Ricardo Villalobos was born in the Philippines in 1881 & died in Seattle in 1970. Anyone know more about him?
Q. I'm researching his genealogy for a friend of mine. I have had trouble finding his obituary in newspaper microfilm because I don't know the exact date that he died. Does anyone know this or where I can go to find it out. He does not show up in the Social Security Death Index, or rootsweb, or ancestry.com. Google searches typically bring up stuff about an unrelated Mexican singer of the same name. Is there a (preferably free) place where I can access records from the censuses that the United States took in the Philippines while they were still an American colony? I've tried the National Archives in Washington State. They have everything else including the Panama Canal Zone, but for some reason they don't have the Philippines even… [cont.]
Asked by ARKdeEREH - Thu Mar 13 02:06:31 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Maybe yes or maybe no...You really don't have much for sure to go on! I found this in the S.S.D.I. Born 15 May 1882 Died Washington St Feb 1969 Name : Mike Lobos Unless you have something closer! I can"t believe that this guy worked in this country for many years without a S.S. Card
Answered by Eleph - Sun Mar 16 21:25:03 2008
Q. I'm researching his genealogy for a friend of mine. I have had trouble finding his obituary in newspaper microfilm because I don't know the exact date that he died. Does anyone know this or where I can go to find it out. He does not show up in the Social Security Death Index, or rootsweb, or ancestry.com. Google searches typically bring up stuff about an unrelated Mexican singer of the same name. Is there a (preferably free) place where I can access records from the censuses that the United States took in the Philippines while they were still an American colony? I've tried the National Archives in Washington State. They have everything else including the Panama Canal Zone, but for some reason they don't have the Philippines even… [cont.]
Asked by ARKdeEREH - Thu Mar 13 02:06:31 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Maybe yes or maybe no...You really don't have much for sure to go on! I found this in the S.S.D.I. Born 15 May 1882 Died Washington St Feb 1969 Name : Mike Lobos Unless you have something closer! I can"t believe that this guy worked in this country for many years without a S.S. Card
Answered by Eleph - Sun Mar 16 21:25:03 2008
statistics homework help?
Q. U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the average number of persons per household in the United States for census years between 1850 and 2000 are shown in the following table. Year Per House 1850 5.55 1860 5.28 1870 5.09 1880 5.04 1890 4.93 1900 4.76 1910 4.54 1920 4.34 1930 4.11 1940 3.67 1950 3.37 1960 3.35 1970 3.14 1980 2.76 1990 2.63 2000 2.59 (a) Determine the least squares line for these data. Use the equation of this line to estimate the number of persons per household in the year 2011. (b) What is the slope of the line? (c) Based on the regression line, what would be the predicted persons per household in the year 2300? (d) What is the lowest possible value of… [cont.]
Asked by Erin - Wed Feb 18 12:23:26 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. (a) The least squares regression line is y = 44.392 - 0.0209x where x is the year and the estimate for 2011 would be 2.36 persons. (b) The slope is therefore -0.0209 persons per year. That means the average occupancy is falling by about one person every 50 years. (c) For x = 2300, y = -3.7, which is clearly nonsense. (d) The minimum occupancy could be zero, if everyone was a vagrant and no one ever lived at an address; or 1.0 if everyone has to be listed as living somewhere ! The problem with this analysis arises from the assumption that the relationship is a straight line. Obviously it's not.
Answered by Victor - Wed Feb 18 12:41:44 2009
Q. U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the average number of persons per household in the United States for census years between 1850 and 2000 are shown in the following table. Year Per House 1850 5.55 1860 5.28 1870 5.09 1880 5.04 1890 4.93 1900 4.76 1910 4.54 1920 4.34 1930 4.11 1940 3.67 1950 3.37 1960 3.35 1970 3.14 1980 2.76 1990 2.63 2000 2.59 (a) Determine the least squares line for these data. Use the equation of this line to estimate the number of persons per household in the year 2011. (b) What is the slope of the line? (c) Based on the regression line, what would be the predicted persons per household in the year 2300? (d) What is the lowest possible value of… [cont.]
Asked by Erin - Wed Feb 18 12:23:26 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. (a) The least squares regression line is y = 44.392 - 0.0209x where x is the year and the estimate for 2011 would be 2.36 persons. (b) The slope is therefore -0.0209 persons per year. That means the average occupancy is falling by about one person every 50 years. (c) For x = 2300, y = -3.7, which is clearly nonsense. (d) The minimum occupancy could be zero, if everyone was a vagrant and no one ever lived at an address; or 1.0 if everyone has to be listed as living somewhere ! The problem with this analysis arises from the assumption that the relationship is a straight line. Obviously it's not.
Answered by Victor - Wed Feb 18 12:41:44 2009
When you hear somebody lives in poverty, is this what you picture?
Q. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, Current Population Report, P60-231, August 2006, p. 13. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov ernment reports: Forty-three percent of all poor households actu ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded. More than two-thirds… [cont.]
Asked by gosam777 - Sat Aug 9 13:46:49 2008 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I live in England. I am concidered by the state to be living in poverty. Compare to many in Britain I have very little. Yet I consider myself to be very lucky. I am a single parent of one child and rent a 2 bed flat from the government. I do not have a car, we cycle. I do not smoke or drink. We only have meat once or twice a week and buy it in very small proportions. We do not have sky/cable/landline phone. I struggle to buy clothes for us, most of which is second hand. Our holidays are weekends camping at the local coastal towns. I am so lucky though to feel safe were I live and I have everything I need even though it doesn't all match and is all worn. I have a nice job. I can get everywhere I need to without a car. what I… [cont.]
Answered by Hugs - Sat Aug 9 16:24:57 2008
Q. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, Current Population Report, P60-231, August 2006, p. 13. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov ernment reports: Forty-three percent of all poor households actu ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded. More than two-thirds… [cont.]
Asked by gosam777 - Sat Aug 9 13:46:49 2008 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I live in England. I am concidered by the state to be living in poverty. Compare to many in Britain I have very little. Yet I consider myself to be very lucky. I am a single parent of one child and rent a 2 bed flat from the government. I do not have a car, we cycle. I do not smoke or drink. We only have meat once or twice a week and buy it in very small proportions. We do not have sky/cable/landline phone. I struggle to buy clothes for us, most of which is second hand. Our holidays are weekends camping at the local coastal towns. I am so lucky though to feel safe were I live and I have everything I need even though it doesn't all match and is all worn. I have a nice job. I can get everywhere I need to without a car. what I… [cont.]
Answered by Hugs - Sat Aug 9 16:24:57 2008
Math question (linear equations):?
Q. According to the census, the population of the United States was about 151 million in 1950 and 249 million in 1990. 1. Write a linear equation to model the population (in millions) of the United States t years after 1950. 2.Use the equation from #1 to find the population of the US in 1970. 3. Use the same equation to predict the population of the US in 2010. Thanks so much Thanks Ron, but I have a question. I got 20/49 for the slope because I did (1990-1950) / (249-151). Does it make a difference which values I set as x and which ones I use for y?
Asked by C T - Wed Mar 4 09:49:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. You are asked to find an equation of the form y = at + b given the two points (0, 151) and (40, 249) (since 1990 is 40 years after 1950) The slope is (249 - 151) / (40 - 0) = 98/40 = 49/20 The y-intercept is the y-value when t = 0; we have this as 151. Therefore, the equation of the line is y = (49/20)t + 151 I leave #2 and 3 to you (they require only evaulation of the linear equation obtained in #1).
Answered by Ron W - Wed Mar 4 12:15:15 2009
Q. According to the census, the population of the United States was about 151 million in 1950 and 249 million in 1990. 1. Write a linear equation to model the population (in millions) of the United States t years after 1950. 2.Use the equation from #1 to find the population of the US in 1970. 3. Use the same equation to predict the population of the US in 2010. Thanks so much Thanks Ron, but I have a question. I got 20/49 for the slope because I did (1990-1950) / (249-151). Does it make a difference which values I set as x and which ones I use for y?
Asked by C T - Wed Mar 4 09:49:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. You are asked to find an equation of the form y = at + b given the two points (0, 151) and (40, 249) (since 1990 is 40 years after 1950) The slope is (249 - 151) / (40 - 0) = 98/40 = 49/20 The y-intercept is the y-value when t = 0; we have this as 151. Therefore, the equation of the line is y = (49/20)t + 151 I leave #2 and 3 to you (they require only evaulation of the linear equation obtained in #1).
Answered by Ron W - Wed Mar 4 12:15:15 2009
exponential models...help please 10 points?
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. Year Population 1900 76 1910 92 1920 106 1930 123 1940 131 1950 150 1960 179 1970 203 1980 227 1990 250 2000 275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1960 and 1970 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million i have no idea how to do this please help
Asked by Ashleigh G - Fri Apr 24 16:00:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. Year Population 1900 76 1910 92 1920 106 1930 123 1940 131 1950 150 1960 179 1970 203 1980 227 1990 250 2000 275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1960 and 1970 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million i have no idea how to do this please help
Asked by Ashleigh G - Fri Apr 24 16:00:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
Are interracial marriages on the rise?
Q. The number of interracial marriages in the United States, although varying by region, has been on the rise: In 1970, there were 310,000 documented cases, representing 0.7% of all marriages In 1980, there were 651,000, representing 1.3% of all marriages In 1992, there were 1,161,000, representing 2.2% of all marriages *Source U.S. Census Bureau. at In my opinion the figures are quite small. When one sees the attention that is given interracial celebrity couples one would be led to believe that the general figures are higher than those above. So are the individuals interested in interracial dating going to continue rising or will the numbers reach a certain point and stop because of the fact that individuals have different… [cont.]
Asked by Princess of the Sun. - Sat Aug 18 07:22:02 2007 - - 18 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Well first of all your stats show you've done the research and speak for themselves! But, I live in the UK and I think they are. the reason may be because of all the immigration of people from one country to another and the growing acceptance of other cultures it is inevitable thatthere will be a rise in inter-racial mariage, but to get a true picture we would also have to see the population rises for the individual country and relate it in proportion to that to get a true and fuller picture of the situation.
Answered by footyfan_stoke - Sat Aug 18 07:31:45 2007
Q. The number of interracial marriages in the United States, although varying by region, has been on the rise: In 1970, there were 310,000 documented cases, representing 0.7% of all marriages In 1980, there were 651,000, representing 1.3% of all marriages In 1992, there were 1,161,000, representing 2.2% of all marriages *Source U.S. Census Bureau. at In my opinion the figures are quite small. When one sees the attention that is given interracial celebrity couples one would be led to believe that the general figures are higher than those above. So are the individuals interested in interracial dating going to continue rising or will the numbers reach a certain point and stop because of the fact that individuals have different… [cont.]
Asked by Princess of the Sun. - Sat Aug 18 07:22:02 2007 - - 18 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Well first of all your stats show you've done the research and speak for themselves! But, I live in the UK and I think they are. the reason may be because of all the immigration of people from one country to another and the growing acceptance of other cultures it is inevitable thatthere will be a rise in inter-racial mariage, but to get a true picture we would also have to see the population rises for the individual country and relate it in proportion to that to get a true and fuller picture of the situation.
Answered by footyfan_stoke - Sat Aug 18 07:31:45 2007
another Exponential growth and decay question. Please help me!!?
Q. I don't really know what to do with this. I tried doing the slope of the 2 years given but I don't think that's right. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million
Asked by d_kuon - Thu Nov 6 22:30:37 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a) P(1910) = 76 e^10k = 92 k = ln (92/76)/10 So P(2000) = 76 e^100 ln (92/76)/10 = 513.5 b) P(1990) = 227 e^10k = 250 k = ln (250/227)/10 So P(2000) = 227 e^20 ln (250/227)/10 = 275.3
Answered by DANIEL G - Thu Nov 6 23:09:53 2008
Q. I don't really know what to do with this. I tried doing the slope of the 2 years given but I don't think that's right. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million
Asked by d_kuon - Thu Nov 6 22:30:37 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a) P(1910) = 76 e^10k = 92 k = ln (92/76)/10 So P(2000) = 76 e^100 ln (92/76)/10 = 513.5 b) P(1990) = 227 e^10k = 250 k = ln (250/227)/10 So P(2000) = 227 e^20 ln (250/227)/10 = 275.3
Answered by DANIEL G - Thu Nov 6 23:09:53 2008
From Yahoo Answer Search: '1970 United States Census'
Sun Aug 30 05:23:44 2009 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
news.google.com
USC News
"The implications of this research are particularly salient as we are facing an unprecedented economic crisis in the United States ," Baker said. ...
eh.net
423px x 584px | 22.10kB
[source page]
to the value of dutiable imports The increase shown for the early 1930s was partly due to declining prices and therefore exaggerates the effects of the Smoot Hawley rate increases Source U S Bureau of the Census Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 Washington d c usgpo 1975 Series 212 A more accurate measure of the
[Hide]▲
