Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 November 27

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.

November 27

confederate $50 printing block

how do i find the value of a confederate $50 printing block — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.109.145.121 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's likely for something that specific, and presumably that rare, that you're going to want to talk to a professional assayer — someone who specializes in Civil War stuff. (Is it similar to this?) If it were me I'd probably take it to a few Civil War memorabilia shows and see what a variety of people there said, or who they recommended in terms of getting its value assessed by a professional. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Financial investment/risk

Hello. I am just wondering what is the difference between a financial investment product and a financial risk product? Also, what are the different taxation implications for each product?114.77.39.141 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Part 1: pretty much different phrases for the same thing; Part 2: depends on where you live and how much you earn. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Crustless pie ?

It seems to me that pumpkin pie, sweet potato pie, and cheesecake are stiff enough to hold their shape without a crust. And, since the crust is often the most unhealthy part, does anyone make them without the crust ? StuRat (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That would make them a pudding, then. (That's "pudding" in the North American sense.) Bielle (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We just had crustless pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving so that would be a yes. And no, that is not the normal sense of a pudding here (Jello does offer a instant pumpkin pudding). Now calling it a pumpkin custard would not seem strange. Rmhermen (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the US definition of pudding. It's meant to be runny, unlike the pies I mentioned. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of cheesecake? If we're thinking of the same thing, then lots of cheesecakes have only a base and no outside wall; I don't think you could get away without a base. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not ? StuRat (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, the "filling" would stick to the baking dish and be a nightmare to clean! However, I think that the crust really adds to the pleasure of the dessert, largely due to the contrast in texture. Also, I myself made a pumpkin pie just a few days ago, and I'm not so sure the crust is a lot less healthy than the filling, which contains several eggs, tons of sugar, and rich cream. Marco polo (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't cooking spray and/or parchment paper be used in place of the crust, to prevent sticking ? StuRat (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides which, it would then just be a block of cheese on the plate, rather than a cheesecake. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note really. Cheese cake has about as much in common with cheese as a starfish has with a fish. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say the same thing for the cheesecake too. In the NZ/Australia/UK style the base is often some sort of buttered biscuit (and not that much butter). Not the healthies of things but compared to the actual cheese cake part which may sometimes have some fruit but also a lot of cream cheese and cream and possibly sugar. The idea the base is the unhealthy part seems odd. However you can make a cheesecake without the base, and there are some cheese cakes without bases. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because there's crust on a person's plate doesn't mean they have to eat it: just think of it as another cooking/serving accessory, like the dish the pie was cooked in or the plate it's on. Traditional Cornish pasties were made with a thick 'seam' of crust to one side, by which the miners who ate them held them in their (coal dust-covered) fingers - they didn't necessarily eat that dirtied crust. ({The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.15 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

?"coal dust-covered", tin-mine dust surely? I've always had a problem with poor tin miners throwing away eatable food, whether covered in a bit of dust or not. Richard Avery (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Doh! Tin, of course. I was thinking 'coal' because my ancestry on one side comes (from Scotland) via (coal-mining) Durham where a Cornish line (having emigrated when the tin industry diminished) married in to it. I forget of what Geordie coal-miners' snap comprised, but it was doubtless something comparable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.72 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion - though I don't think anyone knows if it's true or not - is that they discarded the pastry because the tin ore dust on their fingers contained traces of poisonous arsenic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the tin ore. Apparently the ore is Cassiterite, or SnO₂, and this MSDS says that SnO₂ is harmful if swallowed. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that blows away my 'theory'. Thanks for that guys or gals. Richard Avery (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW the linked article suggests photos show the pasties were held in paper bags or muslin cloths and generally eaten end to end, which according to 1929 recipe books with the pasties was the proper Cornish way to eat them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this article, arsenic was a "by-product of tin smelting". But I've always thought that throwing the crust away was a bit unlikely. My Cornish grandmother used to cook one very large one which was carved into slices at the dinner table. Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah our article on the pasties does say arsenic was one of the things that may have been on fingers although I'm not sure if the source it uses actually mentions that. Nil Einne (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

signal cannons sirs;

my)*3;/-questions are as said;stated sirs;/signal cannons must show a/coat of arms;.question)*signal cannons open from back too load;powder for)*friing ;too signal;not;projectile harm;//question#3)most earlyer signal cannons;weight;are heavy;. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoutbyron (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Cannon that may interest. Cannon's are indeed used for signalling without projectiles e.g. to give the "21-gun salute" and even in some music pieces such as Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Medieval cannons often had coats of arms cast into the metal. It is not clear what other question you may have. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

British military and naval cannons carried the Royal cypher well into Queen Victoria's reign - about 1860 or thereabouts. When cannons stopped being cast in iron or bronze, this sort of decoration was no longer possible. Breech loading (that is, loaded from the back end) cannons weren't much used after the end of the 16th century, as it was difficult to make an effective seal, so they lost a lot of power. A clever chap called William Whitworth found a way of doing this in the 1850s and breach loading gradually replaced muzzle loading thereafter. Muzzle loading cannons were cast in one piece from bronze (smaller ones) or iron (larger ones) and this indeed made them very heavy for their size. Very small bronze cannons are sometimes still used by yacht clubs to singal the start of sailing races; you can buy one here for USD3,000.Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually two clever chaps, William Armstrong and Joseph Whitworth, rival arms manufacturers, who both produced breech-loading cannon at about the same time. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right - actually I was thinking of Joseph Whitworth but picked the wrong one! The two rival's companies eventually merged to form Armstrong Whitworth hence my confusion. Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The question reads like a Google Translation, but it seemed to inquire in part about whether signal cannons were all breach loaders. Clearly this is not so, since some large ones were muzzle loaders. But in addition, many signal canons were not at all like weapons and were but "thunder mugs," i.e. squat metal cylinders less than a foot tall which sat upright on their breech. These were adequate for signalling when it was noon, or for saluting, or for starting a race. Edison (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In contrast (and purely for interest) there's also this one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.159 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Euro collapse

What would be the outcome of a collapse of the Euro, the British are expecting riots. I'm sure that's probably and understatement, would it mean that the average person would loose their savings? Mo ainm~Talk 09:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where your average person lives. Stock market crash would be very likely. A global recession is possible. U.S. dollar would probably go up. People in Eurozone countries outside Germany will probably see their savings "renominated" in new currencies, which will be worth less than today; so, for example, if you have 10,000 euros in a Greek bank now, you'll have 10,000 drachmas, with each drachma worth €0.30 or so. (Therefore, if you have any money in a Greek bank, you're stupid not to withdraw it as soon as possible.) The same applies to Italy and Spain. It's a bit harder to predict what happens in France and Germany. Savings in U.S. banks should be fine. A few banks will go bankrupt but hey, that's what FDIC is for. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Personally, I don't expect to see a full-blown collapse. Greece is toast, I'm 50/50 on Italy, but, at some point, the ECB will wake up and do the right thing. Namely, issue a proclamation that it will do all that necessary to prevent a collapse of the Euro. And that will be enough to prevent the collapse from happening.--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. If you want to know what will happen to Greece, start here.--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question is over simple because the Euro will not simply collapse. The likely negative scenario is that successive countries fail completely to meet the ECB's conditions for bail out loan and relapse to their original currencies e.g. drachma, lire, etc. That will be accompanied by civil unrest and may lead to the rise of nationalist movements and new alliances. There would be a much more serious impact on the Euro if a major partner (Germany?) withdrew its support but rather than "collapse" the Euro would just devalue with relative benefit to other currencies. The fate of US dollar is closely linked to that of the Euro. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot predict the future, but I agree that Itinerant1 has stated the most likely scenario. Probably when German banks begin to fail and investors begin to flee German bonds (causing interest rates to rise even in Germany against a backdrop of deepening recession), German moneyed interests will prevail on the German government to drop its opposition to unlimited ECB backing for euro-zone debts and on the ECB itself to provide such backing. That will allow the ECB to set a ceiling on interest rates and, if necessary, to monetize the unsustainable sovereign debt. Marco polo (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My savings should be relatively safe, as I live in Finland, which is part of the "good" Eurozone together with Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium, as opposed to the "bad" Eurozone consisting of Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland? Is this right? JIP | Talk 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your bank might go bankrupt. You should do some research to see what happens to that money in that situation. In the United States, when the bank goes bust, government guarantees all deposits up to $100,000. Check if you have a similar system.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar system in the eurozone, yes. I think the limit is €100,000. Of course, that depends on the state being able to afford to make good those deposits - if no-one is willing to lend to the relevant state, then there could be a problem. I would be very surprised if the ECB didn't step in in that situation, though. --Tango (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any safe currencies? The USD is likely to be inflated by quantitative easing, and Euro is looking shaky. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll be looking for the table at deposit insurance. As far as I can tell, all of the eurozone countries now insure the full value of bank deposits up to €100.000, though that ceiling came into effect as late as this year for some member countries. (In the United States, the cap was $100,000 until 2008, when the coverage ceiling was bumped to $250,000.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer Graeme's question, no, there are really no completely safe currencies. Virtually all modern currencies are forms of fiat money without any intrinsic value. In a debt crisis, the central bank issuing the currency may decide for political reasons or the sake of a languishing economy to monetize unsustainable debt, in effect inflating it away, along with the value of savings in that currency. Alternatively, if the central bank does not take this step in a debt crisis, widespread bank failures may occur and governments made insolvent by high debt loads and economic contraction may be unable to raise the funds needed to cover deposits in bankrupt banks, again at some cost to savers. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand about the Euro is why the individual countries don't launch their own currencies to prop up local interests. I mean, I'm thinking that if I were the Queen of Holland, I'd mint up some coin-shaped mutual fund share certificates which entitled the holder to a small portion of a mutual fund consisting entirely of selected businesses located in Holland, employing Dutch workers. And if people decided to do some commerce with these coins, so that they started keeping around extra shares just to use as "change", thus enabling the fund to lend out some more capital to the local businesses, well, great. By comparison, because Euros can flow more or less interchangeably over borders, I don't see how reducing the number of Euros kept as change in Holland would hurt one country rather than European central banks as a whole. So why didn't it happen? Wnt (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think the Queen of Holland has any power to mint a currency? Or that there are any companies of significant size in the Netherlands employing only, or mostly, Dutch workers? OR, but from an economical point of view, Holland has been a German state for years. There's little advantage in having our own currency, and we'll follow whatever Germany does, like we did before the Euro. Export, especially to Germany, is too important for a lot of Northern/Western Europe countries to be able to ignore whatever currency Germany has. Unilynx (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Queen of Holland does have the power to mint a currency, and so has Dutch Parliament. That's part of being a sovereign country. The fact that the Guilder was pegged to the German Mark was a political decision, similar to the political disastrous decision to adopt the Euro. Treaties wouldn't permit a quick (or any) exit from the euro, but The Netherlands is allowed (and should) withdraw from them. Any company can make contracts in Swiss francs, and I'm sure they will do so soon. Joepnl (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no law against her pouring metal into a mold and using it as a certificate of who owns part of a mutual fund she runs, is there? (I don't know if there's some special certification she'd need to start a mutual fund but it seems hard to picture she wouldn't get it if she wanted it). Wnt (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Prediction is hard, especially about the future. The riots predicted in that article concern the continent, and UK citizens there. There is no reason for fear about limited (under the insurance scheme, denominated in pounds) savings in a UK bank. Somewhat parallel is the Icesave dispute. The point is that British depositors were protected by the UK government, although it took time to get their money back. As it has the enormous advantage of its own currency, the UK's debt is quite safe & the UK's economic problems are entirely its own creation, entirely caused by its austerity program, a poison sold as a cure. . But since the unsuccessful German bond auction a week or so ago, gilts have been in higher demand than bunds.

US dollars are also quite safe, and equally unlikely to have serious inflation, and also has zero probability of a debt crisis. In a fiat currency system, because government debt is practically speaking money already, debt monetization or quantitative easing are never seriously inflationary and are very probably deflationary in current conditions. Japan has seen a great deal of QE, and is still mired in deflation.

But the Euro and Euro banks are not safe, nor are any of the Eurozone states. The essential problem is the design of the Euro, a monetary union without fiscal union. For the UK & US it is clear who stands behind the pound & the dollar. John Bull (or the Queen) & Uncle Sam. For the Euro - who? - the various governments, all begging for ready money Euros, including Germany? - the ECB, which refuses to & forces haircuts on banks who are to some degree victims here, and whose victimization translates to victimization of their depositors & country and financial instability for the Eurozone? With the current design of the Euro, and the current approach, the ECB refusal to sufficiently backstop sovereign debt, and when it does, imposing destructive austerity that only makes the problems worse - crises, collapse, misery is absolutely 100% inevitable. The question is - when will the Eurocaptains, latter-day Heinrich Brunings, stop going full steam ahead to the iceberg? Nobody knows what will happen. Even Euros in German banks are backed by German Bunds, German sovereign debt, which is nowhere near as safe as keeping money in UK or US & their institutions. If the ECB goes full steam ahead, partly at the behest of Germany - Germany itself will have a sovereign debt crisis, though maybe they can pride themselves on being the last ones.John Z (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

swimming pool quote

Suppose I wanted a swimming pool in my back garden, just a little one, maybe 5*5m or thereabouts, how much might that cost, roughly? Would it be like £500? £5000? £20000?

148.197.80.214 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A contractor can give you a quote based on volume of earth removed, taking into accounts the surfaces area to be constructed to contain the water and the pump/filtration/heating system required. Ask for quotes and recommendations from happy customers. If you know someone with a small digger, dig it out yourself. Let the experts construct the pool and give you a guarantee. If the pool is surrounded by a high wall or is not over looked by other properties, let me know and I'll bring the girls around.--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What your describing is a Dip Pool or Plunge Pool. Please don't call it a swimming pool, as when you have your opening gala, your jealous neighbours will laugh at you. --Aspro (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the price of some work done recently near me where a similar amount of earth was removed and the resulting hole tidied up for a car park you are looking at £20,000 rather than £5000. Richard Avery (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Less money will buy you a nice hot tub.--85.211.153.242 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Above-ground pools are considerably cheaper, can be moved to a new house when you move, accumulate fewer leaves, and present less of a danger to toddlers, as you need to climb a ladder to fall into one. They also can provide more privacy, since the walls are opaque, as long as you don't have neighbors with a second story window looking down on your yard. (Just remember to keep your swimsuit on when climbing in and out of the pool. :-) )

You generally get a circular or rounded shape, with this type of pool. The inflatable ones are the cheapest of the lot. Here's one with a 16 foot diameter (4.9 m) and 42 inch depth (1 m) for $250 (£160): [1]. Or you can go with 18 foot diameter (5.5 m) and 42 inch depth (1 m) for $350 (£225): [2]. You won't find inflatables much larger than that. So, you could go with a rigid 24 foot diameter pool (7.3 m) with a depth of 52 inches (1.3 m) for $1800 (£1157): [3]. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that if these kinds of pools are available in the UK, they will probably be more expensive than in the US, since prices tend to be higher there, if only because of the VAT. Also beware that you may need permits from your local council. Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Permit requirements might well be lessened with above-ground pools, since they are temporary, while an in-ground pool is a permanent alteration to the property. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)