Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous
|
Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
|
Choose a topic:
See also:
|
Contents
November 14[edit]
Popular perceptions of NHS doctors[edit]
There appears to be an opinion in many European countries, and in the UK, that doctors in the UK are less capable than doctor in most of continental Europe. Is there any particular explanation for this? Is it, in some sense, true? If so, why?--Leon (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- UK based, I've not encountered that. In fact, quite the opposite, there's enormous admiration for our doctors. There's a widespread perception that the NHS underperforms due to lack of money and/or inefficiency, so for example, the UK lags behind leading nations in things like cancer survival league tables. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 can provide some insights. EniaNey (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- With full respect to you and the WHO, no league table would be able to unpick perceptions of doctors nor whether said perceptions are fair or not. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd at least like to see some references to support the assertion that the OP states. Having worked in the UK NHS for much of my life in a clinical and managerial position I have yet to see any evidence either way that doctors in the UK are any better or worse than doctors in the continental health services. How would that be measured? Richard Avery (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do not claim to have, and my assertion is that there is such a perception, not that it is true. I queried a surgeon at a London hospital whom I know personally, and he agreed that it is a common perception, but does not believe that it is well founded, and does not claim to know its origin.--Leon (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but even THAT is an assertion without evidence. You've put a claim on the table (that UK doctors are perceived as inferior) and then assumed that we all accepted that as true, and THEN asked us to explain why it is true. That's a plurium interrogationum error (I.E. the "When did you stop beating your wife" problem), which is what Richard Avery is objecting to: We can't answer the second, included question until the first question is answered. First we need to answer "are UK doctors perceived as inferior" before we can answer why they are; obviously if the first question comes back with "They aren't", it obviates the second question as nonsensical (that is, if you never beat your wife, you can't have ever stopped!). SO, back to the point: You've made an assertion based on two people: you, and one other person you asked. I'm not sure that's evidence enough for us to move forward on the assertion as acceptable. Instead, please provide us with more substantial evidence than "Me and my friend agree on it". DO you have the results of an opinion poll or other similar reliable broad-based research so we can move forward from the assertion, and focus on your main question. --Jayron32 18:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do not claim to have, and my assertion is that there is such a perception, not that it is true. I queried a surgeon at a London hospital whom I know personally, and he agreed that it is a common perception, but does not believe that it is well founded, and does not claim to know its origin.--Leon (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd at least like to see some references to support the assertion that the OP states. Having worked in the UK NHS for much of my life in a clinical and managerial position I have yet to see any evidence either way that doctors in the UK are any better or worse than doctors in the continental health services. How would that be measured? Richard Avery (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- With full respect to you and the WHO, no league table would be able to unpick perceptions of doctors nor whether said perceptions are fair or not. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
November 15[edit]
Where did the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft refuel and what was its landing/takeoff requirement?[edit]
I read the article at Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, and have some questions I did not see there. The article states that the carrier only had a range of 1000 NM. Where did it stop for refueling on trips from California to Florida? Also, what are the carrier's runway requirements for takeoff and landing compared to a unmodified 747? RudolfRed (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at List of Shuttle Carrier Aircraft flights, it looks like Kelly Air Force Base is the most common intermediate stop, with other Air Force bases being used from time to time. --Carnildo (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Carnildo: Thanks for that article link. RudolfRed (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- One glaring omission from "List of Shuttle Carrier Aircraft flights" is the 1983 trip to the Paris Air Show and a grand tour of Europe - I watched pass over my back garden in London. Didn't anybody else notice it? Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch! It's mentioned in Shuttle Carrier Aircraft#Design and development:
- By 1983, SCA N905NA no longer carried the distinct American Airlines tricolor cheatline. NASA replaced it with its own livery, consisting of a white fuselage and a single blue cheatline. That year, this aircraft was also used to fly Enterprise on a tour in Europe, with refuelling stops in Goose Bay, Canada; Keflavik, Iceland; England; and West Germany. It then went to the Paris Air Show.
- The provided reference How Does the Space Shuttle Fly Home?] (Slate, 2005-08-09) says:
- Since the early 1980s, NASA has carried out 51 shuttle-transport missions, including a trip across the Atlantic to take the Enterprise to the Paris Air Show.
- [Update, August 10: Many readers have been wondering how the Enterprise made the long journey across the Atlantic Ocean to the Paris Air Show. The shuttle traveled over the water by making the (relatively) short trip from Goose Bay, in northeast Canada, to Keflavik, on the southwestern tip of Iceland. The Enterprise then continued on to England and West Germany before reaching Paris.]
- But it doesn't give dates. If we can find them elsewhere, they should certainly be added to List of Shuttle Carrier Aircraft flights. -- ToE 23:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch! It's mentioned in Shuttle Carrier Aircraft#Design and development:
- One glaring omission from "List of Shuttle Carrier Aircraft flights" is the 1983 trip to the Paris Air Show and a grand tour of Europe - I watched pass over my back garden in London. Didn't anybody else notice it? Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Carnildo: Thanks for that article link. RudolfRed (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Now added:
- "May 16-June 12, Enterprise, tour of the United States, Canada and Europe. From Edwards Air Force Base to Peterson Air Force Base, McConnell Air Force Base, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CFB Goose Bay, Keflavik Naval Air Station, RAF Fairford (20 May), Cologne Bonn Airport, Paris Air Show (arrived 24 May), Ciampino Airport, Stanstead Airport, Ottawa International Airport, Scott Air Force Base and Sheppard Air Force Base".
- I suspect that we're missing a second refuelling at Keflavik on the way back, but nobody mentions it. Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Question about the show TRANSform Me[edit]
Where can I watch online or where can I buy it? Poodlesun (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you can't find it on Youtube, you could try asking the show's makers: Left/Right Productions. There's a contact form on their website. DS (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
What font is this?[edit]
I'm looking to find out what font this is, where it says "GARY R. HERBERT," "OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR," etc. Thanks! 204.126.146.202 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the article in question for those trying to answer this question Gary Herbert. MarnetteD|Talk 00:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, what image are you referring to? Not seeing it in the above article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- The Sans-serif font on the sign on the side of the car here [1] is probably Arial or Helvetica. DroneB (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- The sign on the car has the simplified letter "G" of Arial - see comparison of Arial, Helvetica and Monotype Grotesque. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- The Sans-serif font on the sign on the side of the car here [1] is probably Arial or Helvetica. DroneB (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, what image are you referring to? Not seeing it in the above article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, here's the link: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/governor-gary-herbert.pdf 204.126.146.202 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- My money is on Century Gothic, very commonly used in such contexts. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, in Century Gothic the capital F and E have two and three (respectively) horizontal bars of equal length, in the pdf, the lower resp. middle ones are shorter. The font identifier at www.fontsquirrel.com finds a match with media gothic, which seems about right to me. - Lindert (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's engraver's gothic. Many fonts have imitated this style. See [2] for example. 78.0.230.255 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not Engraver's Gothic. Look at the Capital G in [3] and compare the capital G at [4]. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the style, not a specific font. If you look at the font I linked (Sweet Sans), the G is pretty accurate. Bitstream didn't invent this style in 1990 even if they trademarked the name. 78.0.219.74 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not Engraver's Gothic. Look at the Capital G in [3] and compare the capital G at [4]. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess others have already noticed, but for the benefit of future investigators the PDF is just an image with OCRed or otherwise hidden text so doesn't likely directly reveal what the font it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are saying. The image shows the font -- you can look at it and see the shape of the letters. Of course such an image doesn't contain the font in the same way that a Word document does, but whatever word processor was used to create the document that was later scanned to produce the PDF used some font. We just have to guess what font that is by looking at it and comparing it with various likely font samples. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think N.E. is alluding to the fact that with most PDFs you can right click to get a list of the fonts used, and saving us the trouble of doing so as that won't work for a scanned image.--Shantavira|feed me 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes precisely. It's an image here but there's no reason it has to be. Plenty of PDFs are not images but instead solely text generally with some images (be they raster or vector), which sometimes includes logos and additional text (like the office of stuff), but not always. You also get weird stuff like PDFs where the text is just vector images etc. It depends on the workflow of whoever produced the PDF and other things. There was no intrinsic reason why this PDF or even the specific part of concern had to be an image, but I checked and it is. If it wasn't an image, we could at least see what the embedded font was called. If that wasn't enough, depending on whether every character was embedded or just the subset used we could also compare every character. You could also compare the actual font details (rather than just how it looks). In this case it is OCRed with hidden text so you can select and copy the text (which I admit confused me for a short time) but it's still an image. (You can tell even with a PDF reader simply by zooming in.) P.S. Of course if the font wasn't embedded but it was text, we could all be looking at different things, although I think that should have been recognised by now as I believe Adobe Reader's substitution policies are very limited. Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- For those still confused, this is an example of what I'm talking about [5]. A quick check suggests to me the "FISCAL YEAR 2018 – FISCAL YEAR 2017 SUPPLEMENTALS GOVERNOR GARY R. HERBERT" on the first page (I mean of the PDF, not the first number page of the document) is Avenir Medium (size 13 and 16 respectively). "Investing in the Future of Utah" at the bottom of the second page is italic Book Antiqua size 13. That curved "local decisions for:" is Calibri size 10. That "Teacher Shortage A Solvable Challenge" above the 3+1 graphic with a presume intended to be female teacher on page 32 (or 28 of the document) appears to be vector outlines so no idea. However I couldn't find any documents with the same sort of header as the earlier one where it was text. P.S. One mildly interesting thing about the PDF of this question that I noticed is the seal seems to be a different image from the rest of the document. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes precisely. It's an image here but there's no reason it has to be. Plenty of PDFs are not images but instead solely text generally with some images (be they raster or vector), which sometimes includes logos and additional text (like the office of stuff), but not always. You also get weird stuff like PDFs where the text is just vector images etc. It depends on the workflow of whoever produced the PDF and other things. There was no intrinsic reason why this PDF or even the specific part of concern had to be an image, but I checked and it is. If it wasn't an image, we could at least see what the embedded font was called. If that wasn't enough, depending on whether every character was embedded or just the subset used we could also compare every character. You could also compare the actual font details (rather than just how it looks). In this case it is OCRed with hidden text so you can select and copy the text (which I admit confused me for a short time) but it's still an image. (You can tell even with a PDF reader simply by zooming in.) P.S. Of course if the font wasn't embedded but it was text, we could all be looking at different things, although I think that should have been recognised by now as I believe Adobe Reader's substitution policies are very limited. Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think N.E. is alluding to the fact that with most PDFs you can right click to get a list of the fonts used, and saving us the trouble of doing so as that won't work for a scanned image.--Shantavira|feed me 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are saying. The image shows the font -- you can look at it and see the shape of the letters. Of course such an image doesn't contain the font in the same way that a Word document does, but whatever word processor was used to create the document that was later scanned to produce the PDF used some font. We just have to guess what font that is by looking at it and comparing it with various likely font samples. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)