Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 November 2

= November 2 =

Equity risk premium vs Country risk premium
What is the difference between Equity risk premium and Country risk premium (in the context of this page: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html ) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.254.28.24 (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Equity risk premium is the potential gain you give up by investing money in government debt instead of the stock market. Stocks tend to give higher returns, but also have more risk of loss. The country risk premium is a measure of how risky different countries' debt is. You will notice in that table that highly-developed countries, like Australia and the U.S., have a country risk premium of 0, indicating they are considered the safest governments to lend to. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

UK 2015 General election.
The humanities ref desk is protected for some strange unexplained reason, so I am posting here.

Could I have some concise reasons to why the the Conservative Party won a majority in the 2015 election? Why did the electorate not vote for Labour confidently? --Joskinfieds (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You would need to ask each of the electorate individually for a definitive answer but remember that in the UK there is no proportional representation and the majority party is decided by the number of seats won. This system can result in tactical voting. Socialists living in a tory stronghold are likely to vote for the second most likely winner (usually the lib-dems) to try and stop the tories winning the seat. In the 2015 election, UKIP had a large presence in many constituencies and perhaps some voters voted Conservative to prevent UKIP winning. Just a guess from a socialist, if a tory answers your query they will probably tell you that the majority of voters thought the Conservatists were the best party to run the country. Can you have a concise answer? No.--Ykraps (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone claimed that the majority of voters preferred the Tories, they'd be lying (or at least, factually wrong). No party won a majority of votes.  To answer the first part of the OP's question: a First-past-the-post voting system means that a party can win a greater proportion of seats than they have of votes (hypothetical example: if every constituency voted 51% Tory and 49% Labour, the Tories would get 100% of seats).  When you consider multiple parties and different levels of support in different constituencies, its possible for a party to get a majority of seats with just plurality of votes.  It's even possible to win a majority of seats while getting fewer votes than a rival party.  To answer the second part: well, I don't think that is something that can be answered absolutely, but other people have mentioned or linked to various published opinions about why people lacked confidence in Labour. Iapetus (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen (but unfortunately have been unable to find again) an article which argues this: The Tories and the Labour party both won the seats they have always won, with the votes they have always had. The SNP, which gained every seat in Scotland except 1, and now has over 50 seats in the Parliament, are now the third party. The Lib Dems were decimated. The problem was the first past the post system: the Tories get more seats from fewer votes (it equates to less than 25% of the total electorate), while Labour has to win more votes proportionately to get a seat. UKIP and the Greens both only got 1 MP with millions of votes cast for them, and so they are the real losers in the election. So in England, where most of the seats are, it wasn't that the electorate didn't vote for Labour: the problem is that Labour would need many, many more voters to vote for them for them to win seats from the Tories. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have assumed that Labour supporters wouldn't ever vote Conservative and I can categorically state that some Labour supporters in Christchurch voted Conservative in the 2015 General Election to prevent UKIP winning. Christchurch_(UK_Parliament_constituency) Tactical voting makes answering this question impossible unless, as I stated above, every member of the electorate was asked individually.--Ykraps (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your inquiry seems to be based on the assumption that the wrong party won. Do you have any factual support for that view?  Because otherwise we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Any political analyst will give you their version of results (the relatively balanced BBC has 14 analysts all with different perspectives, and unsurprisingly the newspapers all have their own party-line spin: The Guardian blames poor Labour strategy, the Telegraph blames UKIP, the Independent blames first-past-the-post), but here are some common suggestions: The swing voters preferred David Cameron (a tried-and-tested PM generally seen as moderate compared to the Conservative Party as whole) to Ed Miliband (seen as less "prime-ministerial" and portrayed in the press as more left-wing than Blair or Brown (hence the nickname "Red Ed")), and the Conservatives enjoyed the incumbent advantage ("better the devil you know"). Labour was remembered for the 2008 financial crisis, while the Conservatives had been in power during the slow recovery. Lib Dem voters turned out to be less left-wing than expected, and many of them defected to Tories or UKIP rather than Labour. Labour lost two large bases when UKIP took the angry working class vote, while the Greens took the angry student vote. The Tories were successful in making English voters afraid of a Labour-SNP coalition. Labour's position on the deficit wasn't austere enough for the political right, but was too austere for their base on the political left. There was a "lazy Labour" effect, where Labour voters didn't go out, while the Conservative policies such as pension release and safeguards on winter fuel payment were popular with the highly-motivated 50-plus voters. Most analysis will be a combination of those basic themes, perhaps with something about the European Union or the right-wing press mixed in. Smurrayinchester 10:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rupert Murdoch. Thincat (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Searching for portable bath tub
I have in mind a tub with a seat in it, like this side-view, cross section: +         + |          | |          | +-+    | |SEAT |    | +-++

Occupied:

O + |\      + | | \_    | |  ++  | +-+ |  | |SEAT | +_ | +-++

I've found this design in built-in tubs for the elderly, at many thousands of dollars. The version I want would be lightweight, made out of rigid plastic, and cheap. It wouldn't need a sealable door, as the home installs have. Instead the person would climb in from the top, using the seat to stand on, with a step ladder on the outside (a high-friction surface on the seat would be needed to avoid slipping). It also wouldn't need any plumbing. I have in mind using it outside, say while reading a book, filling it with a hose, and using a sump pump to empty out most of the water, then pushing it over and hosing out the "dregs". The idea is to have a place to sit and soak in hot weather, but for adults. It wouldn't need to be much bigger than one adult. Some type of sealable top would be a bonus, so it's not full of spiders when I pull it out of the garage next summer.

So, does anything like what I described exist ? StuRat (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Any reason this could not be repurposed for your outdoor bathtub? -- Jayron 32 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Too short and too wide. This means the sole occupant doesn't cool off as effectively and water is wasted filling the rest.  Also, it doesn't seem to provide enough support.  Note how the man isn't able to sit upright (although the woman managed it, at least long enough for the pic).  My version would be rigid and have water up to the occupant's shoulders, not just his knees. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you're describing a hot tub or a "whirlpool bath". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Much more basic than that. No plumbing, water heater, etc., and only room for one person, please.  That is also not what I would call "portable". StuRat (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * [] Now all you need is a stool!--Ykraps (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume "water butt" is UK English for "rain barrel" (we call it that in the US even when not in a barrel shape). Looks like it might work, but 270 British pounds is rather excessive.  I assume the unneeded stand and tap are part of the reason it's so pricey. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One possible method would be to build one out of fibreglass mats and resin. A smallish boat yard should be able to do that based on your specifications.  Of course, you can do that yourself if you have some skill and a few tools.  The only tricky bit would be building the “mould” for the tub, but that is essentially a large box with a step in it.  Avoid orthogonal corners by inserting rounded cornice profiles into the edges of the box.


 * If you use an “outside mould”, i.e. an empty box, you may be able to use that as a load-bearing frame for the tub. If you use an inside mould the tub needs to be fairly solid.


 * Warning: Use gloves and goggles, work in a well ventilated area and be aware that curing generates significant heat.


 * As per the standards associated with the OP I have omitted any references :o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You will probably have some luck searching for "Japanese soaking tub" and similar terms. Furo is what they call them in Japan. Basically the Japanese figured out a long time ago that it's nicer to soak your whole body while seated in a deeper tub than to awkwardly lay in a shallow pool the way we do it in the USA. You can buy pre-made copper and woodend tubs in the Japanese style for thousands of dollars, but here's a plan on how to make one for $100 . SemanticMantis (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's very close to what I want, although it seems to lack a seat (you just sit on the bottom). Also, I'm not a carpenter so I don't think I could build that myself, and wood seems like a poor choice of materials, to me, making it heavier and more expensive and potentially giving splinters.  Doesn't anyone sell them for a reasonable price ?  If it costs $100 to make, seems like they could sell them for $150 each and make a nice profit.  But even better, I pictured a molded plastic version using technology similar to plastic trash bins for maybe $30 each.


 * (BTW, I completely agree with the author that US bathtubs seem solely designed for toddlers, not being long enough for adults to recline nor deep enough to sit upright and remain significantly submerged. Jayron's link at the top seems to have all the same shortcomings.) StuRat (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How about this - 100 gallon rubbermaid tank, with drain plug, for $85. No seat, but you can get a small stool too and stay under $100. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a stool would lift you out of the water in that one, so you'd have to sit on the bottom. I'm surprised it weighs 41 lbs.  Does a container for 100 gallons of water really need to be that heavy-duty to not split open ?  One obvious adjustment is to make it thinner near the top, where the water pressure will be less.  StuRat (talk)


 * 100 gallons of water weighs around 834 pounds. Plus whatever you weigh, plush the forces of moving the thing around, getting in and out, etc. Draw up a pressure diagram and calculate the forces if you like, but there's a reason why you don't see thin, light plastic tubs designed to hold a lot of water. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't add my entire weight, as I would displace the water over the top, if it was full when I got in. As for my weight, as one group of aliens on Star Trek:The Next Generation said, humans are "ugly bags of mostly water", so my weight would be about the same as the water I displaced.  The only additional weight would be my head and neck, if above the waterline.  Also, I'm not sure weight much matters, as it will be supported by the ground.  (If it was to be on legs, then they would need to support the weight.)  Only the pressure should matter, which shouldn't be all that much at a max depth of 4 feet (1.3 meters).  Perhaps a barrel shape, using rings to hold the pressure, would allow for a lighter weight.   StuRat (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I live in Tucson (HOT summers), our backyard Tucson gardening facebook group recently had a discussion about "stock tank pools" (google it) lots of info on how to make one with pumps and filters. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but those look larger than what I had in mind. As for filters, with the smaller size I can just replace the water each time I use it, and water the lawn with the dumped water, thus no need for filters or pool chemicals.  StuRat (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Have you looked at the equipment available for building "cold plunge pools" on Google? Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although those don't seem to be portable. I did see one that is, but it only has a depth of 19 inches: .  StuRat (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Internet Archive?
I have seen many websites come and go. So, my question is, how long will the Internet Archive be around? Many websites die out, like Putfile and Piczo. RocketMaster (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My WP:CRYSTAL is not working. Our article is at Internet_Archive. You can read what they say about themselves here, where they mention that they partner with the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress. They also get funding from a variety of sources, but I don't think they're publishing a list of sponsors/donors. They did just recently get ~2 million US$ from the Arnold Foundation. You may also wish to read a bit about data curation, digital archiving, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As the sad story of Lehman Brothers shows, predicting how long any organisation is likely to be around, is a rather hazardous game, even if "~2 million US$" of income is barely a drop in the bucket. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hope they're around for a long time; we'll miss it if it goes. Alansplodge (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

List of U S Navy ships present on 12.17.41
Was USS Vega left off of the list on purpose? I think she arrived at Pearl on 12.6.41 with a load of ammunition.

B Cage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.2.93.211 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you don't mean December 7th, 1941, AKA, Pearl Harbor Day ? StuRat (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the OP does. The article in question is List of United States Navy ships present at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.  According to our source for that page, and our article USS Vega (AK-17), she was at Honolulu, rather than Pearl Harbor itself.  Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)