Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

July 30

Identify this salesman

Last year I remember seeing a documentary about a salesman who had mental/physical health problems such that when he went to apply for traditional employment during the mid-20th century, he was written off, so he made a living by going door to door and selling products to people in the Northwestern US. He did this until he retired sometime during the 1990s or 2000s. Who was this salesman? 128.2.247.30 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Porter (salesman)? Nanonic (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How many countries other than Canada have taxes on existing taxes

In Soviet Canuckistan, the provincial tax is applied AFTER the federal tax. For non-Canadians, let's say something cost 100$, the federal tax is 5 %, so it ends up being 105$. However, the provincial tax is applied on the 105$ rather than the 100$. How many other countries have such a [retarded] system of goods taxation ? Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone may be making a mistake here. For all provinces except Quebec and Prince Edward Island, the PST is to be charged on the selling price of the item before GST. See here for the rule in Ontario. The GST is to be charged on the selling price of the item before PST. They are required to be two separate, independent calculations. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 13% (or whatever it is now) in Ontario in total, not 5% and then 8% on top of that. So something that costs $100 will be $113 with taxes. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No mistake, I'm from Quebec. I was assuming it was the same in the other Canadian provinces. I'l have to add this to my reasons to emigrate to Switzerland. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well most people pay an Income tax on their earnings, they are then likely to pay Sales tax/Value added tax on their purchases, which will have already be costed to account for Corporation tax that the company pays as well as taking into account income-tax for setting wages for their employees. Tax on taxes in that regard is quite normal, but in the scenario you describe it appears to be 2 taxes charged together (rather than at different times/sources) but applied 1 after the other? That seems quite unusual, i'll rack my brain further but can't think of one that's the same off-hand. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, the price of petrol (gasoline) is higher than it needs to be. There's an excise added to the basic price, then the GST is calculated on the (price + excise), so we're being taxed twice. The previous government, which applied both the excise and the GST, always maintained they would have liked to do something about it, but couldn't. I never understood that. The present government has been silent about it, afaik, preferring to address the price issue by attempting to stimulate competition between sellers. It's had limited if any success. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? We get taxed on income, then taxed on gst when we buy, which also has an excise tax, and built into the price as well is company taxes, and payroll tax, and when the import the oil there are import taxes and tarriffs. Infact for every dollar an Australian earns, 49% of it goes back to the goverment. An average of 25% in income tax and 24% already built in the price of anything we buy. Fuel would be one of the highest, but everything is on average 49% tax.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP was asking about goods which attract more than one direct tax levied by governments. The pre-tax price of goods is generally calculated to take into account all the producer/middleman/seller's overheads (including their own company taxes, FBT etc), which is understandable otherwise they might go out of business. But those are not taxes that are directly applied to goods by a government. We pay to withdraw cash from an ATM. That may be to recover some of the banks' costs (such as the taxes they have to pay), but the charge we pay is not a tax per se. A retailer can choose to mark down prices any day of the week, even to way below cost price if it suits their purposes. But there's still a GST payable by the buyer, and usually that's the only tax the buyer pays. With petrol, it's a double tax payable by the buyer - fuel excise, and GST. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was more specifically asking about which other places in our lovely world tax taxes. In a logical Quebec they would tax the provincial AND federal tax on the base price of the product. But considering we recently abolished a long-standing law that prevented the selling of yellow margarine, because it was acknowledged that Quebecers were too much retarded to know the difference between butter and margarine; and that Microsoft's Windows 7 sweepstake is only unavailable to residents of Quebec, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba, we can pretty much forget about something logical coming from the Quebec government. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Quebecers, it seesm the margerine colour/butter-colour is to protect the pockets of those in the butter business rather than to stop unknowing Quebecers buying margarine when they're trying to buy butter. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In America, your salary is taxed; if you save some of it, the interest is taxed; if you invest in equities, the dividends are taxed; if you buy property for later sale, the capital gains is taxed; and if you try to avoid all that by spending it, odds are you'll be in a local jurisdiction where sales are taxed. Here in Hong Kong, it is exactly the same, expect interest, dividends, capital gains and sales are not taxed. Just salary. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Prince and Duke of Girona

Who was Pedro: 1394 - 1410, Duque de Gerona? I can't find whose son he was. Also were female heiress Princess of Girona in their own right, same as they were Princess of Asturias. Aragon didn't seem to have the same view on woman taking the throne as Castile and Leon. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] The Catalan Wikipedia says he was the son of John I of Aragon yet says he died in the same year as his birth. Our article agrees:Prince of Girona. Only the Spanish language article gives him till 1410. Fribbler (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

if I get an idea while using a prescription drug, do the rights belong to the Pharma company?

First of all, obviously the answer should be no, however, medical companies have "patented" sequences of DNA which are in everyone, as well as simply looking at certain metrics as part of a diagnosis, so that it's illegal for a doctor to look at those to make that diagnostic without paying them. It's not beyond possibility that drugs would be "licensed" to me, and that the ideas produced as a side effect of them would belong to the pharmaceutical company. In fact, does this happen? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am not asking for legal advice. I am simply curious for entertainment purposes about what people's understandings of the law are.

No it doesn't happen and there is no way they could prove it until they know how the brain works exactally. If you get an idea to create something just patent it and it belongs to you.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An analogous case would be if you designed something using a computer or software that was patented; in such a case, the computer company wouldn't own your invention. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The smallprint of some software claims they do own it in that case, though I don't think such an idea has ever been tested in court. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A more specific example: if you write a book in Microsoft Word, that doesn't give Microsoft the rights to the book. (And don't go getting any ideas, Mr. Ballmer.) NeonMerlin 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m going to start by questioning some assumptions. Doctors break someone’s law (who? where?) by looking at something to make a diagnosis? Not looking sounds to me like malpractice. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism, liberalism and libertarianism

Is it right to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism? The impression I got from Classical_liberalism#.22Classical_liberalism.22_and_libertarianism is that several classical liberal philosophers supported welfare liberalism, thus they cannot be classified as libertarians. Then what is the diffenerce between classical liberalism and modern liberalism? And why some people say classical liberalism and libertarianism are same? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why classical liberalists typically where less 'hardcore' is typically because in their times goverments were alot smaller - so having some welfare and tax was often thought of as almost insignificant. Even most libertarians are for some kind of minimum tax system. Classical liberalism is very close to hard-line libertarianism (or they are the same) in most cases. And both of those are very very far from modern liberalism, which really lacks the acceptance of natural laws of freedom. So classical is often tied to libertarianism but very rarely tied to modern liberalism.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Many liberals, such as Rousseau and John Locke, believed in the idea of a social contract, the idea that people could restrict their freedoms and enter into a society in order to enjoy the benefits of communal living. This is antithetical to the traditions of libertarianism (on both left and right) which oppose all rules and restrictions on human action.

Libertarians such as Ayn Rand believed that self-interest is the only way of judging if an action is right or wrong, but many of the figures of Enlightenment liberalism, such as Adam Smith, believed that human beings had a natural moral sense which would guide our judgment of what is right or wrong (see Moral sense theory).

Following from this, liberals such as Adam Smith believed in the free market because they thought it was the most efficient method of generating wealth, rather than taking an a priori view of its merits, and were willing to advocate state control in areas where this would be more useful to the population; classical liberals didn't share right-wing libertarians' fundamental belief in the sacredness of property. Classical liberalism was largely an economic theory, not an all-encompassing theory about human nature, politics, or morality. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith was the one who said: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"the traditions of libertarianism ... oppose all rules and restrictions on human action" is rubbish: see Non-aggression principle. —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiberius Gracchus, section Tiberius' death

In the version of Plutarch's Lives I have it says, Tiberius tried to save himself by flight. As he was running, he was stopped by one who caught hold of him by the gown; but he threw it off, and fled in his under-garment only. I assume the "gown' he is referring to is a toga and the under-garment is the tunic. Was the toga he was wearing a toga praetexta, an ordinary white toga with a broad purple stripe on its border? Can not find anywhere where Plutarch says that Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his prosecution and death.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Confucius say?

"One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any mention in Analects, are there any other sources to look in?83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I researched that a very long time ago. It is a Vietnamese phrase attributed to Confucius during the direct Chinese rule over Vietnam (around 111BC). As with most "Confucius says..." phrases, it has nothing to do with Confucius. Of course, you'll find millions of references that state it is quote from Confucius and maybe 3 that explain that it isn't. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Confucius, but there apparently was an authentic old Japanese saying something along the lines of "Never trust a woman, even after she has bore seven sons to you".... AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it Confucius who said, "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just imagine the sort of trouble you'd get in if you lit a woman on fire and began sucking on her.

(Oh, there's no way to make that look good...) HalfShadow 02:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Moon Publicity

www.moonpublicity. com. Is this a hoax? Google is not helping. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.246.140 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly a scam. It might be possible to draw something on the Moon's surface, but it would be very small and invisible from Earth. To make it visible, the image would have to be hundreds or thousands of km in extent and therefore would be astronomically expensive to create. Also read moonpublicity's footnote:

Disclaimer: Investing involves risk. Licensing Shadow Shaping technology is no different. There are a number of identified challenges as well as unknown risks. Consult with professional advisers before registering to bid. The licensing offer is only available to accredited investors where permitted by law. Information provided is for educational purposes and is not guaranteed for accuracy or applicability. No warranties or guarantees, neither written nor oral, are provided with this offer.

IMHO, this seems to be a scam to separate the foolish from their money - you need to bid a minimum of $46,000 with full payment expected by Feb 2010, leaving the winning bidder with a massive financial outlay with no convincing prospect of a return on the investment for a very long time to come. Consider that after 10,000 years of civilization, humankind has made no impact on Earth this is visible from the moon. Astronaut (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This idea was a plot element in The Man Who Sold the Moon, by Robert Heinlien. the Novella was written in 1949. It was a scam then, too. -Arch dude (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone with 20/20 vision can (by definition) resolve something 1 arc minute in angular diameter. That means you would need pixels about 120km by 120km - that's slightly more than the area of Jamaica. As that site says under "economic challenges": "Distance – The Moon is nearly 400 thousand km away from Earth. In order to make images that can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, images would need to be millions of square kilometers in size." They consider that a challenge, I consider it completely infeasible. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people." --Jayron32 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money... Thanks for the dollar. This is how I make money." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine putting a commercial on the moon would give you by far more public outrage than positive publicity. Also, this reminds me of an old cold-war era joke (I wonder if this joke is Eastern bloc only, it sure feels like that):

An aide of the president of the USA comes storming into the president's office. "Sir, the Russians appear to have landed on the moon! What should we do?"

"Hmm, let's just wait and see."

A couple days later, the same aide rushes to the president again: "Sir, they seem to be... painting the moon red. "

"Is that so? Well, we'll see how far they get with that."

Yet another couple of days later: "Sir, they managed it. They actually painted the moon red."

"Did they? Tell you what. Give our boys some white paint, send them up there, and have them write Coca-Cola over the red color." TomorrowTime (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Eminent Victorians

How many people are there still alive who were born in the 19th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We list 76 living supercentenarians (that is, people of 110+ years of age), which covers all but 6 months of the 1800s (though lacks 18 months of the 19th century). Given that there are 13 living people born in the first half of 1899, I estimate there are about 120 living people who were born in the 19th century. — Lomn 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is subject to change at any given minute. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1800s are the 19th century.--Wetman (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the 19th century includes 1900 and does not include 1800. Algebraist 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we had all this at the end of the 1990s. Pedants like you popped up and said it wasn't the end of the millennium, because there was no year zero. We were supposed to wait until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new millennium. To which I said then, and continue to say: phooey. I don't really care whether there was a year zero or not, it felt right to mark the turn of the millennium on that day and that's the end of the matter. Same goes for this. Which century is the year 1800 in? Well, obviously the 19th. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and "Britain" is just another synonym for England. Algebraist is presenting encyclopedic information rather than popular misconception and should be praised for that. People come here for accurate and encyclopedic information. Which century is the year 1800 in? Well, obviously the 18th. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it felt right to party on Jan 1 2000. We all agree with you. You win. However, we don't redefine the terms to fit the most satisfying party date. APL (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What you mean is that you prefer to think in terms of the 2000s or the 1800s rather than the 21st or 19th century. You're free to prefer whichever you wish, but that doesn't change the meanings of the terms. Algebraist 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall where it was now, but I read an article around 2000/2001 that was from a newspaper, I think in Connecticut, which mentioned debate about when the century changed...in 1801! So, it's been around a long time. (Edit - I had to try :-) Didn't find the article, but this was interesting. [2]Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem's just that the first century, like the first decade, etc., were all defective -- there was no year 0. Not our fault; the rest of the centuries, decades, etc. all start as any programmer will tell you they should, with zero. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that argument before, and I still 100% disagree with it. Programmers have been around rather less time than there have been centuries of this current era. Programmers don't get to dictate to the rest of the world how they should retrospectively (for over 2,000 years !!!) rename things. Programmers should start with what is, and go from there. If we decided the Common Era had had its day and we wanted to start a new era, would the first year of the new era be Year 0 or Year 1? Programmers might like it to be called Year 0, but the 99% of the rest of world would say "That's incredibly silly and counterintuitive and we're going to call it Year 1". Guess who'd win. Is the first page of a book or newspaper numbered "Page 0"? Is the first day of a month the 0th of the month? Are children taught to count to ten by starting at 0 and including not 10 but 11 digits? Rather than reinventing history by saying the first century was "defective" and only contained 99 years (but the remaining centuries contained the expected 100 years), why not say the first century started with the Year 1, and all subsequent centuries started with a year ending with the digit 1. It's very simple. It’s tempting to treat the calendar as part of a continuous algebraic number line going back to the Big Bang, because computers have an easier time of it when it’s treated that way. But the thing is, the calendar simply wasn’t set up that way. From an algebraic standpoint, there’s a discontinuity between the end of the pre-Christian era and the Common Era. You can’t just pretend that isn’t the case. It's also tempting to think "The group of 100 years that have four digits and start with the digits 1 and 8 must constitute the 18th century", but a second's thought tells you that's wrong - in two ways. It's not the first two digits that matter most, it's the last two. Just as the first "decade" of the natural numbers starts at 1 and ends at 10, the first decade of a calendar starts at the beginning of Year 1 and ends at the end of Year 10. The first century ends at the end of Year 100. The first millennium ends at the end of Year 1000. And so on. So the 19th century was the period 1801-1900. And there was absolutely nothing "defective" about the 1st century, which started at 1 CE and ended at the end of 100 CE. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, you seem to actually care about this. It's a lot more fun to consider when you notice that it doesn't matter at all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your trite riposte betrays you, jp. You thought it was important enough to spend time claiming what you did, and it deserved a contrary view. Downplaying the importance of the issue is not generally an appropriate response to debunkation. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1800s are the 19th century. Can't say it often enough. --Wetman (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what you say. The experts, however, say that the 1800s are the 17th 18th century. That said, you can repeat your statement over and over again, but it will never matter. Surtsicna (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I think you meant to say that the year 1800 is in the 18th century, but I'm not sure. Besides, commonsense trumps accuracy. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1800s, in general, refer to the 19th century. Except that 1801 was the first year of the 19th century, and 1900 was the last year of the 19th century. Just as 1 AD was the first year of the first century, and 100 AD was the last year of the first century. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Commonsense trumps accuracy." Inaccuracy is not commonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question, Lomn. To all the pedants, no thanks necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could have defined your terms better. Which century do you consider 1900 to be in? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This conversation makes me feel like it's December 31st, 2000 again. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To Richardrj and 80.254.147.52: Tarring anyone who happens to disagree with you with the epithet "pedant" is not helpful. If one is open only to arguments that support one's existing opinions, one will go around in ever-increasing circles, but not actually getting anywhere. I agree that it's common sense to loosely call the 1800s (i.e. 1800-1899) "the 19th century". But when it comes to the specific year 1800, you've got to be more careful. Same with 2000; 2000 did indeed mark the end of the millennium, but at the end of the year, not the beginning. When you start reading the last page of a book, you still haven't finished the book. You've got to read all the way to the end of the page to find out whodunnit. Saying that 1 January 2000 was the start of a new millennium (just because the numbers changed from 19 to 20) was like reading all but the last page of a book, turning over to the last page, stopping reading, and claiming you'd read the entire book. You would have been lying. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The original questioner is at fault for asking a vague question, and sniping about "pedantry" is off the mark. He needs to be clear, and indicate whether he's counting 1900 in his question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps, in the OP's eyes, the 19th century ended on 22 January 1901? — Kpalion^(talk) 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Burke and Terrorism

I have read that Edmund Burke was the first to use the word Terrorist or Terrorism in english but cannot find a detailed reference to this. Does anyone have this information please? Togcymru (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact cite by Burke is: "Thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists, whom they had shut up in prison, on their last Revolution, as the satellites of tyranny, are let loose on the people." In "Letter No. IV. To the Earl Futzwilliam." (1795) Select Works of Edmund Burke: Vol. 3 Letters on a Regicide Peace. Indiniapolis: Liberty Fund. 1999. p. 371. Print. --- by Juanjo Bermudez de Castro 11.16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This San Francisco Gate article says he was "one of the first" to use the term, in 1795. It doesn't give the specific source, and I'm unable to search further at this time; that should be a good starting point though. --LarryMac | Talk 17:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism and terrorist were originally used in English (in the 1790s) with reference to the tactics employed by the French revolutionary government during the Reign of Terror. The OED has a citation for Burke's using terrorist in that sense: "Thousands of those Hell-hounds called Terrorists … are let loose on the people" (Two letters … on the proposals for peace with the regicide directory of France, 1795). The earliest citation (of terrorism, in this case) for a sense that may or may not be more akin to the modern sense is from Thomas J. Mathias in 1798: "The causes of rebellion, insurrection, … terrorism, massacres, and revolutionary murders". (The earliest citation for terrorist in something like the modern sense is from 1866.) Deor (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The word terrorist relates to the Reign of Terror, which was known as such in its own time ("la Terreur" in French). You might want to read that article for how "terrorist tactics" were used by the revolutionary French and how the term got applied to it. --Jayron32 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a little image File:Terrorism2 london times 1-30-1795.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)