Miscellaneous desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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 16

Anatomy in "In the Realms of the Unreal"

Has anything explained why Henry Darger gave all the girls male genitalia in In the Realms of the Unreal? 68.111.134.253 (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article (Henry Darger), "Darger biographer Jim Elledge speculates that this represents a reflection of Darger's own childhood issues with gender identity and homosexuality." I don't think any answer can be more than speculation, as Darger was, shall we say, eccentric, and didn't give his own reasons for this particular aspect of his art. Tevildo (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chess anecdote

I remember a chess anecdote but am having trouble finding it, mainly because I forgot whom it was about, which is sort of crucial to the punchline. The anecdote is that some great chess player, while traveling by train, is approached by a stranger (who doesn't recognize the master) to play some chess. After getting beaten quickly, the stranger expresses his surprise and points out that he normally wins and is even nicknamed "little X" at home, X being the name of the master to whom he lost. For example: had it been Lasker (which it wasn't according to my googling), the stranger would have been nicknamed "little Lasker". Any clues? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These two sites give it to Max Euwe [1] [2], but I don't know whether that's the original form of the story. --Antiquary (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this form of the story ([3]) it is Lasker. It's just forum chat again, but it does cite "a Norwegian chess book" for whatever that's worth. --Antiquary (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, Antiquary! The one I had heard about was definitely Euwe. I had read it in some chess book for children years ago, in German, and now googling German versions gave me this, where it is also pointed out that the stranger performed an illegal castling the first time he got in trouble, but Euwe said nothing, the game took its course, Euwe won. Later on, the stranger muttered about not only losing several times in a row, but to someone who didn't even know the rules about castling. Apocryphal perhaps, but apparently it even inspired someone to write a fictional game, see A game in the train with Euwe. Thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US $100 bill security

In 2013 the United States one hundred-dollar bill added additional security measures. Are these security measures going to be used on lower denominations? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to maintain the public confidence in paper money, security feature will be added pro re nata as they have been in other parts of the world. Personally, I can't think of anything better than a disc of gold or silver but that type of currency can not be devalued by the government on a whim to balance the the trade deficit by diminishing the purchasing power of Joe and Jane Doe's savings. See [4]--Aspro (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When was the U.S. fiat dollar devalued? Rmhermen (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Historically, coinage has often been devalued by the crown mints by adding more tin etc. so enabling the King to have more bullion. Now, the King has been replaced by the government but they still play the same tricks on their populace. This is an over simplification yet Gold_standard#Gold_bullion_replaces_gold_specie_as_standard may answer your question. If it doesn't, then ask Warren Buffet. As Imelda Marcos pointed out: Only the little people pay taxes. Your savings in the bank is not doing anything for you. Inflation (dollar devaluation) wipes out any compound interest. Move it into non dollar real estate. And if your income is high enough (sorry for those guys that are just flipping buggers – the American Dream is not for them) then you can get a big tax brakes. The physical dollar is now, is a depreciating asset. Get ride of them. --Aspro (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to nitpick but it was Leona Helmsley who said "Only the little people pay taxes". I have this compulsion to set the record straight on quotations. I am to be pitied, not blamed. --Antiquary (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While gold and silver have some intrinsic value, and buying it for that reason may be reasonable. I strongly suspect that struck gold coins are easier to fake (e.g. gold plate over cheaper metals) or alter (e.g. shave off small amounts of gold) than a $100 bill. Hence high value coins are probably a less secure medium of exchange than other forms of currency. Of course, one could have some of both worlds if your fancy paper currency is backed by a gold standard, etc., but most countries don't do that any more. Dragons flight (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My question is: are the security measures in the US $100 bill going to make it into $50 and $20 soon? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search on "$50 bill" doesn't reveal anything about that question. Georgia guy (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's paper money recently transformed into insanely slippery plastic, making a folded wad of bills almost impossible to wield. A subtle way of pressuring us to trade it to the banks for a less slippery plastic card, I think, but tear and water resistance are pretty cool.

Anyway, our $100 changed in November 2011, the $50 in March 2012, $20 in November 2012 and $10 and $5 in November 2013. Might be a rough predictor of the US timetable. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through http://www.newmoney.gov/ (the U.S government's site on U.S. currency), I cannot find anything on that site about future redesigns of the other denominations. Per the FAQ on there:[5] "The United States government primarily redesigns U.S. currency to stay ahead of counterfeiting threats and keep counterfeiting levels low. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, its Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the United States Secret Service continuously monitor the counterfeiting threats for each denomination of U.S. currency and make redesign decisions based on these threats". Thus, I assume that they feel that the current security features on the other denominations are sufficient for now. There is also this PDF file about the $1 bill posted on that site, where it explains that the $1 bill has not been redesigned since 1963 because, among others, "the $1 note is infrequently counterfeited". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the manufacturers of vending machines has more to do with that than anything. Most vending machines don't take bills larger than a $1.00, and frequent redesigns would require them to reprogram their bill changers just as often. Yes, there are SOME bill changers that take larger bills, but they are rare. If they never redesign the $1, they never have to redesign all the vending machines either. --Jayron32 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about dollar bill redesign is that they really want to replace it with a coin. Dollar bills cost 5.4 cents to make and last for 22 months before they wear out and need to be replaced. A dollar coin might cost 10 cents to make - but coins typically last for 30 years...so switching to coins would reduce the cost of dollar currency by a factor of ten...and make most vending machines much simpler because they wouldn't need to read paper money at all. Because there are around 9 billion dollar bills in circulation, at any given time, and they are all replaced every 22 months, we could save around $200 million a year in dollar bill replacement by switching to coins.

According to the Federal Reserve, the extra security on the $5, $10, $20 and $50 just about doubles the cost of making them - and the $100 bills cost 13 cents each to make. However, numerically, there are far fewer bills in those other denominations in circulation - so the cost of using paper isn't so bad. People also tend to look after the higher denominations a lot better, so they last quite a bit longer than the $1. A $100 bill tends to get folded rather carefully and tucked into a wallet or purse - where a $1 might just get stuffed into a pocket any-old-how. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lowercase ea in price displays

I have just arrived in the US and I see this in price displays: "$4.99/ea", what do these 2 letters ea mean? --208.54.45.188 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

each --Viennese Waltz 21:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "each", often to distinguish items that are sometimes sold by weight or volume (e.g. $4.99/lb). For examples, a fruit like apples might be priced per unit weight or per individual apple, depending on the preference of the seller. Dragons flight (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that the price displayed in the USA is not the price you will be charged - taxes are added at the checkout. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They often use both methods at the same time, to prevent the consumer from figuring out which is the better deal. They might also throw in a bushel bag full of apples, to confuse things even further. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence seems somewhat nonsequiturish to me, Stu. Why would they exchange a system where a customer's only question is whether they're prepared to pay the sole price on offer, for a system where a customer is so confused that they don't make the purchase they would otherwise have made, and maybe go to a competitor? That would be classic lose-lose. It would work beautifully in a scenario where the shop is interested in actively discouraging people from buying their apples, or whatever. Is that what you had in mind? Or has your (perhaps justified) cynicism caused you to temporarily abandon logic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about "so confused that they don't make the purchase". Stu is just saying that customers may not be readily able to figure out whether these apples at 88 cents each or those apples at $1.79 per pound are cheaper (substitute metric equivalent if you prefer), and may unintentionally buy the more expensive ones. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Very few customers seem willing to switch stores to make comparison shopping easier, or to do what it takes to do the comparison at such a store (I have, though, by weighing each item on a scale). Far more just guess at which is cheaper, and often end up paying more. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to see some data on that. Got a citation? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took it too far. But I'm still struggling with the concept that the only reason they would introduce a parallel pricing system for the same goods is to deliberately confuse customers. What on earth would be gained by intentionally confusing customers? By definition, a per item cost is going to be different from a per weight cost, even if only slightly. People understand that, and they have a choice. If a particular customer can't work out whether these apples are better value than those apples, are you saying the store is hoping they'll choose the more expensive ones, rather than maybe ask an assistant to help them? Also, some customers may only want/need a small number of apples and are prepared to pay a slightly higher price for them, than to have to buy a whole 5 kg (or whatever) at a lower cost per apple but risk some of them spoiling before they have a chance to be used, and thus negating the value of the bulk purchase. People's needs are different, and I think it's a good thing that people are given choices in matters like this. Can you provide a source that supports your Theory of Intentional but Pointless Confusion? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think people here are over-thinking it. If I'm buying apples (eg, so my kid can take them in his lunch bag) - then when I do my shopping, I need 5 apples for the week. I have no clue how much apples weigh - so if they are offered in price per pound, I'm kinda at a loss to know how much they'll cost me until I get to the store checkout. That sucks - so a fixed price per apple makes a hell of a lot of sense. On the other hand, things like potatoes are more often chopped up (but not always) so you may not care how many actual potatoes you get - so long as there is sufficient weight to make a decent portion size. In my local 'big box' store, they sell large potatoes for baking (where the number of potatoes DOES matter because each person at the table needs one potato of whatever size) in packs of three - so the price is per-pack, not per-pound...but what appears to be the exact same potatoes are sold by the pound in the adjacent section of the display. It's just a matter of convenience. Since (at least in the USA) there appear to be no laws about whether fruit and veg are priced "each" or "per pound" or "per pack" - each store can choose which items are sold which way. In the meat aisle, steaks are sold in packs - with the price, price per lb and actual weight - all marked on the label...it would be tough to do that with apples...but that's exactly what they do with packs of three potatoes...and you can see (in that case) that the price per pound is higher than for the loose potatoes, so you have a free choice. I don't see where there is deception or anything of that sort. The terms of the purchase are made perfectly clear.

It's really no different from buying a "3 liter bottle of soda" versus buying a six pack of soda. In the first case, it's pretty clear that the price is by volume - in the second case, you may have to look in the small print to see the volume of each smaller container and do the math. It's convenience, not deception. SteveBaker (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption here is that one entres a grocery store once in his life, gets confused by the per item or per unit pricing, and walks out bereft of his life savings. Most humans eat daily and shop for groceries at least once a week. They usually frequent the same few stores. They come to learn the prices.

I know that the heads of lettuce are cheapre per head but smallre at the fancy store than the ones at the discount store. I am smart enough to chose the largest head of lettuce, since they are sold by item, not weight. I know what it means when the same size and brand heads that cost 75c in the summre of 2013 now cost $1.38. And I still know that's cheapre than the smallre $1.19 heads at the fancy store. Fresh Philly Rye is sold by weight. So I don't worry about weight but pay attention to shape, since I dislike the smallre slices of the longre loaves. I buy the shortre, widre loaves. But the factory made white bread comes at a set price per loaf--even if the loaves all have the same labelled weight. So I pay attention to the date in that case.

Aftre having lived in an area for a few months, unless you have servants, you should know what's a bettre deal and what's not. The only thing at issue here really seems to have been the OP's unfamiliarity with the abbreviation ea for each, not any massive conspiracy to defraud American shoppres. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that, in the United States, most supermarkets have scales in the produce area. If I can't see which of two comparable items is a better value because they are priced differently, I take the item priced by the piece to a scale and calculate its price per pound. It is not so difficult and not a mystery. Also, as Medeis says, these pricing patterns tend to be consistent over time, and once you find the best value, you can generally stick to it as long as the price doesn't jump. My guess is that items tend to be priced by the piece where the merchant has paid by the piece and priced by the pound when the merchant has paid by the pound. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and not only scales, but uniform sized unit prices displayed for items of the same product in different brands and sizes. (Apparenty this varies by state law, and some national chains do it voluntarily, see blog below.) For example, not only will the tag on the shelf say Heinz Ketchup, 1 Liter, $3.99; Store Brand Ketchup, 1/2 Gallon, $5.99; it will also say the unit price of each, say, $3.50 and $3.00 per quart. You have to decide if you want to pay for the 50c extra for the Heinz. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an otherwise quite interesting blog entry at lifehacker on unit pricing. Apparently only 19 states have unit pricing laws. The criticism of target for the "misleading" unit pricing of eggs is unfair. It's obvious a clerk got confused and gave the price of a dozen cases of a dozen eggs, rather than the usual per dozen eggs; it's a poor example. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I gave the correct, one-word answer, two minutes after the OP posted his question. Nothing more needed to be said - not one word - and yet here we are, 1,500 words of completely pointless and unnecessary verbiage later. I'm beginning to understand why The Rambling Man gets so worked up. --Viennese Waltz 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just want to land on my shoulders VW, or do you have a source to contribute? I have started a thread on the talk page to discuss this dire matter, please comment there. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is when the unnecessary verbiage comes two minutes after the OP, then we get a correct answer. This way's good. Someone clicking the header for a quick answer gets it, and they can choose to read further or not (I learned something new today). No sifting needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What % of students are selectively chosen for British secondary schools?

In the UK, about 7-8% of students go to private schools. Some go to grammar schools. Most go to comprehensive schools, some of which select up to 10% of students for one subject. Added all together, what % are selected in some way or another? Or put the other way, what % of students just go to a school with no academic, or sporting, or musical criteria applied to them. 109.147.76.8 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look didn't find an answer to your exact question, but a thorough reading of the UK Parliament's Grammar school statistics might help. Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From those figures, about 5% of children of secondary school age go to grammar schools. (Your question only makes sense if restricted to that age group.) The selection of up to 10% in some comprehensives isn't enough to have a major impact on the percentage. Not all private schools are selective but most are, especially the largest ones, so go for about 13% in selective schools and about 87% in non-selective ones. Of those 87% by no means all are in their first-choice school, and various admission criteria have an effect in practice of selecting certain groups. The existence of single-sex schools, for example, with girls' schools being popular and boys' schools much less so; the presence of faith schools. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Judith's analysis sounds about right for the percentage of students admitted on the basis of academic or skill selection. Not all schools that are permitted to select actually do so.

Not many schools admit every student who applies, so if you were asking what percentage of students attend a school where there has been selection on any grounds (even proximity to the school), then the answer will be a much larger percentage because those who apply to under-subscribed schools are in the minority). Dbfirs 00:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]