Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 11

= October 11 =

facial plastic surgery grants
are there any grants for the functional/cosmetic sugery of the nose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.249.223 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are you? If there are any, they will almost certainly be country-specific. In the UK, I believe you can sometimes get cosmetic surgery on the NHS if your displeasure with how you look gets into the realms of mental illness. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looked up IP on WHOIS. He/she's from Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S ) 17:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for grants that pay doctors to perform surgeries or that pay for patients to receive them?  Plasticup  T / C  01:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

it's in the US, the grant would be either paying the doctor to perform the surgery or the patient who can then pay the doctor, either one. I thought people where going to laugh at me for asking this question, I am surprised! if you know of anything, where could I start researching? it's for a very specific and expensive procedure that involves functional and cosmetic issues caused by a prior trauma. thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.249.223 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be able to find something for the "function issues", but I very much doubt that someone would pay for the cosmetic ones. Your best bet would be to contact local hospitals and/or medical charities. If they don't have direct answers for you they could at least put you in contact with the right people. When you speak to them, they will probably need more detail than "functional and cosmetic issues", so make sure you can clearly explain your condition.  Plasticup  T / C  22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the cosmetic issues were caused by trauma, rather than it just being that you don't like the way you look, then you may be able to find someone to pay for it. In the UK, it could well be covered under the NHS, in the US you would need to talk to your insurance company. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo project of modern-day Jesus.
I remember seeing a set of photos someone had done depicting the Second Coming--Jesus was a regular-looking fellow with a beard, seen in mundane situations, sharing a very meager meal (I don't remember if it was actually cat food) with a poor elderly woman, eventually trying to defend some gay people who were attacked, being severely beaten, then dying in an alley with no one noticing. It was surprisingly touching, and displayed a very social-justice attitude toward the character. I think the pictures were in black and white, but I don't remember precisely. Has anyone seen something like that? I'm reasonably certain I'm not making it up, but our dear and glorious leader Google has been of little assistance. grendel|khan 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Google and google images doesn't help, but if you're interested in the social justice component of Christianity there's the article Christian left and the "see also" section lists offshoots including the possible originator of such movements, Liberation theology. There's also possibly the Jesus movement as a wellspring of/return to community responsibility within Christianity though it seems a stretch. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Political structure and its susceptibility towards religious right?
From Christian right
 * "In New Zealand, a unitary state, with a single parliamentary chamber, there was little opportunity for social conservative niche parties to influence politics until the electorate voted for Mixed Member Proportional electoral reform at a referendum held in 1993."

What's the political structure got to do with it? How does a political structure give more opportunity for them than another? --antilivedT 04:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything special about how this applies to New Zealand in particular, or the Christian right in New Zealand. But in general, proportional representation gives small parties a chance to get involved that they would never have in a single-member-district majoritarian system. That's kind of the whole idea.
 * This doesn't always make a lot of practical difference, though. Italy is often used as an example of how PR leads to "instability", but really it's a good example of the opposite. In Italy, from the end of World War II until the early 90s, proportional representation led to a system where, sure, you had a few colorful characters in the Chamber of Deputies, but the real power was usually held by more or less the same coalition. There were a great many different prime ministers and cabinets, but very little change in policy between them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Italy can be used as an example of a successful political system. It's ineffective and full of corruption - they can't even sort of rubbish collections... --Tango (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But the corruption is consistent :-) Fribbler (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was successful, I said it was stable (though, I suppose, that's a sort of success, in the same way that cockroaches are highly successful). Stability is not high on my list of virtues for a political system. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, this may not be obvious to those who haven't followed Italian politics: I wasn't talking about Italy now. I was talking about the so-called prima repubblica period, roughly from 1948 to 1994. Even that might be too large a time frame, since I was really talking about the reign of the pentapartito, five parties (Christian Democracy, Republicans, Liberals, Social Democrats, and Socialists) that had different origins but barely distinguishable policies. Kind of like Presbyterians and Methodists, if I make myself clear.  It was impossible to get a majority, and no one wanted to ally with the Communists (and the Italian Social Movement was also mostly off-limits), so those five parties would always be in government, which is not much different from having a single party that's always in power. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as NZ is concerned, the answer can be found in Political parties in New Zealand, which says: "Since the change to MMP, about one third of the seats in Parliament have been held by MPs representing parties other than Labour and National. In the years before MMP, by contrast, there were sometimes no such MPs at all." Without MPs, it's difficult to influence politics; government was Labour or National, and only Labour and National's policies counted. Now, most governments are coalitions, and minor parties can have a disproportionate voice, as they can become kingmakers. ("We'll only join with you if you include our X and Y policies".) Is this an improvement? Opinions differ! Of course, your quote concerns the influence of "social conservative niche parties". Labour tends towards socialist (left); National tends towards conservative (right). They've had a great deal of infuence on NZ politics! Gwinva (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Contacting Reverend Run???
This is sort of a crazy thing but i want to contact Joseph_Simmons aka "Reverend Run" ...... I just saw him talk on CNN and i feel a big tie to him and what he is doing with his show on MTV etc. However, i highly doubt massive stars are going to have time to be contacted by the whole world?

I guess what i'm trying to get at is, does he have an email address or anything? If so, would he even have time to send a reply? I went to the "Runs house" link on the wiki article (http://www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/runs_house/series.jhtml) and theres not exactly an option "Contact Rev Run".... How hard would it be to send him something? Is it worth the effort? etc. Any knowledge on rev run or how this all works in general would be appreciated.

How would and average person contact a star? or can they?!

Thanks in advance!

137.81.40.196 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, is this the same Rev Run? There's a site and a PR contact in there somewhere. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be of some help. seems to point to a link where you can ask him questions directly? But the link doesnt seem to work Is this the result you were referring to? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.81.40.196 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the link to words of wiz turns out to be this which works so far. Run's Web may be a fansite set up to get his attention and where people can say things to him, but fwiw: . Good luck, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Earnings in UK
Hello! Can any one please tell me that how many a fresh Acca member earn per month in UK ,with no experience,Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.43.252 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need some experience in order to get chartered, don't you? There is going to be a wide variation in salaries depending on where you work, I imagine. --Tango (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Tango for your reply ,can you please tell me the salary range from lowest to high per month.I will be very thankfull to you if you answer me and yes i know experience is very importent for accounting but here i am in ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.10.63 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the numbers, I'm afraid, and it's not easy to find out - salaries are usually confidential. You might be able to get a rough idea from some career sites. I would guess starting salaries will be somewhere in the £20-30k range (I know one person that recently started in accounting and her salary is in that range), but that's before certification. Once you have a few years experience and have sat the relevant exams in order to get chartered, your salary will be considerable higher, but I'm not sure how much higher. --Tango (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a general note—it is far easier than you might think to talk directly to someone in a profession that you find interesting, if you're young and they don't feel any pressure from you to hire you. Call a reasonably (not stratospherically) sucessful accountant, someone at least middle-aged, and say that you're a student (if that is true) interested in the profession, and can you drop by for an informational interview.  Ask them how they got started in the business and what they think of it—people love to talk about themselves.  Then ask them what you can expect for a salary at different points in your career.  Keep it short and follow up the next day with a thank-you note.  Darkspots (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Standing of America in the world
Are Usa a real supepower considering huge debts in other countries hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.119.219 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course. What happens in America has a huge impact across the world. The US Dollar is the most important reserve currency which - as the article suggests - does give the US additional benefits particularly in regard to debt. Honestly though a national debt is not going to stop the US being a major power, and in reality it is realistically the world superpower at the moment. The US has a hugely important army, plays a key role in most of the international organisations such as the UN, NATO, is a huge player in world trade, and one of the main sources of culture in the western world - it is 'home' to some of the biggest world brands. All of this is 'power' in a way, and certainly the US is (for the forseeable future) going to be a major political power. ny156uk (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the U.S.'s power, both economically and otherwise, is proven by the large debts we have. If the U.S. gov't wasn't such a good credit risk, and didn't have the economy to support such a large debt load, then they wouldn't get such easy credit.  Think about it from a microeconomic point of view.  Do banks loan money to poor people?  No, only the really rich and powerful get huge lines of credit, because they are rich and powerful enough to pay it back.  Same deal with the U.S. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The US is still a very major power, whether it's still a superpower is a matter for some debate (basically, it comes down to how you define "superpower"), but its influence in international affairs is undeniably high. Its debts don't really make much difference to that (as Jayron says, the world is confident they can afford the debt, so there's no problem). However, it is taking on a lot of new debt in order to deal with the current economic crisis - that could weaken the country long term if the bailout doesn't work (if the bailout does work, then the treasury could actually make a substantial profit). --Tango (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a better question is whether America will continue to be a superpower. It was 5 years ago, but these turbulent times may prove to be a period of transition. A lot of very smart people are writing about this and in their company my opinions would surely sound weak and undeveloped. In any event, time will show us the answer.  Plasticup  T / C  22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

subprime crisis
I am very confused about subprime crisis. I want to know that what is the actual reason for such a crisis? Why does it happened?Sunny.msrim (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article, Subprime mortgage crisis, that should explain it (and economic crisis of 2008 will explain the more general crisis). The short version is that US banks lent money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back. People started defaulting on their mortgages. Usually that would just mean the banks issuing the mortgages lose money, but due to the rather complicated practice of securitising mortgages (selling them on to other people in strange ways), lots of people ended up losing money and people started to lose confidence in the system and everything went downhill from there. The article will explain it in more detail. --Tango (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Going to bed when you're tired
Yesterday night, I was terribly tired. I longed to be in bed and to sleep. Fortunately, nothing and nobody tried to stop me from going to bed. Yet instead of going to bed, I surfed on the internet, rather bored, until it was much later than it would have been on any ordinary night - when I'm not that tired. I know I'm not the only one suffering from this strange condition. But why is it so hard to go to bed when you're tired???? Lova Falk (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out Sleep and Sleep hygiene. Some people just naturally rebel against schedules, however a good regimen of pre-sleep calm-down tends to help many. Perhaps try simple meditation, reading, or other activities to relax your brain. Reading interesting pages on the internet (including that danged Wikipedia Special:Random) is not going to help you. For what it's worth, I have the same problem. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, it is no problem for me to do any of the relaxing activities you mention - except when I'm very tired and need it the most. I know it would be good for me to meditate, or read, but when I'm tired, I just don't do it!Lova Falk (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Lack of takeout coffee in your society. Darkspots (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) :)Lova Falk (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though—moderate exercise is your friend when it comes to sleeping well. Take walks in the morning and/or evening.  Get a dog/walking partner/ipod, but if you can walk for an hour a day, you'll sleep a lot better.  We all get too much stimulation from the internet, and I think most people find themselves aimlessly surfing or watching television when they're overtired. Darkspots (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the impression Lova Falk had a sleep problem. Their problem was not being able to tear themself away from the computer, despite their tiredness. That sounds like internet addiction to me.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not diagnose 1/2 :-). Anyway, sure, it can be hard to go to bed when you're really tired.  Partly I think it's just hard to make any change whatsoever when you're tired.  You want to go to bed, but that would mean standing up, brushing your teeth, taking off your clothes (maybe putting on pajamas, if you're one of the sort that wear them), and turning out the light, and you just don't have the mental energy to start the process.
 * Another thing that I think can make it hard to disconnect and go to bed is if there's something bothering you a little bit that you don't want to face. As long as you're surfing you can keep it at bay, but once you turn out the light, there it is and you're alone with it.  --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem. Over the summer, when I had next to no restrictions on my time, my waking day gradually shifted later and later until I was going to bed about 6 or 7am each morning and getting up just in time for dinner (at one point, for about a week, I was sleeping only every other night, sleeping for one 12 hour period every 48 hours, was very weird!). I found the only way to stop this was to be very disciplined about going to bed at a sensible time (I got back into a more normal schedule by just not going to bed at all one night, having a short nap in the afternoon, and then going to bed at a sensible time and setting an alarm so I got up at a sensible time). --Tango (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is The Imp of the Perverse which causes us, when we are ready to go to bed at 10 pm and get a good night's sleep, instead to to "take a quick look at Wikipedia" or whatever on the internet, and then to get involved in some discussion, controversy, editing or research which prevents turning in until 1 am, with the alarm set for 6:30 am. I can't explain it. A shred of common sense would cause one to ignore the computer and go to bed. Edison (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Edison's comment reminds me of my nominee for the Official Cartoon of Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But someone is wrong! On the internet!  Plasticup  T / C  05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that mean conflict/stimulus and/or hunger for it can keep people from chilling enough to go to bed easily? To stimulate myself to go to bed at a "common sense" time, I set up a stimulating read to get myself there, away from higher technology treats. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lehman-Nomura
How did Nomura get such a good deal?



Earlier this week, Nomura International announced that it had acquired Lehmans' European equity and advisory businesses, safeguarding about 2,500 London-based jobs. It is understood that the Japanese bank also paid about US$2 for these operations.

It is believed that the latest acquisition does not include trading assets or trading liabilities.

Lotsofissues (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is not clear that Lehman Brother is worth anything at all. They may have bought a company whose net worth is negative. They could end up losing a lot of money here.  Plasticup  T / C  19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They've probably taken on lots of debts as well (not necessarily trading liabilities, Lehman will have ordinary loans as well) so, as Plasticup says, the net worth of their purchase could actually be negative. --Tango (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They may be counting on using the name, which would have some intrinsic value, and there are some real assets (brick and mortar buildings, computer servers, intellectual property, human resources, etc.) that may be worth it for the to aquire, and take a hit on the massive outstanding debts that Lehman's has.  If the company has a higher dollar value in debts than they have in assets, then Nomura may actually be paying a premium for those assets, and may not be getting that great of a deal.  The price they pay must be added to the debts of Lehmans they have to assume in order decide how good of a "deal" they got. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the most valuable asset is the staff and their client lists. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Nomura has made sure none of the debt was included in the deal when they bought the European businesses. Therefore they only got this deal because no one else wanted it, so there was no competition. The sellers (PricewaterhouseCoopers) agreed to it in order to save the jobs of the ex-Lehamn employees, and because some other advantages that this deal gave them (e.g. some help to get rid of other Lehamn assets). --Lgriot (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What are these assets that made them so hard to give away? Lotsofissues (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Positions, complex trades, (not necessarily in credit or subprime related). --Lgriot (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't they get a building in this deal (I'm assuming if they get the staff they get the staff's offices)? That has value regardless of the value of the business. --Tango (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In Europe, Lehman was renting its offices, so no office building to sell. --Lgriot (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will UBS be next to go? Lotsofissues (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What ever happened to the author Robert Hample?
I once read a book authored by Robert Hample. It changed my life. I don't recall the title but the subject matter dealt with spirituality, forgiveness and love. It may have been self published. Now he's disappeared. How can I find him and his other works? Tor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svarten (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He doesn't show up in any relevent-looking Google hits and I couldn't find him on Amazon.com or any other online book sellers. However, I did discover that an author by that name wrote "Temperance and Prohibition in Massachusetts - 1813-1852" - published in 1982 by Ann Arbor press. - which is listed on Amazon here as being written by "Robert L. Hampel" (HampEL not HampLE as you wrote).  That lead me to this list of 5 books and articles:


 * The Last Little Citadel: American High Schools Since 1940 by Robert L. Hampel (Paperback - April 1987)
 * A generation in crisis?: An article from: Daedalus by Robert L. Hampel (Digital - Jul 28, 2005) - HTML
 * A Kappan Special Section on Small Schools - Historical Perspectives On Small Schools.(Statistical Data Included): An article from: Phi Delta Kappan by Robert L. Hampel (Digital - Jul 29, 2005) - HTML
 * Temperance and prohibition in Massachusetts, 1813-1852 (Studies in American history and culture) by Robert L Hampel (Unknown Binding - 1982)
 * Historical perspectives on large schools in America (Occasional paper series) by Robert L Hampel (Unknown Binding - 2000)


 * The complete list is here - which is probably what you're looking for. Self-published books are really impossible to find though. It amazes me that you'd have so casually lost a book that affected you so profoundly.  SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! And now I can Google-search for this corrected name ("Hampel") - I find his website, a L-O-N-G list of articles and such, his email address and photo: Here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Insurance
In the UK, a Porsche 924 only costs a bit over two grand. This makes it easily affordable for a first car. What would be the cost of insurance ofor a 17 year old though.

Also, you can get a small old army tank for aboout four grand, how much would the cheapest insurance for that cost?

Thanks.92.5.37.195 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried phoning an insurance company, going to an insurance company's website or going to a price comparison website? Any one of those things will answer your question far better than we can (since we don't have all the information they would use to calculate your premiums). As for the tank - you would want to make sure it's road legal before taking it on public roads, not all military vehicles are (there is an exception for certain military uses of them, but that won't help you!). --Tango (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A Porsche of that age/price is going to be in terrible shape. It's going to be horribly unreliable (they really aren't all that reliable when new - but for someone to get rid of one that cheap - there has to be BIG problems with it).  Worse still, the cost of repairs will absolutely cripple you!  A clutch for a 924 costs about $850 - excluding labor.  Compare that to (for example) a boring Altima at $230 That's probably pretty typical - most repairs are going to cost you three or four times more than a relatively "normal" car.  Insurance will be expensive - but repairs are your bigger concern. SteveBaker (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Parts and labor for repair on Porsches are likely to be quite different in the UK (which is somewhat closer to Stuttgart than is the US. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest watching the Top Gear £1500 Porsche challenge. Essentially, a 924 may be nice, but at £2k it'll be in terrible nick and will cost the world to insure and repair. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - yes - I'd forgotten about that. It underscores my point though.  Yet more clear was the following challenge which they called "Cheap Coupés That Aren't Porsches" which started out with: "We proved that you can't buy a Porsche for £1,500"...Well, obviously, you can - because they did - but the message is CLEARLY that you shouldn't!  If a car show expert can't find a decent one for that price - you have no hope!  Porshe's are beautiful, powerful, fun cars - for someone to part with one for so little money, it's got to be on its last legs.  SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the insurance - some specialist companies do policies for classic cars where you agree to limit your mileage, which can be much cheaper than ordinary policies. I should think a 924 would count as a classic car for this purpose. Try searching for limited mileage classic insurance. For the tank - haven't a clue, it probably varies a lot depending on how helpful the companies are feeling at the moment. Try asking someone who owns one already - or perhaps a museum of military vehicles? - or this training company? AJHW (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have that kind of classic car insurance on my 1963 Mini. With the policy I have, the car has to be more than 25 years old - the value the insurance pays out and the value your rates are based upon is whatever you claim the car is worth...not some green-book value that depreciates the car over time.  Some policies sharply limit your mileage (I've seen 100 miles per month as a limit) - others (mine included) don't limit the mileage but only allow you to drive the car to things like car club events, shows, exhibitions and that kind of thing.  You SPECIFICALLY can't use it as a daily driver.  However, the insurance is amazingly cheap.  My understanding is that they believe that the owners of true classic cars drive them very gingerly and lavish amazing amounts of care of them - so accident rates are low.  All of this despite the fact that their crashworthyness is typically in the "Death-trap" to "OMFG - you aren't actually DRIVING that thing are you?" range. SteveBaker (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On your other question I don't think a tank is road legal in the UK (they totally destroy roads unless they are going really slow, weigh loads, and are wide and heavy so you need a special licence) so you probably don't need road insurance as you won't be driving on the roads. A wheeled APC on the other hand... In either case you'd need the turret removed though because it violates some firearms act or other. Gunrun (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you're right that a main battle tank (Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, etc) is not road-legal in civilian hands in the UK, although I'm not sure precisely which legislation makes this so. (And readers should always take with a pinch of salt any pronouncement (including this one) on what is or is not "legal" unless it cites the specific statute or case law - there's an awful lot of bollocks out there.) However, there are a number of people driving CVRTs on the roads, which to the layman often seems sufficiently like a tank.
 * There's absolutely no need to remove the whole turret, but yes, it's usual to get the gun deactivated. Apparently it is possible to keep the gun intact if registered on a normal firearms certificate, but I've no idea how practical that is to achieve. Whether you can have a firearms certificate and what weapons you can put on it are decisions that are up to your local Police force. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Death
If everyone in a household share a computer, with each having their own log in. If one of these people dies, how long do people wait before they delete the account and all of its contents. Is there a set amount of time one should wait?

Also how long is the wait before emptying the deceased person's room?

Thanks.92.5.37.195 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously the answer is "you should do what seems appropriate or feels right to you". But you should know that in these situations that there will always be the kind of people, uninvolved or only slightly involved people, that criticize no matter how you handle it, so really—do what you think is best, because there is no point in attempting to please everybody, only consider the people who are actually grieving. Darkspots (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides the symbolic/sentimental question, there is a practical question. The person may have stored important private information (e.g. bank account details) in their account.  Check the account contents before deleting it. jnestorius(talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people like to wait until after the funeral before they start sorting through the person's stuff. Some people find it all too much to deal with until they've had a chance to grieve (or they may ask someone else to do it). Others prefer to get it over and done with as soon as possible so it's not hanging over them and their not seeing the person's stuff everywhere. I don't think there is any right way to do it, people just need to decide for themselves. If this isn't a hypothetical question, then my condolences - you're going through a very hard time, don't make it harder by worry about doing "the right thing", just do whatever feels right. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do religions have rules about this? I imagine that there could be strict rules about how long the family is to wait before divvying up the deceased's possessions.  Plasticup  T / C  23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some might, but none I've never heard of. It's more a question of social convention as to how long to wait. It's in the same vein as how long does one wait before re-marrying, and not wanting to be seen to be invoking Hamlet's "The funeral baked meats did freshly furnish forth the marriage tables".   I went to my uncle's funeral, and back at the house my aunt took me aside, saying "There's something I want to talk to you about. Would you come with me, please".  It sounded ominous, but I followed her into her bedroom, where she pulled out her late husband's jacket, and asked me if I would like it.  I was the only person it would fit, and I lived a couple of hours' drive away, so she obviously thought the practical thing was to organise it while I was in situ, rather than trying to arrange it from a distance, with all the attendant costs.  So I left with more than I bargained for.  I don't know when she got around to disposing of his other possessions she no longer wanted, but I doubt it would have been quite that soon.  When my father died, I stayed with my mother for a few days, less than a week, and again I left with various things that had belonged to him, not because I had asked for them but because she thought it would be best to start the disposal process the day after the funeral, and why waste money sending stuff in the mail when you can hand it over in person.  Other people might wait weeks, months or years before doing this.  Letting go is easier for some people than for others.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some religions certainly have rules about periods of mourning, they may well include details on how to deal with the deceased's possessions. There are also laws regarding how and when to deal with possessions, see probate. --Tango (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this was a hypothetical situation. 92.5.37.195 (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When my father died - my mother wanted me to take his computer. I didn't want to go through his files (that seemed like a violation of his privacy) - but I didn't want to take the explicit step of deleting his stuff either.   What I decided to do was simply to cease backing up his files and to simply let time take it's course.  After a few years, the disk drive crapped out - and that was that.  But these days, it's harder.  My computer has all of the family photos and many movies from when my kid was little.  It's unthinkable that my survivors wouldn't want to recover those.  So I make an effort to keep a "family" area and a "private" area.  I've left my family a detailed set of instructions about who to email (how would people on Wikipedia know what happened to me otherwise?) - which accounts to close down (and what their passwords are).  What the 'root' password is on our household computers.  How to get the money out of my PayPal account.  How to pay for any eBay auctions I might have won - yet not paid for due to my sudden demise.  Which OpenSource developers should be sent copies of all of my software projects - and under what licensing conditions.  How to renew the family web sites...AND (specifically in answer to this question) how to deal with my own personal web site and Wiki.   It's a complicated business - and without access to someone's passwords and usernames, it would be pretty difficult for my family to deal with those things cleanly. SteveBaker (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never even considered leaving those kinds of instructions, but in a way it makes a lot of sense. There are so many people that I would want notified that my family would not know about. So many affairs that they could not set in order. Did you do this as part of a living will?  Plasticup  T / C  05:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing so formal. I wrote my instructions down and stuck them into an envelope in my desk.  I suppose if you wanted them to have the force of law that a will does then you could add them as a coda to your will - but I find I need to change that document reasonably often and I trust my family to do what I ask without any legal overheads so I've left it rather informal. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Global recession
OK, the markets are in a mess and we all have to learn to deal with that - and that's no big deal - it happens. But from experience, we know that the holders of stocks and shares are the most likely to lose out in a recession/depression. But what happened to cash investors in savings accounts in the USA banks and building societies (sic) in the great depression of the 30's? In other words, of those who survived financially, whose savings (and of what type) fared best? Was it bars of gold - bills under the mattress - tins of beans in the cellar - property bought empty and cheap - or what?92.21.235.82 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you start drawing comparisons between now and the 1930s it is important understand the differences. For instance, FDIC insurance means that your cash deposits in American banks are guaranteed by the Federal Government up to $250,000, and that limit might even be raised in the next few days. So cash deposits under $250,000 are 100% safe.  Plasticup  T / C  23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The economy is also much more deeply interconnected than it was. In the 1930's, a small bank might take savings deposits from people within a 50 mile area - and lend that money as mortgages out to people in the exact same part of town.  If a bunch of their loans went belly-up - then their depositors might suffer badly...but that would be a localized effect.  These days, money lent for a mortgage in the US may have been deposited by big companies in China - who "insured" those deposits against a financial company in Germany who also lend money to a factory in India who sell their product to WalMart.


 * The effects of a local problem can now reverberate around the world. I'm not using the word "reverberate" figuratively here - it's a literal effect where a medium-sized stock market drop on the sunlit side of the planet is noted on the opposite side 12 hours later when their market opens and causes panic selling that hits their bottom line seriously.  The news of that drop hits the the original market 12 hours after that as people wake up and turn on the morning news - and they get another wave of bad news causing further drops in the local market.  Calming down a panic in the US therefore requires world-wide action.  Bad news crosses between markets freely - but we don't have a world-wide government that can take global action to dampen things down.  That kind of rapid communication didn't happen (and wouldn't have mattered) in the 1930's when the failure of a US bank would have been a mere curiosity on another continent. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What I cannot understand is where all this money that the banks have lost, has actually gone. Can any one enlighten me please?--Artjo (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It hasn't gone anywhere. Consider this very simplistic example. If you have an item that I consider is worth $100 should you decide to sell it and I decide to buy it, then it's worth $100 to you.  But if I, for whatever reason, decide that I'm now only prepared to pay $75 for it, it's now worth only $75 to you.  Previously, you had the potential equivalent of $100 in your hot little hands, just waiting for the chance to convert it into cash; now, all you have is $75.  The $25 didn't "go" anywhere, because it was all just potential money, not real money.  It only becomes real money when a transaction actually occurs.   --  JackofOz (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The crisis was caused by the banks lending too much money to people who couldn't pay it back.  So the money the banks gave to those people to buy houses is "where it went".  Hence the money went to people who managed to sell houses that they would not otherwise have been able to sell - and to the people who got a lot more for their houses than they were arguably "worth" because the demand was artificially higher and the supply smaller.  So the money isn't "lost" it's just diffused out into the economy in the form of higher-than-it-should-have-been growth. SteveBaker (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)