Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 22 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 24 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents

[edit] A recent thought

Would a woman love a man twice as much if he has two penises? Or vice versa--Light current 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, men with two penises can't normally use either - either one gets in the way when the other is trying to be used or they're both deformed and the man is totally impotent. Second, to be honest, the possibility isn't mildly disgusting: it's unbelievably disgusting. It's not like having three breasts at all. It's like having a deformed Siamese twin attached to the guy. Absolutely vomit-inducing.
Now if the guy had two tongues... --Charlene.fic 05:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to say. First of all, there is no empirical data to support a correlation between number of penises and the amount of love a woman has for the man. Also, women only have one vagina, so I'm not sure how having two penises is really an advantage. It would only be particularly helpful if you had a lot of groupies, and only 20 minutes till a show. --AstoVidatu 01:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming the vagina is the only orifice capable of receiving a penis? —Keenan Pepper 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"How do I love thee ? Let me count the ways..." :-) StuRat 03:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
To quote the famous american poet Busta Rhymes, "Woo-haah, woo-haah!" 惑乱 分からん 11:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless you wanna get kinky, she would have to be really flexible to use them both at once. --AstoVidatu 02:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I just asked that question about a minute ago to a girl. She said it was disgusting right after I figured out that a girl with three breasts would also be (interesting!) mildly disgusting from the weirdness. Please no body post the link to Wikipedia's article on cutting the penis in half. Allow these fine men to not have the pleasure of seeing somebody taking tatooing and body modification to the next step. If you have to, DON'T LOOK AT THE PICTURES under external links. DON'T DO IT!!! Literally, not for weak stomachs. I usually laugh at that disclaimer, but I can definitely see for this one. I got a little bit nauseous. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Soon as anyone says dont put beans up your nose, some idiot will try it!--Light current 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
THere was a TV programme a few years ago about this chap in South America I think who had the (mis)fortune to have 2 penises. Although they were not shown directly, there was a shot of him urinating against a wall and it left 2 wet patches. Anyway, they interviewed his wife (who had not been with any men before they got married) and she thought it was normal and was very happy with him!--Light current 05:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a person for everyone... How consoling... ;D 惑乱 分からん 11:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


I think it would depend on the woman. --Proficient 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, how much a woman loves a man depends on a lot of things and isn't immediately proportional to the number of penises he has. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beans up Nose

How do I remove them? --192.168.1.1 10:41 22 September 2006 (PST)

Do you know which variety of bean they are?--Shantavira 06:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
How does the variety have a bearing on the problem? Mind you if they are baked beans, I suppose you could squash the nose and then blow it hard.--Light current 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I would tackle a runner bean rather differently from a pinto bean, wouldn't you? Seriously though, most people are best advised to see a doctor for this sort of ailment, but I considered that answer too obvious ;-) --Shantavira 11:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah and I think broad beans could be a bit painful--Light current 11:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You could wait for it to germinate and then pull it out by the leaves. Or you could see a doctor, who could easily look in your nose with an otoscope, grab it with forceps, pull it out, and charge an amazing amount of money to your insurance company under the "removing foreign body" code. If you leave it in there long enough, it will generate a room-clearing odor, unimaginably foul. alteripse 12:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I suppose thats one way to inter-septum! 8-)--Light current 13:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought otoscopes were for ears. (As fate would ahve it, I have otoscopes on my mind because of an earache.) —Tamfang 07:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In your mind? THats pushing it in a bit far isnt it?--Light current 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Grow your pinkie fingernail really long and dig it out with that(hotclaws**== 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

Funny You should ask... There was a Toronto Star article about this just the other day[1]-Dhodges 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poem

I am looking for a poem about the Vietnam war (I think, it might be WWII or the Korean war) where the author keeps repeating a statement along the lines of:

"But I am not here [anymore?]"

I have googled it but couldn't find it. He talks about the fact that he is indeed IN the war in body but his mind has faded somewhere else.

Thanks, --69.138.61.168 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it. You can look herefor the source, but this sounds like it. It is from the book THE SHARP END: THE FIGHTING MAN IN WORLD WAR, by John Ellis according to the source.

I am not here: Though I walk in the heat of the day, And rest through the dark hours of night. I am not here But a thousand miles away. Though I breathe and eat and sleep, And see and act and speak, There is no cheer; I am not here. A disassociated self The ether spans, And lives the life the body bans: Though I am, I am not: It is clear, I am not here.

--AstoVidatu 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historian

Whenever I am watching an interview any sort of history documentery, a message pops up on the bottom of the TV saying that the guy being interviewed is some historian. Like

John Doe
Lead historian of some institution

What I'm asking is this: is that really a carreer? Could I possibly get a job as one of these "historians"? I mean, what do historians do? I suppose you could say they sit in their offices all day reading history books but do they get paid for that? Russian F 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Teaching, writing, researching-usually a combination of all three. Payment comes in the form of salaries, fees (from published articles) and royalties (from book sales), and sometimes grants. White Guard 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For a specific example, a history museum or historical society is likely to employ many historians, to ensure that they are portraying history correctly to the public. StuRat 03:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
So one can get paid for no other reason than that they have a vast knowledge of history, and are willing to share their opinions and speculations of it with others...? Russian F 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
They have more than just "opinions and speculations", they also know a great many facts. While these could be researched by non-historians, as well, if you want a quick answer it's good to have somebody who knows the facts already. This is especially true if you don't know the name of the document, person, etc., for which your are searching. StuRat 06:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Historians who work for institutes and organizations produce books, articles, and other works which belong to their employer and which the employer can offer for sale. Historians who work for established corporations (and a lot of older companies have a staff historian) catalogue and preserve corporate historical documents, photos, and other ephemera, produce books and articles for the company, work with the corporation's PR people during historically based ad campaigns, and advise management. Both type of historian can be trotted out to speak to the media, give speeches, etc. for the benefit of their employer. --Charlene.fic 05:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Its a bit like a pianter or sculptor. Who pays them and why?--Light current 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It is sort of like that...people often look at some painting and remark that their young child could have done the same thing, or that they themselves could do it, but of course they couldn't. Likewise, while anyone could read a lot of books and learn a bunch of facts, it takes years and years of studying and training to be a worthwhile historian. (And without that, you get popular history, Hollywood movies, and Dan Brown.) Adam Bishop 16:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Some untrained popular historians are not that bad, though. But most are pretty awful. I reserve a special type of ire for journalists who decide to play at historian — the skills for journalism and history overlap in some places, but diverge heavily in others. You'll find no better source for sensationalism than a journalist's try at history. --Fastfission 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes maybe historians are of more use to society than we think but I really cant put my finger on why.--Light current 16:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Because "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them". StuRat 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And even those who do learn them are usually doomed to repeat them. ;-) But in any case, history is important stuff, and it does not just appear out of nowhere. People fight over history, people make decisions about the future based on history, people appeal to history to tell them who they are and where they came from. And while it does not take a PhD in history to do any of those things, it sometimes does take a PhD to be able to sort out the truth from the false of it. --Fastfission 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
OK but once youve sorted out the truth, what can you do with it except write a book or make a TV programme? I know its interesting and I like a lot of the historical programmes, but what does it actualy do for society that justifies having so many historians--Light current 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Most historians teach history to undergraduates. Most people find that to be pretty useful. --Fastfission 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
They could be useful in solving certain political disputes. For example, knowing the historic boundaries between two nations might help to establish a modern boundary which will be accepted, preventing a border war. Legal historians can also help to establish legal precedent, thus determining modern law (based on precedent). StuRat 03:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Every once in a while CNN needs a historical perspective on Bush's latest tactics. Since they've all been tainted by modernisms like democracy and internet porn, the next best thing to resurrecting big Alex is probably to ask a historian what he thinks.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Also... learning how to be a historian is not the same thing as knowing a lot of facts. Unfortunately secondary education in history always overemphasizes memorizing facts; I have no idea why. Most real historians do not take time to memorize facts; anything worth knowing will stay with you over time as you work because you will come across it many, many times (history books are very redundant). The hardest thing for most people to learn to do in regards to history is to learn how to think historically. It is a much more subtle thing than facts and theories and methods. Most of the failures of popular history come from failures to think historically; even academics screw it up. --Fastfission 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I know some people who think hysterically. Now for instance, what percentage of people with a history degree become historians? Why-- cos theres no work for them!--Light current 21:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The number of people who become historians with an undergraduate history degree is very low — it is not why most people learn history. The number of people who become historians with a graduate degree is very high — it's really the only reason to get a graduate degree in history. But yeah, there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be a historian, but there are still a lot of them. The American Historical Association claims to have a membership of around 14,000 people. It's not a huge number, compared with everything else, but it's still pretty substantial. In any case, one of the reasons most people don't want to be historians is because they don't find history interesting enough to do as a full time job, and frankly because it doesn't pay very well. It's a profession mostly full of people who are really interested in doing it for its own sake (or who at one point were interested in it for its own sake). It is not really a role one generally just falls into. --Fastfission 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK well that answers my questions and it makes sense. I also get the impression that lots of historians just do it for fun (ie amateurs). I agree that a degree in history has wider applications probably than history itself. I suppose a similar argument might apply to archaeology too.--Light current 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dog in men in black II

Frank the pug
Frank the pug

Hi, does anyone know what type of breed the dog in "Men in black II" is? Many thanks. 203.171.69.39 09:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulldog most likely. --Brand спойт 11:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)*

I thought it was a Boston terrier(hotclaws**== 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

It was a pug. --Evan Carlstrom 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I second pug. So does Men in Black II, which gives his character name as "Frank the pug".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent

Do American ages of consent (I know there are different) allow to participate in adult movies shootings? Is there any official source concerning it? Thanks. --Brand спойт 11:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The law is complicated, but the age of consent for sex in a movie would be the same as the age of consent for sex. See ages of consent in North America.--Shantavira 11:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw one webpage once with gay porn, and the disclaimer stated something like: "all models are over 18 years of age. Please ensure that you are over 21 years before entering", although such disclaimers are constantly breeched by people just by blatant lying, ;) I think it was interesting that the age for watching porn actually was higher than for participating in it... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 11:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The questioner appears to be asking if underage actors are allowed to appear in adult productions, though it's obvious that he means to imply they aren't performing any kind of sexual act. I have always assumed there was a rule, though I have never actually heard about it before. I'd be interested to find out what the actual write-up on this one is.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I was shocked to see Thora Birch, who was sixteen when she filmed American Beauty, not only displaying her breasts, but fondling them. Christian Slater was only sixteen when he did a nude scene in The Name of the Rose. In some US jurisdictions, both activities could be considered child pornography. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Though apparently the fact that child labor representatives were present at the time makes the law moot.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions have different laws in the States. Do parents in the USA encourage their kids to enter the porn industry? If so, why there are laws convicting sex offenders? Is there any moral standard in the US to curb this blatant abuse of freedom?

What about non-acting roles? Can a 16 year-old teenager hold the boom mike for a hardcore porn shoot? -167.1.120.20 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

pug

I had a similar reaction to Zoe's when seeing the 15 year old Dominique Swain playing the title role in Adrian Lyne's 1997 version of Nabokov's Lolita. One particular scene, while not "visually" graphic, was extremely suggestive, showing Swain very apparently having sexual intercourse with Jeremy Irons while reading a comic book. I really don't know how the producers managed to get away with the whole thing. I've read the book, and what I do know is that the "actual" Lolita was meant to be a pre-pubescent 12 year old child, not an extremely attractive, post-pubescent 15 year old young woman. The film was meant to be about a pedophile, not an ephebophile. It's not that I approve of sexual relations between an adult and an underage post-pubescent, it's just that the rationale for the restriction changes. While it is clearly sick for an adult to be attracted to pre-pubescent children, in many cases (though tastes may differ of course) almost any heterosexual male who claims to never be attracted in any way to any fully developed yet underage young women such as the 15 year old Dominique Swain in Lolita is very likely lying. Pedophilia is sick. Ephebophilia, and sexual acts done in pursuance of that attraction, is illegal because the young woman is not yet considered emotionally and intellectually mature enough to consent to sex. I found it particularly manipulative of Lyne cast a very attractive 15 year old young woman to play the part of a 12 year old child. Although it's only three years, there's a BIG difference between a sexually undeveloped 12 year old girl and a fully developed 15 year old young woman. I found it particularly manipulative and downright unethical for Lyne to have done such a thing, as I'm quite sure that quite a few healthy heterosexual adult males must have found themselves questioning whether they were a bunch of sick pedophiles like Humbert Humbert while watching the film, and finding the 15 year old Swain rather attractive, while being told she was a 12 year old. Loomis 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

At the age of 15 too women r not fully developed. Porn should be censored & it is the root cause of terror.

Sexually, though not necessarily psychologically, with certain possible exceptions, a 15 year old woman is definitely "fully developed". Menstruation has begun, the breasts are fully formed, and the rest of the body is basically that of a woman, not a child. It may actually shock you to hear that in my my (infidel) country of Canada, the age of consent is actually 14. Though, as a 33 year old male, I'd consider it rather innapropriate for me to engage in sexual relations with any woman that hasn't at the very least reached her 20's. It might help if you finally revealed where you're from and from what religion/philosophy your particular views are coming from. Perhaps it may shed some light on all of your "root of all terror" rhetoric. Certainly the "root of all terror" can't be the actually "perpetrators of all terror". Surely it must somehow be caused by the decadent infidel west! Allah would surely be proud of your brilliant insights. Loomis 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Where would you find the figures for the energy consumption of the UK over the last 10 yares (or less if not possible). PREFERABLY could i have the figures for the individual counties, districts, admin. areas etc. Ive had a look on wiki and gov sites but havent found much.

Thanks, --William dady 12:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would advise you to start here. David | Talk 12:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Wag=Rub?

Is wagging their tails the dog equivalent of masturbating or not? --HomfrogHomfrogTell me a story!ContribulationsHomfrog 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's the equivalent of wiggling their backsides because the're excited.--Light current 13:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe some dogs could masturbate by rubbing, though, except they do it with their "front tails". (At least that goes for male dogs... Don't know about jackin' bitches... ) 惑乱 分からん 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Tail wagging has nothing to do with masturbation. Dogs can certainly self-stimulate with their tongues or by rubbing up against things, and if one owns an un-neutered male dog there is a chance you'll see it doing both of these things. I don't know if female dogs masturbate (I've never seen it, anyway, but that doesn't mean anything generally). --Fastfission 23:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, I don't understand why one would associate tail-wagging with masturbation. There are plenty of reasons, but most of all, a dog's tail is simply not a genital. Of course, humans (and therefore possibly other animals like dogs) have many other somewhat erogeneous zones outside of the genital region (such as the nipples, the mouth, etc.) but still, you can rub your nipples to your heart's content yet still I can't see that qualifying as masturbation.

As for female dogs (and cats, and even birds, like the parakeet I once had), I'm quite sure they masturbate, but in their own unique way. I remember my parakeet raising her tail high in the air and getting this really freaky look in her eyes one day as if she were REALLY in heat. A little why later, she laid an (of course unfertilized) egg. (I felt bad for the poor thing...I figured she could use a companion so I bought another male parakeet. I thought she'd like it, but no! She totally freaked out and actually KILLED the poor little guy! Alright then! No action for you!) It's even worse with female cats. It can get rather creepy actually. They also, whenever they're in heat, get this really freaky look on their faces, start making these really creepy whining noises and hold up their rear ends as if they desperately need some "action". As for female dogs, it's a bit similar. They also can get into this weird frenzy where they, well it's a bit difficult to describe, they essentially "back-up" into whatever they can find...a person, a piece of furniture, whatever. Now THAT I would qualify as masturbation. But the tail-wagging thing...no. That just seems to be a sign of emotional excitement. Nothing sexual. Loomis 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experiences... ;) 惑乱 分からん 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of cartoon?

10 years ago (mabye more?) I remember watching a cartoon series on TV, name was something like "1001 Americas" (not in English, I dont know english name). Whats interesting is that this series was part educational, concerning itself with lost cultures of Maya, Aztec and Incas. I tried googling, and imdb, searching wikipedia to no avail. Its most likely that original name is totaly different from what I remember. Anybody knows this series? Shinhan 14:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mysterious Cities of Gold springs to mind.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  15:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic wiki (I think? correct me if I'm wrong!) has a list of international titles [2] though none of them seem to have a name along the lines of "1001 Americas".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car Hire In One Country - Leave In Another

I contacted Europcar to see if I could hire a vehicle in the Netherlands and leave it in the UK and they said it was not possible. Does anyone know of any other companies that might operate in the Netherlands and allow me to do this? --Username132 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For anyone in the US, he's talking about car rental. StuRat 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What does hiring mean in the US then? Judging by the redirect it's probably employment. Someone who is more prolific in English might internationalise this redirect (ie disabiguate). DirkvdM 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it basically means to employ, and usually applies to people, so when you say "hire a car" in American it sounds like you're taking in a car as a new employee. I'll take a look at that redirect.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In the US, you "hire" a person, not an inanimate object. I am curious, though, as to what "rental" means outside the US. Is it a synonym for "hiring" ? And what do you call it when a company "hires" an employee ? StuRat
Employ? An employer employs an employee. Equivalent: A hirer hires a hiree? :) DirkvdM 08:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the US, "hire" means a change in status from unemployed to employed, so it's not quite the same as "employ". After you "hire" someone, then you "employ" them. StuRat 10:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Also note that, in the US, "rental" applies to short terms and "leasing" for long terms, although there is some overlap. A now archaic use of the word "let" once meant to rent, as well, as in the old song King of the Road: "...rooms to let, 50 cents...". StuRat 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So someone who lets rooms is a letter? DirkvdM 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm American and I might say "hire a car" if it comes with a driver. —Tamfang 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hertz do it. Natgoo 16:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but with what frequency? 8-)--Light current 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been to Europe twice and certain countries like France (and possibly Belgium and Italy) have this odd little scheme called "achat-rachat". I used it each time. It seems to be a result of the car companies finding a loop-hole in the tax laws.
Basically, in a country like France, there's an ridiculously high sales tax on NEW vehicles sold to FRENCH citizens. Something absurd like a 30% tax. So what the clever car companies like Peugeout and Renault have done is they've developed a scheme whereby FOREIGNERS, (such as myself,) who are NOT subject to the ridiculously high tax, enter into a contract to "buy" (Achat) the brand new car, use it for a few weeks, and then "resell" (Rachat) the car to the original dealer. The car is now "used", and therefore not subject to the ridiculously high sales tax. It's an odd little scheme, but I'm not complaining. Both times I got a brand new car to drive around Europe with at an extremely reasonable price.
So to answer the actual question, I'm not sure if the scheme is available in the Netherlands, but I'm pretty sure they have it in Belgium. I'm not really sure if the whole scheme would allow you to leave the car in the UK, but it's quite possible. I'd call up these companies and ask if their "achat-rachat" scheme would allow for such a thing.
I just can't help but relate my personal experience in this case. When I did the whole "achat-rachat" thing with Reneault in France, I used the car to drive up to the UK. I had fun exploring England, and then headed up to Scotland. Unfortunately, though I know the basics of manual transmission, I'm definitely no pro. When I got up to Inverness, I got into a real complicated situation. I was trying to make a U-turn. I was driving on the left side of the street as they do there. To make a long story short, between the manual transmission which I'm not so great at, driving on the wrong side of the road, trying to make a U-turn...well the whole thing was just too much and so while backing up I ended up sideswiping a car filled with very polite, very gracious Scots. The reason I'm saying all this is that I had expected Reneault to be totally pissed off with me for wrecking their brand-new car. Yet quite the opposite happened, they were incredibly cool about the whole thing, and paid for the rental of a new car (a Vauxhall this time, with the steering wheel on the RIGHT side, and me, with my extremely limited skills in driving standard, (and being right-handed) now having to sit on the right side of the car, shift with my left hand, and drive on the wrong side of the road all at once...it was quite the challenge to say the least!)
Anyway, I've gone on way too long about this. All I suggest is to call Peugeot or Reneault and ask them about their "Achat-Rachat" programme. They just might have exactly what you're looking for. (Sorry for the unnecessary, long, boring story about my travels! I just hope my suggestion may be of help). Loomis 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The scheme wouldn't work if you bought the car in France, because the whole point is to sell it in France without the tax. However, if you buy the car elsewhere and sell it in Frnace, it might just work. But then he's planning to travel from the Netherlands to the UK, so ... Btw, 30% tax doesn't seem too much if you compare it with taxes on tobacco, which come closer to 1000%. And before you bring up the health risk stories - cars cost more life-years than cigarettes do. DirkvdM 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a really cool deal; thanks, Loomis! BTW, Peugeot has a nice website about this program. Pickups in France (and some nearby cities) are free; it's only open to non-EU residents, unfortunately. --ByeByeBaby 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When I said the tax was ridiculous, I was actually more referring to the fact that it only applies to "new" cars, whereas "used" cars don't seem to have any tax whatsoever, that's the part that I found rather silly. In Canada we also tend to have ridiculously high taxes on cigarettes. Though our packs are slightly bigger (25 cigarettes instead of the standard 20) we have to pay something like $9 a pack! (Unless, of course, you go to any nearby Indian reservation, (which is like 10 minutes away for me) where by treaty they're exempt from the tax and they'll sell you a pack of 20 for under $2! (though they're really not supposed to be selling to non-aboriginals. We're both really cheating)). The reason I went through the whole boring story is because, effectively, I bought the car in France and left it in Scotland (not that I'm encouraging anyone to PURPOSELY get into a car accident in the UK! :) I'm just not sure if you got what I was saying. But you probably did, I'm just a bit confused by your statement. The whole point of the scheme is to both buy it, AND sell it back in France. But you never know. They might have some sort of special plans where you can buy it in say, Belgium, and leave it in the UK. I'm really not an expert on how the whole thing works. I just think it might be worth a phone call or two to these two carmakers to ask them if they have such plans. You don't really have much to lose, and they may very well have something tailored exactly to your needs. Loomis 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you're right, Dirk. When the Brits say "hire", though of course it may include employment, (though I'm not 100% sure on that one), I do know that the word "hire" there is also what Americans and Canadians would call "rent". There, if you "hire" a car, it's the same as "renting" one here. Loomis 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How high are the taxes on second hand cigarettes in Canada? :) Taxing a product only once is common practise (and makes sense). It's the product that is taxed, not the sale. That's why one company buying a half product from another company is not taxed - the tax is only for the end product. A better know example is a tax refund if you buy a product for use in your company. Same goes for taxing second hand goods. Tax is already payed. DirkvdM 08:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps things are different in the Netherlands, (after all, it's a different culture, so I wouldn't presume to know,) but in Canada there doesn't seem to be any market whatsoever for second hand cigarettes, and so the tax issue never comes up. Once the tobacco and paper have burnt into ashes and the filter has become completely yellowed, we consider second hand cigarettes to be garbage. But then again, perhaps you clever Dutch are onto something that hasn't occured to us Canadians yet. :-)
Seriously, though, in Canada, as in many other countries, we have what's called a Value-Added-Tax (VAT). Every sale, in, let's say the manufacturing of a car, whether it's from the steel company to the parts manufacturer, the parts manufacturer to the car manufacturer, the car manufacturer to the dealer, the dealer to to the consumer, and even the consumer to a second-hand consumer are ALL taxed, however with a corresponding tax deduction. The system, while rather complicated, is actually rather fair I'd say. Loomis 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wel if the tax is (completely?) deducted, then there is efectively no tax, is there? Which makes sense. There might just be different ways to implement it. Btw, VAT is BTW in Dutch, which translates as Tax Added Value. Which may or may not be as strange as it sound when you think of it, depending on how you think of it. I think. DirkvdM 07:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course the tax isn't completely deducted. Take my above example involving the manufacturing of a car. Say the VAT is 10%. If the steel manufacturer sells a unit of steel to the parts manufacturer for $1, they'd have to charge the parts manufacturer $1.10, and remit the extra 10¢ to the government. Now if the parts manufacturer now transforms that steel into a $2 part, they then have to charge $2.20 to the car manufacturer. What they've done is added another $1 in value to the material. And it's this extra value that should be taxed, not the entire sales price all over again. Therefore, of the 20¢ they collect in tax, they're only required to remit 10¢ of it to government, and (ultimately) get to keep the other 10¢ as compensation for the 10¢ they paid to the steel company. This way the government doesn't get to keep collecting a full sales tax at each level of the supply chain, which of course wouldn't be fair, as, in theory at least, they'd essentially be able to tax the same thing an infinite number of times. Loomis 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CITGO & 7-11

Do recent events mean that CITGO and 7-11 are now a vast leftist spy network? 71.100.167.194 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can't answer neutrally, because I've never actually considered Venezuela (whose PDVSA owns Citgo) to be a grave threat, but I'd say no, they aren't a vast leftist spy network. And 7-Eleven is a Japanese-owned company that has partnered with Citgo; Japan is our friend, last I checked, and so are it's companies (excluding Toyota!) Picaroon9288 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't both of these companies start up as American companies and don't most Americans think that they still are? How many other companies in the US that statrted up as American are now foreign owned? 71.100.167.194 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If Americans thought that Citgo is currently an American company, they may be learning something new. People in the city of Boston are trying to get a large Citgo sign removed from Fenway Park because of the company's ties to Venezuela. The main argument being about Hugo Chavez's comments about George W. Bush being the devil. news link. Dismas|(talk) 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If you read the linked story, you will see that it is not accurate to say that "people in the city of Boston" are trying to remove the neon Citgo sign. This is an effort by a single, right-wing Boston city councillor who could not get even one other city councillor to sign on to a resolution calling for the sign's removal. The sign is a historic city landmark that most Bostonians are fond of. Also, I suspect that many Bostonians have a view of Bush that is similar to the views of Chavez and secretly cheer him on. I do not think that the right-wing city councillor will be successful. Marco polo 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Going buy the State Department's relationship with Cuba if Venezuela continues to align itself with Cuba much less North Korea and Iran there maybe a lot more contention over anything associated with Venezuela including tourism and the disappearance of Natalee Holloway who some think was kidnapped and taken there. 71.100.167.194 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
United Defense, Technicolor, Saudi Aramco, Chrysler (including Dodge and Jeep), and T-Mobile were all mostly owned by investors from the United States, once, but this isn't a reason not to buy from them. Picaroon9288 22:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not suggesting boycott (or buycott) as a response but only the knowledge of who the owner is. You have to remember that at one time Wal-Mart was commited to selling only goods made in American - even though the owners of the companies may have resided offshore. I'm just wondering if that is why they finally changed their policy - because there just isn't that much stuff left to sell if you were to limit it to made in America by companies that are owned by Americans who actually live here; dual citizenship and all that. 71.100.167.194 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of companies still US-owned; labor is just cheaper in Asia, (the place where nearly all of Wal-Mart's foreign goods come from,) so United States owned companies outsource there to keep costs down, which, in turn, helps Wal-Mart keep costs down. Picaroon9288 23:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And since I can only apply for a CITGO home heating oil discount voucher based on income (or whatever the criteria the government of Venezuela sets) there is very little likelihood of a leftist conspiracy to take over American businesses as a means of gaining leftist political support inside the United States. 71.100.167.194 23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Catchpole

Yesterday, September 22, 2006, a number of newspapers including the Durango Herald mentioned Judith Catchpole in their "This Day in History" article. I would like to know more about her case--how she came to trial and the legitimacy of her defence and the final verdict (in my own search I have come across contradictions as to whether she was accquited or convicted). This is what was written in the Durango Herald:

"100+ years ago: In 1656, in Patuxent, Md., an all-female jury (the first of its kind in the colonies) heard the case of Judith Catchpole, who was accused of murdering her infant child. (The jury, which believed Catchpole's assertion that she hadn't even been pregnant, acquitted her.)"


Thank you, Megan

Most of the Google hits are just those "today in history" sites, but I did find some of the testimony at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genbel/may/marycourtbel.htm. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penny the hero

If Penny is the hero and there are three in a bed, how many points do I get? -- SGBailey 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably be happy if I'd be together with only Penny in a bed, I wouldn't need any more points than what she might reward me... =S 惑乱 分からん 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-20 or maybe -40? [3]
ARgghh! Alluding! -20 points! 8-)--Light current 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanities, Literature and Entertainment

How do I get in contact with Konami Video Games, or Team Silent? I could not find out from the Wikipedia pages. I just need an email or address. thanks :-D

Tried the website? http://www.konami.com/ Light current 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you make a comment, you should sign it with 4 tildes (~~~~) so that we know who you are. Яussiaп F 00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)