calculators (memorize times tables? Why bother?), the Internet (memorize lists of anything? Why bother?), etc. many memory techniques aren't practiced anymore. Modern societies practice more procedural memory than fact memory (i.e. how to use the Internet to find things out; how to use a calculator to give you the right answer, etc.) In societies where reading isn't widespread (or even where it is, but books are rare, inconvenient, or hard to access for many people) most of the information of a culture may be maintained orally and through mnemonic methods. Heck, people can even maintain complex bookkeeping and inventories of businesses using only their memories; the Method of loci is one such mnemonic device that goes back millenia. The "Art of memory" article discusses some of these applications of memory. (post-EC response to Dismas's comment): Has nothing at all to do with Autism; people can be quite healthy, mentally speaking, and be capable of memorizing quite long lists, with the proper training. See my links above, esp. "Art of memory" and "method of loci" for but a few examples. --Jayron32 19:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) There is no need to go to autism for genealogies. It is a matter of what one devotes one's mental resources to. Consider the vast amount of sports statistics the average joe can recite if not in the form of an epic poem, or how many Beatles songs you can sing by heart. If you are not studying history and science and a foreign language or three you have a lot of unused capacity which during nights unlit by artifice the hunter or farmer can recite old tales by memory. Memorizing a list of 40 ancestors would be rather unremarkable in that context.

After skimming through Pi and Piphilology, I'll retract what I said before. My pre-conceived notions were in error. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well chosen user name. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, a Somali gentleman once told me he could recite his ancestry back several generations, in much the same way as used to happen in Wales, with patronymics. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See: HRH Don Alfonso Maria Isabel Francisco Eugenio Gabriel Pedro Sebastian Pelayo Fernando Francisco de Paula Pio Miguel Rafael Juan José Joaquin Ana Zacarias Elisabeth Simeón Tereso Pedro Pablo Tadeo Santiago Simon Lucas Juan Mateo Andrès Bartolomé Ambrosio Geronimo Agustin Bernardo Candido Gerardo Luis-Gonzaga Filomeno Camilo Cayetano Andrès-Avelino Bruno Joaquin-Picolimini Felipe Luis-Rey-de-Francia Ricardo Esteban-Protomartir Genaro Nicolas Estanislao-de-Koska Lorenzo Vicente Crisostomo Cristano Dario Ignacio Francisco-Javier Francisco-de Borja Higona Clemente Esteban-de-Hungria Ladislado Enrique Ildefonso Hermenegildo Carlos-Borromoeo Eduardo Francisco-Régis Vicente-Ferrer Pascual Miguel-de-los-Santos Adriano Venancio Valentin Benito José-Oriol Domingo Florencio Alfacio Benére Domingo-de-Silos Ramon Isidro Manuel Antonio Todos-los-Santos Infante of Spain and Portugal

• Madrid, November 15th, 1866

† Madrid, April 28th, 1934 [[1]] which beats out even Johann Gambolputty-de-von-Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crass-cren-bon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelter-wasser-kurstlich-himble-eisen-bahnwagen-guten-abend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwürstel-gespurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut-gumeraber-schönendanker-kalbsfleisch-mittleraucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.

μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That puts Louis George Maurice Adolphe Roche Albert Abel Antonio Alexandre Noë Jean Lucien Daniel Eugène Joseph-le-brun Joseph-Barême Thomas Thomas Thomas-Thomas Pierre Arbon Pierre-Maurel Barthélemi Artus Alphonse Bertrand Dieudonné Emanuel Josué Vincent Luc Michel Jules-de-la-plane Jules-Bazin Julio César Jullien to shame. But it's worth recording just for "Thomas Thomas Thomas-Thomas". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Losing your boarding pass during a flight

I recently flew from Dublin to the UK. We landed, walked off the plane, and headed for baggage claim. On the way there was someone checking boarding passes (this was a Ryanair flight, I had a printed boarding pass: when I boarded they cut it in half and gave me half back). The guy in front of me had lost or not kept his pass and was not allowed to proceed (I didn't see what happened to him). My question is, why do they check boarding passes when you're *leaving* the flight and what happens if you have lost yours? I hope there are some frequent fliers here who can help, google didn't turn much up. Tinfoilcat (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit silly to check it then, reminding me of how my bank requires that I prove my ID before I can deposit money into my account (is there a rash of disreputable people sneaking around depositing money in other people's accounts ?).

I suspect they just feel a need to be symmetrical in their security checks, and doing the same check before and after a flight seems somehow neater. Another case of this silly need for symmetry is that up and down escalators are usually the same size, while I suspect that far fewer people feel the need for a power assist when going down than up.

I would imagine they just established his identity in some other way, such as with a driver's license or other picture ID. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding bank identification, this is mainly a way of preventing accounts being used for money laundering. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who would deposit money must answer these questions three ere the credit he see. What ... is your name? What ... is your favourite colour? What ... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Along with that, I would imagine the manifest also to confirm the person was on the flight. I'm not wholly surprised this check happens, since for some airlines (less so Ryanair, since it's all short-haul) some of the destination's security is not what it is in the UK. Hence people might have stashed away on the plane, and Ryanair probably have some duty to prevent such people gaining entry to the UK. I expect it was cleared up through identification, if necessary some phone calls. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) times three. I'd imagine that it's some form of theft security. Or to cut down on mules bringing bags with contraband in to the country to be picked up by some other party. Dismas|^(talk) 19:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's suggestions. They didn't verify that we were on the manifest for that flight: the person checking simply looked at the pass and didn't scan it or check the name off a list. The more I think about it the weirder it seems: anyone who knew the flight time and number could make something that would pass a visual inspection. Perhaps it is to try and ensure that everyone who comes through passport control really has just got off a flight, but as I said it would be very easy to beat. Tinfoilcat (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a reasonably frequent flier and I've never seen that before. They usually check boarding passes when you get onto the plane (although not always very closely - I once accidentally showed them a boarding pass from my outward flight instead of the return flight and they didn't notice), but not when you get off. I've left mine on the plane before. I've never thought I'd need it, except possibly if the baggage receipt was stuck on the back, as it often is. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the States the TSA thugs seem to delight in making up new, increasingly bizarre security practices and enforcing them in a random or haphazard fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe I have ever shown my boarding pass getting off a plane, in the US or anywhere else. On Southwest Airlines flights you usually don't even have it at that time; the agent takes it as you enter the jetway (or in airports that are still civilized, as you walk out onto the tarmac). (The reason for mentioning Southwest specifically in this context is that they don't use assigned seating; on most airlines you have to retain the pass to show you're entitled to the seat assigned to you.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that it doesn't seem to have had a security element, it may be something completely trivial like studying debarkation patterns - boarding passes are checked going in, so you know what order people board the plane, and if you take every boarding pass in succession as they come past you, you have a good idea what order they come off in. Given the time pressures on low-cost carriers, and the experimentation with things like non-assigned seating, it seems a fairly plausible thing for someone to want to gather information on! Shimgray | talk | 09:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I've flown into Toronto lately, they check people's passports immediately as you get off the plane (looking for stowaways I suppose), but I've never had anyone check my boarding pass. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Olympus lenses question

My old Olympus E-520 camera was stolen in Stockholm. I bought a used Olympus E-620 from Germany as a replacement. The camera itself is fine, but I have found out that the lenses: Zuiko Digital 14-45 mm 1:3,5-5,6 and Zuiko Digital 40-150 mm 1:3,5-4,5 are older and more difficult to use than my previous camera's lenses: Zuiko Digital 14-42 mm 1:3,5-5,6 and Zuiko Digital 40-150 mm 1:4,0-5,6. I bought my previous camera new, while it appears that the previous owner of my current camera upgraded from an earlier model and kept her original lenses. So my question is, is there any market for the lenses I have now, so I could sell them and buy the ones I used to have before they were stolen? JIP | Talk 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some market, such as for those who had those lenses and were satisfied with them, but accidentally damaged them. However, I certainly wouldn't expect to get enough from selling them to afford newer, better, lenses. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is "yes, but it's not great". There is still a market for the f/3.5-4.5 40-150mm zooms; from my experience on ebay, they tend to sell for about a third to a quarter less than the newer (and smaller) f/4-5.6. I am less sure about the 14-45mm lens; there's three in this range (14-45, 14-42, 17.5-45), and I know that one of the three seems to sell for very little, but I cannot offhand remember which it is - perhaps the 17.5mm?

I own an E-620 which I initially bought with the "newer" kit lenses. I actually sold the f/4 long zoom and bought one of the older f/3.5 models, which I preferred using; it's physically larger, yes, but it's brighter and felt easier to handle, for me at least. I later sold the short zoom (I can't remember if it was a 14-42 or a 14-45) and bought one of the 25mm pancake lenses, which I can highly recommend if you're thinking about changing - you lose a bit in flexibility of range, while on the plus side it's substantially brighter, and it's tiny, which really works well with the small size of the E-620 - you end up with a DSLR with a 50-mm equivalent lens that sits happily in a coat pocket! If you've the change to try one out, I'd recommend it before buying a replacement 14-42mm - it probably costs about twice as much second hand, but it's money well spent if you like the feel of it. Shimgray | talk | 23:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any specialist photography trading sites on the Internet or should I just try eBay or a Finnish small ads site such as Keltainen pörssi? JIP | Talk 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)