Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 18

= September 18 =

Scholarships
Would it be plausable for me to apply for every single applicable scholarship that requires an essay to be written about a subject and sent in? I'd imagine that with all those applications, one may actually go through... I don't know much about the subject, so excuse me if the question is a bit foolish.  Яussiaп F  01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert but I would suppose how many there are, whether each required an individually written essay, how long the essays have to be and how much time you have, how creative you are and how dedicated you are. Exxolon 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to spend many evenings on the essays, I'd apply only for the ones that require individually written essays, I have a lot of spare time, and I consider myself quite good at writing.  Яussiaп F  02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We need someone with more knowledge than me here then. Applying common sense would suggest applying for all the ones you qualify for with the caveat that it's possible you could lessen your chances if there is any kind of cross-referencing of applications either within institutions or on a wider scale. Exxolon 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi... are you assuming that every college would require an essay about the identical subject ? If so, go ahead and write a super essay and then individualise it for each application. However, it is far more than esssay writing that will get you an interview, let alone a place. You need to consider the whole of each application and target each upon an individual college/place/scholarship. Hard work, yes. But given basic talent a place should be available.86.209.158.223 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)petitmichel
 * No matter how good at writing you are, applying to more institutions means you can dedicate less time to each single essay - which will lessen its quality. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's got to depend on where your skills lie compared to the standard required. Obviously, the art of judging an essay and assigning it a score is not an exact science.  If your writing skills (and other qualifications) are borderline for the required standard - then it may be that trying lots of places will just randomly put you over the standard in one or two places.  But if your level is sufficiently poor that not even a small amount of random variation will be enough to push you over the standard - then as others have pointed out, spending more time doing a really excellent job on just one essay might be more productive.  It's really hard to know which is best. SteveBaker 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say definitely go for it. From my experience it's a good idea to apply for as many scholarships as you are eligible for. Depending on the number requiring essays for which you qualify it might not be reasonable to try for all of them, but within reason I see no downside to applying for multiple scholarships. Schooling is expensive, good luck! 38.112.225.84 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you do a cost/benefit analysis on each. I found many $500 scholarships that required essays, interviews, etc., which simply weren't worth the time you'd have to put in for the tiny chance of winning. StuRat 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

savings bonds ii
my state tax rate is 5%, and since savings bonds are state-tax free (and compounded semi-annually), does that mean my savings bond effective yield increases by at least 5%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This question might be more appropriately answered on the Mathematics Reference desk, but the quick answer is that the yield should increase by slightly more than 5% over what it would be if you had to pay the state tax on the returns. 152.16.16.75 09:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But beware the use of the proper base (always an issue with percentages). If you invest $1000 and make 10%, or $100, in a year, the 5% tax would be on the amount made, or $100, not on the entire amount.  Thus, you would have $1100 (neglecting both federal and state taxes) versus $1095 (only neglecting federal taxes).  So, it's not like you're making 15% instead of 10%, you are making 10% instead of 9.5%.  My guess is that you can find an investment with a higher return that more than makes up for being charged state taxes.  Inflation also has an effect, as people are normally charged taxes on investment "growth" even if that growth is only keeping pace with inflation.  So, to give a thorough answer we would need to know the federal tax rate, any local tax rate, the projected inflation rate, the projected return rates, and any fees associated with the investment. StuRat 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * so basically what you're saying is that post-tax (state and federal) money is used for the base, and the state-tax free is only on the investment return? How do you know this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The base for the state taxes is the profit realized that year, not counting inflation (at least in my state). How do I know this ?  I have investments and pay taxes, which means I have to fill out the forms and see what they use as the base. StuRat 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dieing with Debt
If I die while in debt, and my next-of-kin can't pay it off, will he go to debtors prison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. As far as I know, there are no debtor's prisons anymore, so tht wouldn't happen. The broader question here may be "will my next of kin be responsible for my debt?" As far as I know - not being an estate lawyer - that wouldn't happen either. If you are in debt when you die, your estate - everything you own - might have to be sold off to repay the debt, but the debt itself wouldn't be transferred. The only exception would be if someone had provided security for the loan, or had co-signed - in that case, they might be liable. But I can't see that a debt could be assigned to someone who had not accepted responsibility for it. I don't know what would happen if you died with an unsecured debt that your estate was not able to pay back; I assume your creditor would lose the money. - Eron Talk 03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes one wonder why the next of kin gets any surpluses (inheritance). Both or neither, one could say. Another perspective is that I can give someone a gift, but I can't give them a debt. Note that I haven't a clue about actual real-life law. But it would help (for other answerers) if you stated what country you're talking about. DirkvdM 06:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the general notion that you can accept or reject the inheritance, but if you take the assets you have to take the liabilities as well. For all I know -- just speculating as a complete non-lawyer here -- there might be some exemptions for personal items of limited cash value.

In some cases you might be forced into a tricky decision, even ignoring sentiment; evaluating the balance of assets and liabilities could involve a serious gamble on future market conditions. --Trovatore 06:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My layman's understanding of estate law, from a couple personal situations I have been involved in, is that it shouldn't be possible to take both assets and liabilities, as the former would have to be liquidated to cover the latter before any distribution could take place. That's part of the task of the executor: survey the estate, find out what the deceased had and what she owed, pay off the debts, and then distribute anything remaining according to the will. Now, if Great-Aunt Petunia died owing a million dollars, I am not sure if the bank would insist that her tea set be sold off rather than given to her favourite nephew, as stipulated in her will, but it's a safe bet that any money and investments would go to pay off the debt. As would the proceeds of the sale of her house, if any. Wikipedia has an article (of course!) on Abatement of debts and legacies which discusses this issue as well. Looking at it suggests that creditors may have to be satisifed with partial repayment if the estate cannot pay the debts in full - Eron Talk 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is true that you can't inherit both assets and liabilities. As I understand it, you can, for example, inherit a house with a mortgage on it, and just keep making the mortgage payments. I don't believe the estate is necessarily forced to sell the house just because the heirs are unable to pay off the mortgage in a lump sum. I can believe, though, that the mortgage holder might have a say in whether to approve the heirs as creditworthy. And certainly no one should rely on my vague understandings here. --Trovatore 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that (in the UK at least) mortgage providers insist upon clients obtaining sufficient life insurance to repay the mortgage in the event of death before the term of the loan. DuncanHill 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never heard of that in the US, but then I don't really know for sure. But in the UK, what about inheriting a (closely held) business? A business is bound to have debts, and there's no guarantee that the rest of the estate will cover them. Is the estate really forced to liquidate the business in that case? I'm almost certain it's not, in the US. --Trovatore 17:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that an inheritor would be forced to liquidate a business, but neither could he be forced to assume a debt. I would expect it's an either/or proposition. In the case of a mortgage held by only the deceased, then there is an agreement between her and the bank: she repays the loan, or the bank takes the house. If she dies without insurance or assets to cover the mortgage, then the house would revert to the bank. They have a lien on it - it isn't hers to be freely willed away. Now, the bank might be willing to allow an heir to take the house, as long as that heir also took out a mortgage. I'm can't see how a mortgage between two parties could be transferred to a third party; if I were the banker, I would object to any such arrangement as I wouldn't know how creditworthy the heir was - I'd want to renegotiate. I assume the same would apply to a business - if you want the business, you take the debts. If you don't want the debts, you don't get the business. - Eron Talk 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I said, isn't it? --Trovatore 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (looks up the page) Er, yes, I guess it is. - Eron Talk 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it depends on the structure of the business. If the business holds the debts, then by inheriting the business, you inherit its assets and liabilities -- and also the corporate protection of your personal assets, so you are not personally liable for those debts.  If the debts are held by the deceased, then they are covered by sale of other assets (possibly including the business).


 * As a side note, liquidation of a business to cover debts is not something that's done very often. A functioning business is almost always worth more than the sum of its parts. --Carnildo 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone I know was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She has no children. She went out and signed up for half a dozen credit cards and made the most of her last few months, secure in the knowledge that no-one would ever pick up the tab. Then she unexpectedly beat the illness and is in complete remission. Must be one of the few times someone's found a cloud for that rare silver lining. Must say when she told me I found her unethical behaviour shocking, but I can't help a bit of me admiring her gall and another bit thinking she deserved some fun, lol. It's taken a looong time to pay off the debts. Thankfully, she's still well, that I know of. --Dweller 13:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In an episode of Northern Exposure ("Jaws of Life"), Chris Stevens faced such a cloud: he expected to die young of hereditary hypertension, before all his indiscretions could catch up to him, and then Joel gave him some pills ... &mdash;Tamfang 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One way to address concerns about leaving debt to your estate is to purchase credit insurance or mortgage insurance: life insurance policies that pay off the debt if you die. (Disability insurance is also available.) Some credit cards may have similar provisions. There are usually restrictions of course - no coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, suicide, that sort of thing - as with any other form of life insurance. - Eron Talk 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Louis XV
I have recently been doing my ancestrial line and I have found out that I am related to Louis VIII. I know that he is related to Louis the XV but I am not sure how. Can you please tell me how he is related and if I need to put him into my ancestrial line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallieclemons (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, Louis XV was a direct descendant in the male line of Louis VIII, with about sixteen generations between them. This line of the Capets weren't all kings, as Henry IV inherited the throne from his distant cousin Henry III as the senior living Capet. He was the eight times great grand-son of Louis IX (Saint Louis), who was the son of Louis VIII. Xn4 04:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone is related to everyone. So as far as it is recorded, if you go up and down the generations, you can always find some lineage connecting you to someone. I did my lineage (in Dutch)(and devised my own coding system) and, even though I knew, it still impressed me how this tree can 'explode' if you follow links in both directions, up and down the generations. DirkvdM 06:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dirk, either there's a mistake in there or 4 of your relatives were born in the year 1001. I'm guessing you meant 2001. StuRat 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, there's something wrong there. Hence the double question marks and a note on those lines that I took that literally from a specific source. I've made mistakes with interpretations before, so I don't interpret anymore and give the source instead. It might just mean that the day is known but not the year, so an absurd year is given to make that 'obvious'. I don't know, just a possibility. DirkvdM 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mackenzies Modern Geography
I have in my possesion a lithographic plate titled "A Family of New South Wales" from "Mackenzies Modern Geography" printed late 1780's -1790's. I can't find any reference to this rare publication can anybody help me. The plate shows an Aboriginal family the Father leading the Mother(carrying an infant on her back) with a child boy following, the father is carrying weapons the mother carrying fishing gear and the boy is carrying a fire stick


 * Maybe A New and Complete System of Modern Geography; Containing An Accurate Delineation of the World, as divided into Empires, Kingdoms, Republics, Colonies etc, with their respective Situations, Extent, Boundaries, Climate, Soil, Agriculture, Rivers, Lakes, Mountains, Forests, Botany, Zoology, Mineralogy, Natural Curiosities, etc Likewise The Civil and Political State of Each Country; embracing the various subjects of population, manners and customs, language, literature, education, cities and towns, edifices, roads, canals, manufactures and commerce; also religion, government, laws, navy, revenues, and political importance with a brief sketch of the origin, history and antiquities of each nation; and an introduction containing a neat and comprehensive system of astronomy and meteorology; forming a complete repository of geographical knowledge including every recent discovery and political alteration. Illustrated and embellished with correct Statistic Tables an accurate and beautiful Atlas and appropriate engravings. Two Volume Set. by Eneas Mackenzie, published 1817?&mdash;eric 06:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After such a title, was there anything left to put in the book ? StuRat 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Title pages calmed down after some bright lad invented the dust-jacket. Xn4 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cute hypocricy
I've got stuck in a strange problem.The fact is that girls find me really cute but I have a psychological complex that I am wantedly behaving in a cute manner just to impress them.Please get me out of this as this is proving very detrimental to my personality and thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not request regulated professional advice. If you want to ask advice that "offline" would only be given by a member of a licensed and regulated profession (medical, legal, veterinary, etc.), do not ask it here. If it is impacting on your personality and thinking I suggest you consult your GP in reference to a referral to a psychiatric service. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is any "professional advice". Yes, you want to impress girls and potentially reproduce and pass on your genes, it's normal, get on with life. --antilivedT 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a vicious cycle. Just to clarify, I assume LB meant General Practitioner when he wrote GP, which is a roundabout way of saying your doctor. I'd second Antlived's take; though hopefully you'll find as you mature that you become less hung up on how other's might percieve you and more comfortable just "being yourself". It's never to early/late to reinvent yourself. Oh, and congratulations on puberty. 38.112.225.84 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much the case with all guys, actually. Except real narcissists and psychopaths; and of course, the girls are attracted greatly to their abnormal lack of reaction. Gzuckier 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dukascopy
Good afternoon,  Why  such name as  Dukascopy is deleted. Come time we created this and now it's deleted. Why??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiviszile (talk • contribs) 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the deletion logs it was deleted due to being advertising and nothing more than a dictionary definition. Dismas |(talk) 07:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:SPAM.--Shantavira|feed me 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

where is the largest Gold trade center located?
--62.84.91.1 15:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean like 33 Liberty Street?--Shantavira|feed me 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pecados Ajenos
In Pecados Ajenos, is Gloria a real friend of Natalia Ruiz? Ericthebrainiac (talk contribs) 16:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be better asked on the Entertainment refdesk. FiggyBee 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dinning Out.
Please can you help me with a research on why people dine outside their homes.

Thanks.

Chidi Nwagu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.41.170 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a start, you might want to look at the History section of our Restaurant article; it has a bit of discussion on how and why some restaurants came about. It also briefly mentions Taverns as being specifically for travelers, however our tavern article is quite brief and does not address the historical aspect in any depth.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of quite a few reasons:


 * 1) They don't want to have to cook.


 * 2) They don't want to have to clean up.


 * 3) They can't cook as well as the chefs at the restaurant.


 * 4) They don't want to heat up their house by cooking.


 * 5) They enjoy the social experience of dining out.


 * 6) They want to impress people with the fact that they can afford to dine out.


 * 7) They don't have the time to cook at home.


 * 8) They don't have food at home.


 * 9) They are too far away from home to return to eat.


 * 10) They want to try some new recipes that the restaurant has that they don't have.


 * 11) They are on an expense account, so the meal is free. StuRat 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, 12) Their "kitchen" consists of a bar fridge and a microwave, 13) They want to celebrate a special occasion (and, possibly as a result of which, 1-3 and 5 apply), and probably many more reasons. Confusing Manifestation 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) A large group is getting together and they don't have the room for all the people at one member's house. Reasons 1, 2, and 7 may also apply to this as they may not want to have to cook for such a large group or have the time to do so.  Dismas |(talk) 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's possible the questioner meant dining al fresco. In which case, it's about fresh air etc. There are also downsides, such as insects, vagaries of climate and wind (no, not that kind, the meteorological kind of wind). --Dweller 09:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

John Wayne
Wht didn't John Wayne serve in WWII?129.112.109.250 20:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a section on this in the main article on John Wayne. - Eron Talk 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia not accepting edits ?!
Why is Wikipedia NOT accepting edits except into the "History section "? 205.240.146.131 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The History section shows all the edits done to a page. If you could edit the "History" section, it would sort of defeat it's purpose, as you would be able to erase any edits done to the page. Acceptable 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was editing the article "Bishopville", only that the article changes are NOT there, thus is why I suspect Wikipedia is malfunctioning. 205.240.146.131 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now the changes appear, thus I suspect that Wikipedia has had a meltdown. Seen the molten mess on the floor. 205.240.146.131 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as we say Don't worry about performance, there have been a couple server issues in recent times, including delays in updating the "Recent Changes" and user's Watchlists. If something is happening to delay History updates, it's probably worth dropping a note at Village pump/Technical. Confusing Manifestation 04:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikia skins
Whats with all the new skins on Wikia? Nearly every Wikia wiki has gotten a new skin when I last went to them, about a few weeks ago. The sidebar is really annoying and takes up to much space. Is there anyway to change the skin without having to make an account? 67.169.185.206 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't wikia have somewhere you can ask this. Wikipedia != Wikia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)