Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 September 22

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.

September 22

Health draw (dessin santé)

I m wondering if the "sun"; that suposed to reflect the father; could reflect "autority" too? Thank you for your time and devotion, Marie-Eve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.245.184 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Son or sun? Plasticup ^T/C 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Potentially, both. The ambiguity is possible when the picture on French website dessin santé is read by an English speaker. But I don't think we can give an answer, as the point of the website seems to be that your personal interpretation of the picture is supposed to reveal insights into your psychological make-up. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Which means, yeah, if you see a way that it could reflect authority, then it does. It depends entirely on whomever is viewing the picture. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Debt (and more)

Since the United States has such a staggering debt and is spending so much money on things such as bailing out gigantor bank companies and fighting terrorists in the Middle East, why can't the treasury just whip up a $50,000,000,000,000 bill to cover the debt and save all the failing companies? 75.169.212.113 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because that would reduce the value of all the other money. It's is called inflation, or even hyperinflation. The Weimar Republic used that trick once. Zimbabwe is using it now. The consequences are disastrous. Plasticup ^T/C 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just curious, if you don't mind my further inquiring, how does this devalue all other money? Why does this devalue money? It would seem that, with the elimination of debt that an economy would perhaps rebound, but apparently not so? 75.169.212.113 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way. You have one vase. It's so beautiful that someone will pay you $100 for it. If you had two then you should get $200, right? Not really. Because the person buying it wants that one special vase. The more there are, the less someone will pay for it. Some economist is probably going to tell me that my comparison is flawed in a lot of ways but the basics are basically the same. If you pour a bunch of something into a market, the price or value should go down. And I think that Plasticup meant the Weimar Republic. Dismas|^(talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did mean the Weimar Republic, and you edit-conflicted my correction! Plasticup ^T/C 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagine that a market is selling 5 apples. 5 people show up, each with $1. The market equilibrium price is $1 per apple. Now imagine that the government prints a whole load of money, and everyone at the market has $3 each. When they show up to buy the 5 apples each of them can offer more, trying to outbid the others, and the market equilibrium price will rise to $3. Dismas's explaination is pretty good, just backwards. Plasticup ^T/C 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the government prints more money - then someone somewhere ends up with more money - that eventually gets into the economy and makes lots of people have more money. Suppose everyone magically wins a million dollars - nobody will go to work for $10 per hour - if nobody works, no food is grown, no products are on the shelves - we all die. Hence salaries have to go up enough so that people will work - $1000 an hour will do that. That'll drive prices up. Pretty soon, people will need to work because a loaf of bread costs a thousand dollars.

If those were the only consequences, maybe we wouldn't care - just write an extra zero on the end of all of the bank notes every year and nobody cares - right?

Sadly, no. The process of money losing value is devastating. Anyone who has been saving suddenly finds that the money they had doesn't buy anything anymore - inflation is like stealing money from careful savers and rewarding people who run up large credit card debts. However, many of the people who are sitting on large piles of "saved" money are banks and investors who lend it out to people...when they see their large pile of cash shrinking in value due to inflation, they try to make it grow more quickly by pushing up borrower's interest rates. That means that the people who have shrinking debts now get stung with high interest rates on those debts - which is bad for them too. All of this is disruptive and scares people - confidence in the currency is lost - other countries no longer want to trade X of their currency for Y amount of dollars - they start to demand 2Y dollars. As your currency falls in value, initially, it seems like a good thing. Your goods that you make for Y dollars now sell for X/2 in other countries so your exports start to look attractive. Sadly, things you used to be able to buy for Y dollars from China - now cost 2Y dollars - which pushes prices up...more inflation.

Inflation is tough to control - prices go up - people demand more wages - that increases prices - round and round. Government is not immune to price rises - they have to buy stuff too, but increasing taxes while prices are spiralling upwards is VERY unpopular. So instead of raising taxes - they print more money. The more money they print, the worse things get. Pretty soon it takes a wheelbarrow full of dollar bills to buy a loaf of bread...then a truckload. People DARE not save...as soon as they get their pay, they must rush out and spend it all on...anything...because within a few days, it's going to be worth nothing. Now nobody dares to save - so there is no capital to be had to start businesses, to buy machinery. Industry is rapidly crippled. Unemployment and food shortages are inevitable. Before you know it, you're a third-world country.

So you can't print money to get yourself out of a crisis...although that is precisely what the US government are doing.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you are describing hyperinflation, which is many many orders of magnitude larger than regular old 3-20% inflation. Mild to moderate inflation isn't that bad, especially when it is steady. Secondly, that is not what the U.S. Government is doing. They are financing their debt through the sale of securities, not by printing money. Your solution causes inflation, their solution causes a government deficit. Plasticup ^T/C 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So with the Government's staggering debt, how do they correct it? How can they possibly spend so much money when they are trillions of dollars in debt? I'm not really sure how the system works. --71.98.24.10 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Government debt takes the form of "promises to pay", known as bonds. Basically, somebody has loaned the government $10 trillion, and the government is going to pay it off (with interest) over the course of the next fifty years or so. The money for payoff comes from taxes and from issuing more bonds (and other, more complicated sources). --Carnildo (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, being $9.7 trillion in debt is a lot less bad than it sounds? --71.98.24.10 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's normal for governments to operate with a certain amount of debt. During recession, this usually increases: deficit spending can be used to restimulate, or at least hold up, the economy. See also Keynesian economics: a theory/model which illustrates how deficit spending works during recessions. Gwinva (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Consumption

What would use up more gas: using the air conditioner or wind resistance from having the windows down? i must know, i live in the freaking desert!the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that this depends on how fast you go, the faster you go, the more effecient the AC becomes when compared to opening the windows, since the wind resistence will increase with the speed of the car. - Akamad (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

well, on my way to my college campus, i encounter speed limits varying between 35 and 55 mph. the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This was covered by a Mythbusters episode. According to our article, windows down is better below 50 mph. As I recall however, they didn't test it in the desert. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

cool. thank you, as you can imagine with gas prices these days, any kind of gas reducing technique will help. the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 03:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters did a really careful set of tests on this and decided that there was a threshold speed - above which closing the windows and turning on the AC was more fuel-efficient than turning off the AC and opening the windows. However, what that speed is will depend on the kind of car you drive. I believe that the threshold is likely to lie somewhere between 35 and 55mph though - so you might find yourself opening and closing windows like a madman as you do your daily drive in an effort to optimise your gas consumption. That would be bad because every time you open the windows, all of that cool air spills out and when you close them again, the AC will have to work hard to get the temperature back down again. I suggest that a simple rule would be to close windows and turn on the AC for freeway driving and open the windows and turn off the AC when you're in town. Sadly, I find that the reverse is comfortable. Here in Texas, 110F daytime temperatures are possible. At low speeds, the airflow isn't enough to compensate for the higher air temperatures so I NEED the windows to be closed and the AC to be on. Airflow only cools you down when the ambient air is below body temperature - once the thermometer hits 100F - forget opening the windows! But the savings are of the order of 5% for small cars and much less for big SUV's - so it's not that big a deal. You can get better fuel savings by driving a manual transmission car and shifting so as to keep the RPM's solidly in the 2000 to 3000 range (especially when accellerating). SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like that Mythbusters experiment: the 2 car experiment they did had the AC on full blast for the whole journey, and they had to wear heavy jackets and things to keep warm. Who would do that? If the AC was left at a sane setting I think it would have lasted a lot longer. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I live over here in central Arizona, and at this time of the year, its starting to get cooler out, so i might not have to worry about it for very much longer. but as far as what car i drive, its a 1992 Ford Crown Victoria LTD Police edition. not very car savvy so i couldnt tell you the engine size or anything.the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do American Colleges have two people per dorm room?

Why do American Colleges have two people per dorm room? It also can happen in the UK, but 1 per room is much more common and generally the two per room only applies to non-first year students who choose to do this. -- SGBailey (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the reason to stuff multiple students in a room is money. As to why this would be different between the States and the UK, I don't really know, but I can speculate that more of the American dorms were built more recently, and the market conditions had changed (though I don't know in exactly what way). As a possible data point, at Caltech, where I did my undergrad, there were two groups of houses (see House System at the California Institute of Technology), called the old houses and new houses. The old houses were built in the 1930s and had mostly single rooms; the new houses were built in the sixties or so and had mostly doubles. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dorm rooms for more than one person are the norm in Poland wherever you go, with fairly typical rooms having 2-4 persons, in a variety of configurations (i. e. two double/triple rooms sharing a bathroom and kitchen area). The obvious reason is money, furthermore it's easier to build fewer doubles than more singles, and allows to house more people in a building of roughly the same volume. Rooms for multiple persons can also induce socialisation, which is what dorm life is about after all. A single room is considered a luxury here, although I have had the pleasure of living in a single room in a dorm in Cologne in Germany, where nine single rooms shared a common room, kitchen and four bathrooms on one half of a dorm floor. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a supervision aspect to it, as well as the financial one. Roommates watch each other. Suicidally depressed people often get reported to the college authorities by their roommates, etc. Darkspots (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So we have several reasons for having double rooms, but none for why they should exist in some places but not in others (Trovatore's speculation fails, alas; many UK universities have been built since the '60s, and the rest all have lots of new accommodation, but little of it is double-rooms). Here's my random try: is it normal in the US for undergraduates to be offered accommodation by their college throughout their degree? It isn't in the UK, so that could explain the difference. Algebraist 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was at an old UK university the newer dorms almost all had single rooms, whereas the older ones had shared rooms. I was told that the older shared rooms used to be single rooms, because pre-launderette and pre central heating one person would need the space for coal scuttles, ash pans, drying racks and ironing boards. In the 70s my clothes never saw an Iron unless I went home to my parent's house but in Victorian times evidently suite shirt and tie and neat appearance was the order of the day. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a false premise here. Not all US colleges work that way. My son is at the University of Texas at Dallas - they have apartments with four small study/bedrooms for four students. There is a shared kitchen, laundry-room, balcony, storage space and lounge area plus two full bathrooms. The apartments are unfurnished - although they come with a full set of appliances (Cooker, fridge, washer, drier) and there are built-in desks in each bedroom. The bedrooms are small - but perfectly adequate for one person. SteveBaker (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The premiss can, I think, be saved by the word 'usually'. I don't have figures (does anyone here have them?), but I believe this practice is quite normal in the US, while to me (in England) it is almost unthinkably barbaric. Algebraist 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

At my UK Uni (Durham) we have some shared rooms, but they're a tiny minority, and you only have to share for a maximum of one term unless you volunteer to share again. --Tango (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because two dissimilar people sharing one room is a theme of American comedy? (i.e. don't watch too much American television.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the norm here in Ontario is to have two people per room. At Wilfrid Laurier University we noticed that the pairings were not random, but rather generally followed a rule of thumb: same or similar major, one person local and one person from far away, one person from a large city and one person from a rural area or small town. Not always; the numbers just wouldn't work all the way through, but often enough that it was obviously intentional. Worked well! Matt Deres (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Folklore^{[verification needed]} has it that my college, once upon a time, had four persons in one room in a boys' dorm - an altogether of eight people sharing a common bathroom. Even if it really happened, it did not last long and things went back to four people sharing a bathroom really soon. It seems that at least on-campus freshmen are supposed to have roommates, unless they specifically request to have a room by themselves. Kushal (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can request a single room, why doesn't everyone do so? --Tango (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because, as we are discussing, in the US (but not the UK) it is considered normal and healthy for students to share a bedroom. Algebraist 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On-campus student accommodation in North America tends to be very low-grade compared to normal people's housing -- typically crowded and dreary. This is considered part of the college experience, at least for the first year or two. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Single rooms are more expensive. --Nricardo (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was an undergraduate, the supply of single rooms was limited, and preference was given to upperclassmen. When I was a freshman, some friends of mine got singles in the middle of their sophomore (2nd) year. But I couldn't get one until my senior (4th) year, due to higher demand. (The singles also cost more, as Nricardo said.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that "upperclassmen" means 3rd or 4th years, not aristos? DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If we had any aristocrats at my large state university, I expect they lived in nicer off-campus apartments or houses, not the dorms. (Actually, I recently found out that some of our undergraduate football players live in on-campus "graduate student apartments", which are much nicer than the dorms. I suppose they are our aristocrats.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, then, part of the reason is that US students have less money than UK ones. In the UK the student loan is usually easily enough to pay for university-provided single accommodation. Algebraist 12:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, at least in my experience. It was simply a matter of there not being enough single rooms. (Perhaps it's not clear—the single rooms were physically smaller than the normal double rooms. They accounted for maybe 10–15% of the rooms in my dorm. There was no provision for getting a regular double room to yourself.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But why do UK universities build lots of single rooms and US universities not? --Tango (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because fewer UK institutions are campus universitites, so it is easier for students to live in privately rented accommodation, and the universities need to work harder to make their rooms desirable? A few years ago (and perhaps still), Warwick had a substantial number of shared rooms, and that's one of the few out-of-town campus unis. Warofdreams talk 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

UK universities don't expect to provide accommodation for all their students for all their years: even the traditional collegiate universities expect students to live out at least one year. The government also sets legal requirements for room sizes. Also, many UK undergraduate colleges/hostels don't have the living arrangements described above for US, where a group of rooms share a lounge and kitchen etc. Think long corridors with single rooms off, with shared toilet and shower blocks at the end. A college/hostel would also have a common room or two, a bar and a dining hall, but often at some distance (could be five minute walk up the street). Gwinva (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the "many UK undergraduate colleges/hostels don't have the living arrangements described above for US, where a group of rooms share a lounge and kitchen etc" point. My UK experience was exactly this: eight or so single bedrooms sharing a kitchen, lounge & bathroom facilities. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was up at Grey, most students had single rooms, with a wash basin. Each corridor (say ten rooms) had a shared bathroom (with, as I recall, 2 baths and a shower, as well as loos). I think there was a small kitchen on every second floor - just enough to make cheese on toast, as we ate in hall. As for a lounge, we used the Junior Common Room, the college bar, or the snooker room.

Anti-Islamist bias in Muslim countries

"In Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Algeria, a man with a long beard is often treated as an Islamist — and sometimes denied work. Not here in Dubai." [1]

I've been to the Levant and don't remember seeing long beards but also don't recall hearing anything about discrimination against Islamists. I always assumed many people would identify as such. Background behind that passage? Thanks.

Lotsofissues (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In at least two of those countries (Egypt and Syria), the main Islamist party is an illegal organization. Algebraist 10:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But is the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood directed by anything resembling popular opinion? Lotsofissues (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Earliest Egyptian Sea Voyage

When was the earliest Egyptian sea voyage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.37.33 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The ancient Egyptians probably sailed in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea their entire history but like other ancient people they most likely never went far out to sea preferring to stay in sight of land. It is likely that their furthest voyage was to the Land of Punt and as that article says that was first recorded in the 25th century BCE. meltBanana 23:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Space exploration

_{<Question Moved to the Science Desk> Fribbler (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)}

irish surnames

[[2]]. I am concerned that the 5th and 20th name are in fact the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.143 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They are the same. The list has been mangled by repeated questionable edits. And the original source from The Observer, I can't seem to get that on their website any more. Fribbler (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to go back through the history to figure it all out. It appears that 19 and 20 should be Quinn and Moore - and that even predates the addition of the reference to the Observer list. I also was unsuccessful in located that original source. I am almost positive that 20 shouldn't be "Smidt". Who knew such a trivial article would attract so much vandalism? --LarryMac | Talk 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it from the http://www.newsuk.co.uk/ website as it apparently was a separate supplement not archived on the Observer website. meltBanana 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of model

I'm looking for the name of the model in an advert. It's a strange ad because there is no apparent brand name or product being sold. It features a scantily clad woman holding the moon in her hand, and the word "diesel" below her. Any know it? It's in England BTW, I saw it on the Tramlink. 79.76.159.93 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain there's no brand name? -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for the name of the woman, OP? OR the brand that is being marketed? Kushal (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the OP's post is "I'm looking for the name of the model in an advert" (emphasis added). Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is apparently a brand of jeans called Diesel. Their advert here involves the moon or some similar celestial object. Did the word "diesel" look like the logo on that image? Was the model in the advert wearing jeans? (Oops, I just noticed that Coneslayer has already pointed you in the same direction.) Deor (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the ad you're talking about. I'll try and get a picture on my way home so others might be able identify for you. JessicaThunderbolt 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's bad quality but there were quite a few people on the platform and I didn't want to be hanging around like a weirdo taking photos of sexy adverts ;) Here's the photo AND it's at a tram stop; how freaky is that! Could it be the same one? I don't know the models name but someone might. JessicaThunderbolt 19:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

yes that's the one. the one I saw was a few stops from New Addington. so whats her name? can I have a link to more of her pictures? 79.76.238.157 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NFL and MLB

Why some teams are belong to American side and others are belong to National? What is the difference between National and American? Why Toronto is called an American while Montreal was called National? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.94 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your title references the NFL, but your question doesn't seem to mention anything about (American) football. Major League Baseball (MLB) comprises two leagues, the National League and the American League. The Montreal Expos were created as a National League team simply because they applied for membership at a time when the NL was undergoing expansion. Similarly, the Toronto Blue Jays were awarded their franchise at a time when the AL was expanding. --LarryMac | Talk 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For the NFL side of things, the league is divided into two conferences, named the National Football Conference and American Football Conference. Unlike MLB, these are not distinct leagues -- rules and suchlike are identical between them. The names, however, date back to the AFC's origins as the American Football League, an upstart competitor of the NFL that became significant enough that it forced a 1970 merger. At the present time, though, a team being "American" or "National" signifies nothing more than its present conference affiliation. — Lomn 20:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The only significant difference between the American and National leagues is the use of the designated hitter. Rmhermen (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The National League of baseball was founded in 1876; the American League became a major league in 1903. Until recently, these were two separate organizations with their own umpiring crews and rulemaking bodies. Why were the Expos assigned to the NL? Don't know; I'm sure there was a reason why Montreal and San Diego were put in the NL while Kansas City and the Seattle Pilots were put in the AL. Toronto was added to the AL because that was the only league that expanded in 1977. They added two teams, and it's hard to make schedules for an odd number of teams, so they added both teams to the AL. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another difference is the "1 o'clock" AM rule in the AL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.205.224 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The correct date for the American league becoming a major league is 1901; 1903 was the first World Series between the two leagues. Montreal ended up in the National League because the AL was first to chose its expansion teams in 1968, picking KC and Seattle. Montreal joined the process late and the two spots left to fill were in the NL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two conferences in the NFL, the National Conference and the American Conference. The two conferences came about when the old American Football League was folded into the National Football League, most of the teams in the American Conference were AFL teams at the time. In order to even out the number of teams in each conference, the Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens), Baltimore Colts (now Indianapolis Colts) and Pittsburgh Steelers, who were NFL teams at the time, were moved to the American Conference. Since that time, there has been expansion. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Seattle Seahawks were expansion teams, with Tampa initially added to the National Conference and Seattle to the American Conference. Since that time, conference and team alignments have been modified. The Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Houston Texans and new Cleveland Browns are teams which were added since the merger. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Paying rent

My 24 year old son (from a previous marriage) lives with my husband and I. He pays us $200. a month in rent. Not because we need the money, more to teach him responsibility. He started working out of town this week (he pays for a hotel room 4 nights a week) and doesn't plan on comming home most weekends (opting to stay with friends in the area instead). Should he still pay us rent even tho he is basically never here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.20.248 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would he pay you rent if he's not living in your house? This seems a very strange question... --Tango (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

-There may the occassional weekend that he does come home and the majority of his things will still be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.20.248 (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could charge him for storage and per night, but it would seem petty to me. He's not staying with you because he doesn't want to support himself, he's just coming home to visit his parents, by the sound of it. Most parents complain their children don't visit enough, charging him to visit would be an unusual parenting style... --Tango (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....I agree with you. I'm simply gathering ammo for the possible disagreement that may occur with my spouse. lol Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.20.248 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The storage is probably most likely to be an issue - your spouse might not like having your son's stuff stored in the house as though he's living there when he's not actually living there. Perhaps you could entice him to pack a lot of his stuff to be kept as storage. That might ameliorate the issue a bit more. Steewi (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If he had a traditional landlord/tenant relationship, he would still owe the landlord the rent every month. If you're trying to teach him responsibility, why not charge him the $200 each month whether he's there or not? What are you teaching him otherwise? That as long as he's related to the landlord, he can get free storage for his stuff whether he "lives" there or not? That's not how the outside world works, so what really are you teaching him? Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the "outside world" includes families and most families won't ask for storage charges or put a kids belongings on the front lawn as soon as he moves out. Depending on the space you have I would get him to go through his belongings and pack them in crates you can store in the attic or somewhere. When my daughter moved out we got her to sort things into categories of rubbish, e-bay, charity shop, things to store and things to take. She made £50 on e-bay, a considerable donation to charity and had a surprising amount of rubbish tucked away in her room! We now store some crates in the attic and will probably keep them until she has a more permanent address. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with Dismas. One's parents can never be traditional landlords (which doesn't mean I'm against charging rent to adult children who live with their parents). Providing free storage for stuff is part of what family members sometimes do for each other. One way you can show your husband that your son has moved out, is by starting to use the room, for instance for storing some of your own stuff there. Keep the bed there of course, because I guess you still want your son to be able to stay the night when he comes. Good luck with your husband! --Lova Falk (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If the rent really isn't about the money then continue to charge him rent but keep the rent money stashed away. You could always return it to him when he wants to put a down payment on a house or security for his own apartment.--droptone (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

He's already paying rent for the hotel room, if its not about the money, how does charging him more money teach him any more of a lesson? The only lesson I'd learn from that is that my parents are jerks. He's working, he's going out on his own, the last thing he needs is another financial burden. If you said it was about the money I'd say charge him, but I just don't see what lesson there is left to learn. -- Mad031683 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mad03 - It would teach them about the 'real world' (oh how old i've become). In the real world If i go work in another city for 3 months my mortgage (and bills) still cost me money - EVEN if I have to pay for the hotel room whilst i'm working away. My bank don't say "oh well if you're paying for a hotel then we'll pay the mortgage for you - thanks for letting us know". If you've got a good mortgage they might say "take a payment holiday, you can always make up the difference later", but in general the answer is much like Paulie would say in Goodfellas "Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me". Now whether or not that lesson needs to be 'shown' in this instance isn't something i'd like to say but the lesson would be - that's what this 'real world' would be like if you had a house of your own. ny156uk (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between mortgage payments and rent - at the end of paying a mortgage, you own a house. Also, you could let out your house for those 3 months and probably cover the mortgage (or at least most of it, depends on current market conditions). --Tango (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I really appreciate everyones input, thank you! It looks as if he will be comming home some weekends, tho we very rarely see him as he spends most of his time with his friends. So I'm leaning towards stashing the rent money for down payment, security deposit, or a rainy day. Thanks again!

pebble tec

folks have made comments about the swimming pool finish called pebble tec, but i cannot find them ... HELP???

http://www.pebbletec.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.20.248 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear OP,

Please explain what your did to try to find this? I mean, I went to the most well known search engine on the planet (Google.com) and typed "pebble tec" into the only available space and pressed the RETURN key. http://www.pebbletec.com was the first AND second result it returned. How the heck did you not find them? Your computer skills are clearly good enough to find the Wikipedia help desk. How the heck is it possible that you didn't try google?!?!

SteveBaker (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible this is an advertisement? --Scray (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

's good to know that Wikipedia is more popular than Google or that swimming pool finish (thing). --Ouro (blah blah) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)