Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 1

= October 1 =

Cheque encashment
How does cheque encashment work with crossed cheques? How does the cashing service get the money? (I'm particularly interested in the UK system if it varies.) --Tango (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean how do cheque payments work in general in the UK, then APACS is what you need to read (then follow the external links because that article is not as informative as I had hoped). Crossing a cheque is supposed to ensure that it is only paid into the recipient's bank account rather than being turned into cash.
 * If you mean a "cashing service", as in a non-bank company that pays out cash - minus a hefty fee - against a customer's cheque, I believe the cashing service is "selling" the customer some cash, and the cheque payment is handled like any other cheque payment for a product or service.  Of course, the customer needs to provide a cheque guarantee card or sufficient ID to satisfy whatever rules the cashing service sets.  The hefty fee the cashing service charges, goes to profit and probably fills in for any outstanding money owing if the cheque bounces and all legal (and illegal??) means to recover the money have been exhausted.  Astronaut (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not quite what I'm talking about. As I understand it, cheque encashment is where a cashing service provides cash in exchange for a cheque written by a 3rd party. It's used by people without bank accounts or if you need the cash straight away and can't wait for the cheque to clear. I would have thought that crossing a cheque (as is done in advance for pretty much all cheques are in the UK) would make that impossible, but apparently it isn't. --Tango (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite of my previous answer A crossed cheque (needs better explanation in that redir) is deposit-only, so it technically cannot be exchanged at an encashment dealer. Like many other things though, the rule is observed in the breach. If everything works out OK, it's all good. If there was a problem, the cheque-writer would have recourse. In a recent Canadian case, a home-reno customer wrote the contractor a cheque then called his bank and stopped payment. The contractor cashed the cheque at an encashment service and vanished. The cash service was able to sue the cheque-writer under some weird bills-of-exchange law - but if he'd put the two crossed lines on the front of the cheque, he would have been successful in his defense. I imagine the same thing would apply in the UK, since we share common law. Franamax (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the cheque written out to the contractor (in name) or to the bearer/cash? Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was written to the contractor. But since it was uncrossed, the contractor was free to sell it on, and the liability to pay went with it. It sounded pretty unfair to me, but there was that obscure provision of the Bills of Exchange Act or something that meant if the customer wanted to restrict the cheque to bank-cashing only, he should have put two vertical lines on it. First I ever heard of a "crossed cheque" which apparently is utterly common in the UK. There's also the issue of the guy writing the contractor a cheque, presumably knowing he was going to immediately stop payment - that's skirting with fraud, if he had a problem, he should have just refused to pay. Franamax (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, as I understand it there are three (or more) types of crossed cheques although the precise meaning may vary depending on your jurisdiction. For example here in NZ, a crossed cheque without anything written is payable to an account only but any account no matter who you write is supposed to receive it. In this case, I presume you will be liable to anyone who legally receives the cheque. In other words, if you you give it to someone who gives it to someone (e.g. a cheque encashment service), you'd probably be liable to the third party regardless of what dispute you have with the second party. (You agreed to pay money, the third party accepted that and agreement from the second party in good faith, the fact you no longer want to pay money to the second party is not the concern of the third party, that's between you and the second party.) Clearly if the cheque was stolen, things would be different and since it is paid to an account, it would hopefully be easier to track down the person who stole it. If a third party received the stolen cheque, you probably wouldn't be liable since the third party accepted a stolen cheque it's their responsibility although if you didn't cancel the cheque in time, you'd have to try and get your money back from the third party. Then there is a non negotiable crossed cheque. This cheque can only be paid to the person named unless the person named signs it over to another person. I suspect things would mostly be the same here if a third party accepts a cheque (you'd be liable) that was signed over to them by the second party. The primary difference would be that if it's stolen, the person who stole it can't bank it in nor can they transfer it to a third party. You'd be entitled to the money back from your bank if it were paid out. Then there is a non-transferable crossed cheque which in NZ is now the same thing as AC Payee only . This can't be transferred to a third party so your bank should never pay the money out to a non-named party and if they do, you'd be entitled to get your money back. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * TBH, in the UK I'd never heard of a company accepting a third-party cheque like that. However, doing my research properly, I find that Cash Converters in the UK do provide a third-party cheque cashing service (see this link for info), but there's a lot of checking to be done - verify the cheque, show three forms of ID, sign the back of the cheque, and so on.
 * I just noticed they also offer loans against your car at a staggering 437% interest - yikes!! Astronaut (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Loans at ludicrous interest rates are associated with those sorts of businesses here in the US as well (note the lead photo advertising both). --Random832 (contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is " checque cheque encashment" anything like "check cashing?" Edison (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to "criticize" British spellings, it'd help if you bothered to type them correctly. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misspelled an unfamiliar word. But I cannot find the criticism of which you complain. It was a reasonable question which led to a much needed explanation of a practice of drawing lines on checks which is unknown in the U.S. This is not a private chat room for people from one English speaking country, but an international encyclopedia, so sometimes clarifications are necessary and useful. Edison (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cheque encashment" sounds like the U.S.'s check cashing -- in the specific sense of check-cashing services that you find mainly in low-income neighborhoods, sometimes in the same place as the payday loan businesses. These are surrogates for banks.  Middle-class people have bank accounts; a good chunk of the lower class doesn't, and some of them don't want one.
 * My brother once worked for an armored-car company and spend long days in one of their vehicles parked outside the office of the state employment commission. Essentially, he and his partner sat in the truck, cashing unemployment checks -- presumably for people who lacked a bank account.
 * I'm guessing that a "crossed check" is a check made out to A, signed by B, which A then endorses or "signs over" to C -- so C wants to cash a check made out to A. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Crossed cheques (checks) are a British weirdness.


 * In the US, if I write a check to Joe, only Joe can cash it - unless he "endorses" it or "signs it over" to George by signing the check on the back somewhere. In fact, when you put a check into the bank, you have to endorse it over to them in order that they can turn it in to the bank it's written against.


 * In the UK, THEORETICALLY, Joe can just give the cheque to George and George can just cash it without any special endorsement by Joe - UNLESS the person who wrote the cheque "crosses" it. This is done simply by drawing two large, parallel vertical or diagonal lines across the front of the cheque - to "cross" the lines with the amount and the recipient's name.   A "crossed" cheque can only be cashed by the person it's made out to (Joe in this case)...there is no possible way for George to cash it instead.  Joe can also take my (uncrossed) cheque and cross it himself so nobody but he can cash it - which is safer for him.


 * Now - clearly, you don't want cheques that are going through the mail to pay your electricity bill getting stolen and cashed by just anyone - which CAN happen with uncrossed cheques because they are essentially just like cash. So crossing your cheques is a VERY common and important thing to want to do.  So common in fact that most banks issue pre-crossed cheques by default.  My British Barclays Bank cheque book has two vertical lines printed across the front of every cheque - if I want "uncrossed cheques" I have to order them specially.  So this whole "crossing" thing has rather passed into the history books.  These days, pretty much all cheque books issued to individuals are "crossed" by default.


 * I vaguely recall that there was a time (I believe in Ireland) maybe 20 years ago(?) when the banks were on strike for a protracted period and people used uncrossed cheques just like cash. You'd be paid with an uncrossed cheque - you'd keep it and use it to pay some bill and get another uncrossed cheque as "change" - cheques got handed around all over the place and when the banks reopened, everything got sorted out.


 * Sadly, this doesn't help our OP. I have no clue how cheque-cashing services can do what they do - probably they have to make special arrangements to be treated like bank branches.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The proofs of id and address and the process for first-time users described here, for example, sound very similar to the process of opening an account at a high-street bank. So maybe the cheque cashing company in effect opens an account in your name, and makes you a cash loan of, say, 98% of the face value of the cheque, which leaves the account overdrawn. When the cheque clears they take 2% of the funds as commission and pay the rest into your account with them, which clears the overdraft. So, in effect, the cheque has been deposited in an account in your name - you just don't realise it. (I haven't found a source that actually describes how this works, so this is speculation !) Gandalf61 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you'd need to look under "Bills of Exchange". An uncrossed cheque (which is the norm in Canada) is a bill of exchange whose value is the face value. It can be exchanged for valuable consideration - if you write a cheque to me, I can endorse the back of it and sell it to someone else. A crossed cheque is different in that you restrict the value to be only vested in the payee, who can only exchange it with a bank. It is an old British concept, is part of Canadian law but not well known. It's probably in some US statute from 1720 or something too, but completely unheard of. Interesting cultural cross-overs in this thread... Franamax (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is some analogy in US law, if you have JSTOR access: . Franamax (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My chequebook is not crossed (I'm in NZ) and I did not make a special request. Also the existance of different types of crossing that I mentioned above seems to hold (or at least once did) in quite a number of Commonwealth countries e.g. South Africa, Canada, Singapore, India, and of course the UK. Also see . So in other words, before talking about crossed cheques, we really need to define what sort of crossed cheques we are talking about as they have different effects. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm primarily asking about the UK, and I believe almost all cheques in the UK are pre-crossed with "Account Payee" (at least, mine are!), so let's go with those. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's an answer paid for with your TV license fees: Here's another q on the same subject: . As I said above, the rule is observed in the breach. Cheques flow just fine until there is a problem - at that point, whoever accepted the crossed cheque is on the hook. This means that the third-party encashment service has crafted an agreement with their clearing bank that they will accept liability for any disputed crossed cheques, and almost certainly are required to keep funds on deposit to cover their maximum liability (I'm thinking that the bank will require them to keep 2-4 weeks turnover in a deposit account). Since the vast majority of encashment customers are legitimate (desperate, but legitimate), the service can charge a rate sufficient to cover the occasions when they are defrauded.
 * This system can work because the clearing bank itself has almost no risk in the transaction. Unlike us average joe's, banks sit on both sides of the transaction, so they can just withhold funds and get their own cash money back from wherever it's most convenient.
 * This is not much different than opening a merchant account with a credit-card company. They will require you to keep funds on deposit with them sufficient to cover your own mistakes and to cover the risk you present. For instance, the CC company will keep enough of your money to cover potential claims for returned merchandise and potential frauds. If the CC company sees your merchant account getting a lot of claims for defective merchandise, they will increase your holdback amount (or cut you off). There are also escalating deposit balances required depending on whether you want a signature-only, CC-number-over-the-phone and web-entry credit-card payments. Translation: the card company tilts the field so that they lose as little as possible.
 * Same thing applies to cheque-encashment. If you wish to start such a company, you will have to approach a bank to get your third-party cheques cleared. Expect them to lay down very clear terms as to how that works, and to give you a very definite number of the cash you need to deposit to even begin such an enterprise. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thank you! --Tango (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Job
What are the easiest high paying jobs around? As in one that you use the least amount of effort for money gained. (Preferably those that don’t require a uni degree). cheers 203.202.144.223 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editor. ...oops...sorry...was reading upside down. :-D --Scray (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Being a socialite and endorsing lots of things would probably do it. It's not a "job" that's easy to get into, though. Some other celebrity jobs would also qualify. Most other highly paid jobs require either very hard work or significant skill or talent. --Tango (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably no longer true, but some city traders supposedly don't have a degree and get a six-figure salary and similarly large bonuses. Astronaut (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (edit)... come to think of it, that business is very cutthroat and I guess the work itself take a lot of effort.  Astronaut (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, TANSTAAFL my friend. If there was a perfect job that anyone could get, required minimal effort, needed no prior training or experience, and paid you enough to afford an affluent lifestyle, we'd all have it. People get paid because other people place a value on the services they provide. Unfortunately, providing no valuable service doesn't often get paid very much. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 04:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My friend works for a local counsel (in Australia) he gets paid $35 an hour to stand still holding a stop sign. On occasions he may have to turn that sign to the "slow" side to allow the infrequent traffic to move through. There has to similar jobs to this one??? 203.202.144.223 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first read that a few days ago, I couldn't work out why a counsel employed stop-sign holders (I was imagining some complicated Court procedure, or parking warden) but it suddenly came to me just now that it's a council worker! I had to pick myself up off the floor I was laughing so hard.  I'm a little slow on the uptake, sometimes... Gwinva (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A nice illustration that "hard" is subjective. Sounds perfectly dreadful. --Scray (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Standing still and holding a sign for hours on end does sound rather hard.  Legs get sore, your mind wanders, you get bored easy.  Plus, essentially your standing in the middle of the road; so if the 17 year old playing with her cell phone isn't paying attention, you become her new hood ornament.  That kind of hazard sounds rather bad too. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Package subprime mortgages into collateralized securities and sell them to foreign investors! Oh wait, that's been done.  Plasticup  T / C  05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Marry well!--Artjo (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and Divorce early.


 * Seriously - the law of supply and demand operates here. Economics 101: If a job is easy and well paid and requires no special skills or training - then large numbers of people will apply for it.  The potential employer will realise that if he offered less pay - then there would still be plenty of applicants.  Hence the pay falls to the point where either the legal "minimum wage" statute kicks in - or nobody will do the work for that little money.  It follows that the only way to get a high paying job that's not difficult or physically taxing is to have a rare set of abilities.  Unless you are biologically different (maybe an extra arm or something) - or were born a savant or a 'natural' baseball pitcher, concert pianist or something - you're pretty much forced into learning a skill set that is in demand - yet few others have.  Of course when such niche jobs appear, and if the training is easy - then more people will rush to learn that skill and again the pay involved will settle down to "what the market can stand".  So I don't think you'll find what you're looking for.  In the end, your best bet is (yes, I know you've heard this before!): Work hard in school, go to college - learn a skill that you enjoy exercising - and you'll get a job that you'll enjoy doing.  My job is interesting - challenging but not painfully so - and I'd probably pay them to let me do it if they didn't pay me!  But to get there I needed a modicum of natural ability - a decent degree and a lot of years doing less interesting jobs to build up the experience I needed to get here.  But I now have a fairly rare skill-set, honed to perfection - and I get well paid jobs that I love doing.  But (as Jayron32 said) TANSTAAFL - it takes effort to get there. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That supply and demand control the price of labor is absolutely true—what happens though, is that the market only works efficiently for jobs in private enterprise that don't have to deal with strong unions. Your $35/hour road-crew buddy works for the government, and probably somebody knew somebody else to get him the gig, or he got lucky.  If something changes, or he gets too comfortable and screws up (oversleeping too often most likely), he'll be out on the street with zero skills. Something to keep in mind when selecting careers—look for something that potentially leads somewhere else that you also want to be. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Realtor (Estate Agent to my non-NorthAmerican friends)? A few months training is usually enough, and over here a single sale will net you many thousands of dollars. Unfortunately now may not be the best time to get into it...DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't they have pretty low salaries, though? If you don't get a decent number of sales, you get very little money. Getting lots of sales requires hard work. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think it's a particularly good time to become a real estate agent in many Anglosphere developed countries... Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen jobs which were easy, high paying and for which there were no special qualifications such as education or special training. They were jobs in a privately owned factory occupied by sons of the owner, who were amiable enough but lazy and lacking in ambition. They could come in when they felt like it and do a little undemanding work, for very high rates of pay. In extreme cases, it is not even necessary to show up. Businesses and local government sometimes have similar jobs for family members of political leaders and their cronies. The only requirement for getting such a job would be to be related to or friends with the right people. Edison (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, prostitution. No need for a uni degree and well paid considering the amount of work you have to put in. Legal in some countries. Also horrendous, imho, but having fun while working was not part of the question. Lova Falk (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kim Kardashian has seemed to have discovered an easy, well-paying job.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Socialite was my answer right at the top, it's not an easy "career" to get into, though. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bed tester --132.216.22.163 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Going around to yard sales, buying a whole bunch of electronic crap and collectables for next to nothing, and then selling it all on eBay. I reccommend a BlackBerry or similar device so that you'll know what the market is before you buy, however. Wait a miunte, why am I telling you my secrets?! :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one that makes money, but isn't reccomendable because you can lose more money than you make, is doing illegal stuff (examples: stealing, scamming, selling drugs, blackmale, but don't actually do any of that, I'm just joking). Of course, I'll report you on the spot if you do it on the internet! :P GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In many countries, these aren't exactly easy jobs, particularly if you want to actually make money and not get rich... Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While you can make a lot of money buying things and selling them on ebay, I don't think you'll make much without working hard at it. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Moats for fire control
Are moats ever built solely or primarily to control wildfire? Neon Merlin  05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The principle of creating a firebreak in areas prone to wildfires is common. The idea is to create zones of unburnable areas to stop the spread of wildfires.  The most common method is to use a controlled burn to pre-burn an area, thus when the wildfire comes through, it reaches an area whose fuel has already been consumed, and thus cannot spread.  However, digging a wide ditch (which is essentially all a moat is) appear to be common as well.  See the link above on firebreak... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you mean a water-filled moat, Google searching on the likely keyword combinations didn't turn up anything useful. There are several problems inherent in creating such a firebreak.  First, where do you get the water to fill it?  Wildfires are common at dry times of the year, when water is likely to be in short supply on the ground.  The fires spread effectively because the forest is dry.  Second, how do you keep the water in?  All that dry, thirsty soil means that you'll be left with (at best) a slightly muddy ditch if you don't line your moat with something relatively waterproof.  That's going to cost you.  Third, you don't get that much extra effectiveness in stopping the fire by digging and filling a moat compared to the much faster process of simply clearing the ground ahead of the wildfire.  (Width of non-flammable terrain is much more important than depth&mdash;wind will carry the fire easily across a narrow crevice, water-filled or not.)  Fourth, it's difficult to bring heavy ditchdigging equipment up into the hills.
 * I can see a moat being used for cosmetic reasons to protect certain high-value, small-area features, but it's just not a worthwhile strategy for fighting a wildfire. In principle, a moat of moderate size and with proper waterproofing could also be used as a reservoir for a building's fire-suppression equipment, to encourage a wildfire to pass around the structure.  I don't know of any examples off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't tried it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Little House on the Prairie (not the most academic of sources, but at least based on first-hand memories) has a homesteader ploughing a furrow around his house, then starting a small fire just outside the furrow, as protection against wildfire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a basic firefighting technique, variously known as a backfire, backburn, or burnout. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love
The section Shakespeare_in_Love says that the movie has several comic anachronisms, including a mug marked "A present from Stratford-on-Avon"; Shakespeare leaping into a ferry and saying "Follow that boat!"; Queen Elizabeth I remarking "Have a care with my name or you will wear it out". Can someone please explain to me why these are anachronisms. 192.8.211.11 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With the first one, decorated mugs, plates etc for the tourist market did not become the fashion until - well, I don't know exactly, but I'd be surprised if it was any earlier than around the 1850s. Stratford didn't become a tourist attraction until the 19th century or later, and there would have been no mugs of that kind - or maybe no mugs at all - back in Shakespeare's day.  "Follow that car" came into vogue after the arrival of, you guessed it, the motor car.  It's a well-known movie cliche for someone hopping into a taxi and having the driver take him wherever the car he's following goes.  I'm not saying nobody ever used that form of words in Shakespeare's day, but in the sense they were using it, it's a 20th century invention, and thus anachronistic to apply it to the 16th or the 17th.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom Stoppard's well known for his affection for Shakespeare, and so the film's screenplay is in someways a loving, playful bouquet. Another anachronism has young Will consulting a person who's clearly a shrink, dressed in Elizabethan garb.  Will's got writer's block, and gets a potion to help dispel it.  People in the 1500s no doubt had mental illness, and sometimes talked with others about it, but the format is clearly a reference to our own time.
 * Again, Geoffrey Rush's character is based loosely on Philip Henslowe, whose "diaries" are an important source of information about the Elizabethan theater. In the film, handbills eventually appear with a Hollywood-like lead-in (Philip Henslowe presents a Rose Theater production, a King's Men play... sorry, couldn't find an image of the handbill).  This is not how plays were promoted in the 1500s, though promoted they were.  --- OtherDave (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Just as a note, the "talking method" of psychiatry—with an analyst and funny chair—did not originate until the very late 19th century.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "That's my name, don't wear it out" is most likely a pretty recent phrase (though I don't know for sure). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, we have very little on the history of commemorative items. However, from watching the Antiques Roadshow, I'm sure I remember seeing rare examples of plates commemorating events - usually coronations - from the late 17th century. Whether this trade was in existence in Shakespeare's time, and whether it extended to other items, I don't know. As I understand it, the Western practice of bringing back souvenirs from a trip really dates from the Grand Tour, so probably originated at a similar time. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A subject well overdue for an article, methinks. Any takers?  (Anyone who claims the Ref Desk doesn't earn its stripes in identifying gaps in our articles doesn't know what they're talking about.) --  JackofOz (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An article on what, commemorative souvenirs? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Devotional medals and pilgrim badges were probably common in the middle ages. Though few would probably say "a souvenir from Canterbury" or anything like that they would have an image of a saint which would identify where it was from and would probably be more effectively in those less literate times. Some small place like Stratford-on-Avon would not have any tourist or pilgrim trade at that time.  meltBanana  19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Tamfang, that sort of thing. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of commemorative items from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's wedding, I don't know if there were any for the Queen's coronation or not. Perhaps the wedding was the first real commemorative period?   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hikers in the Alps got little metal plaques from each village they passed through, and which they affixed to their walking stick (is alpenstock the correct term?). This was widespread in the late C19, if my recollection of Mark Twain's A Tramp Abroad is correct. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article bestseller cites some early examples of spin-off products, such as The Sorrows of Young Werther porcelain figures and even an eau-de-cologne, but that's still roughly 175 years after the bard's time... Asav (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Robbing a bank
If someones robs a bank, hides the money, get caught and don't give the money back, may he keep the money? I am assuming that the law will not live you in jail indefinitely and you could have spent the money... Mr.K. (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll initially have been convicted for robbery. If on release you start spending the loot, you open yourself to new charges along the lines of handling stolen goods. So no, getting to the end of your robbery sentence does not mean you can enjoy the loot without further legal difficulties. This question is related to the concept of double jeopardy, but since the offences are distinct, I don't think that concept applies in this circumstance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't buy that explanation. That just begs the question:  What happens if he goes to jail for robbery - comes out, spends some of the money - gets charged with handling stolen goods and does MORE jail time - THEN what happens when he comes out and tries to spend more of the money?  He certainly can't be charged with handling the same stolen goods again - because that certainly would be double-jeopardy.  So does he get to keep it after two jail terms?  I don't think so - so I think this explanation is wrong.


 * Worse still - what if the Statute of Limitations kicks in when the person is in jail? Under those circumstances - he can't be charged with handling stolen goods when he comes out because that crime happened too long ago.  So what happens then?  That's why you need the "Proceeds of Crime" act.  But even without that - the money still legally belongs to the person it was stolen from (or perhaps their insurance company) - the crime didn't somehow transfer the ownership to the criminal.  Therefore if the robber does reveal that he has the loot after he's done his jail time - and even after the statute of limitations has run out - then he surely can't simply spend it, legally and openly.  It hasn't somehow magically become "his money" - he has to give it back, right?  The only question is under what law do you sue him to make him give it to you?  You need the law because he may spend all of the loot on a fancy car or something - then you need to allow the person the money was stolen from to sieze (and sell) the car in order to reclaim at least a part of his losses.  I believe that the "Proceeds of Crime" act is intended more to prevent the criminal from making a pile of money by selling his story to the press or making money from movie rights or something. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your P1 is a misreading of double jeopardy. If he robs, is imprisoned and released, spends some loot, is done for handling, imprisoned and released again, and then spends some more, the set of facts changes and he could, would & should be had up for handling again. The Proceeds of Crime acts are, in my understanding, predicated very much more on recovering assets from criminals, than preventing enrichment from selling stories. And that act also removed the obligation to find the actual cash made/acquired by the crime, meaning that many more criminals can be subjected to the sanction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * arrrghhh, no it doesn't beg the question. -- LarryMac  | Talk  13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. The English language is defined by how people use it. "begging the question" is used far more to refer to "requires the question to be asked" than the logical fallacy it used to mean, so the meaning of the phrase has change. Keep up or get out of the way! --Tango (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The formal sense of the term is a subset of the vernacular sense. —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tangentially to this tangent... I have never heard of "vernacular" being used as a synonym for "colloquial". Is that your meaning? reference.com says they are synonyms, so I guess it is correct.  Plasticup  T / C  03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mean "colloquial"; two members of the same profession (e.g. logicians) may use terms of art (e.g. beg the question) in their specialized sense while conversing in a colloquial register (e.g. saying ain't). —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The statute of limitations would likely never come into play. Let's say I rob a bank and get put away for fifty years (i.e. for armed robbery, maybe I killed a guy during escape, etc.). I then get out, crack open the safe I've been keeping the loot in and start spending it. I'm now trafficking in stolen goods; the fifty years in the slammer had no bearing on the statute of limitations because the crime occurred after I got out of prison. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think SB has misunderstood the Proceeds of Crimee Act (which exists in many countries). While it's true such laws usually prevent a criminal from selling their story, they are also intended to prevent criminals from profiting from crimes in any fashion. Depending on the country/law, they may for example make it so someone found guilty of a serious crime has to prove their property was obtained legally (which is generally controversial for obvious reasons) or otherwise it will be seized. They aren't of course so much directed at bank robbers (although they would apply) but more at organised crime, drug offences and stuff like that Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1996 here in Ireland the "Proceeds of Crime Act" was passed allowing the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize assets believed to be obtained through criminal activity. You don't have to identify the loot itself. The UK passed a law of the same name and scope in 2002. There may be similar laws in other rcountries. Fribbler (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If money had been in storage for, say, 20 years, and you handed over a handfull of it to buy something, it would stand out to the cashier, in contrast to the newer bills other customers presented. It would be necessary to spend it only in small batches. If an attempt were made to deposit it in large amounts at a bank, it would really raise a red flag. It could be sold to a fence in exchange for new money, but the fence would pay an increasingly small fraction of face value as the money got older and trickier to spend. Most of hijacker D.B. Cooper's $200,000 in 20 dollar bills from 1971 was not recovered, but anyone trying to spend the bills now would stand out compared to those spending newer currency. Ironically someone found a portion of the Cooper payoff in 1980, and got to keep a portion of it as a reward. $300 of the money (face value) was auctioned for $37,000 to collectors. In that case, the serial numbers of the loot are on record. Edison (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You might find this story along those lines interesting. --Sean 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about when patent numbers stopped showing on items
First time user, long time watcher.....:)

I want to know when patent numbers stopped being printed on items. As a child, I always saw patent dates printed, then patent numbers, then it seems it went to just "Pat'd", and then nothing. I have an item with a patent number, no date. It is probably from the 1960's, and I would like to know when numbers stopped appearing on items, or if there is a source for date checking patents by number.

Thanks! Jim Buckmeister2 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For looking up US patents, you can go to uspto.gov. Here's their patent number search and other patent searches. Patents from 1790 to 1975 are only available as TIFF images, and require a TIFF plug-in to view. But if you just want to know the date of the patent, that will be displayed without needing to install a TIFF plug-in. --Bavi H (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually a far easier way to look up US patents is Google Patents. No plug-ins required and they are full-text all the way back. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me RefDesk-ers, but where are our manners? We ought to be congratulating Jim on crossing the boundary from reading to writing! Welcome to the community, sir!  Plasticup  T / C  02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, welcome across the Rubicon. But I think Bucky was asking then manufacturers got out of the habit of stamping Patnet 4,234,567 on their products. I have no answer, but I would not want him/her disappointed by our inability to understand the intent of the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we answered the point about "date checking patents by number", which I interpreted as asking about how you can tell the date of a given patent number (which is pretty easy—just plug it into Google Patents and it'll tell you when it was granted, which gives you a time window of when it was in effect). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question re legality of "looking at child porn"
In some jurisdictions even looking at child porn is illegal. How does this work for the police when searching a suspects computer? If they can't look at it how can they tell what it is and prostitute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.119.175 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Include a title with your question. Please make the title meaningful. A word or two that briefly tells us the subject of the question would be very helpful. Questions headed "Question" or "Query" give readers no idea what the question is about. Such titles should be avoided." Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What jurisdictions do you have in mind? Federal legislation in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252) identifies four types of crime related to child pornography: production, trafficking, receipt, and possession.  A law enforcement officer who, for example, locates the child pornography on someone's computer is no more breaking the law than she would be in taking possession of illegal drugs found in the desk drawer while executing an appropriate search warrant.
 * (I've taken the liberty of changing the title of this question.) --- OtherDave (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the Freudian Slip of the OP, replacing 'prosecute' with 'prostitute' :) He even supplied us with his IP..... :)--ChokinBako (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone searches for it via Google or other search engine, there may be a record of the search having been done from that IP address stored at the websearch host. The site viewed is likely to have a list of all IP addresses which visited the site and what they looked at. If it is saved to the hard drive, it would be very difficult to remove it. Merely deleting a file leaves it on the drive. If it is saved to a CD, nonvolatile thumbdrive or other storage media, that would be physical evidence. If someone clicks on a popup link or a link received via email, looks at an illegal image, and deletes it, the site viewed is stored in the viewing history for the browser on the user's computer, until that is cleared. The computer ref desk could probably advise as to whether clearing the history of sites viewed really removes it. We cannot provide legal advice as to whether merely looking at such images is prosecutable in the many legal systems of the world. Edison (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A cop who chases a speeding car is also speeding, but they're immune from prosecution because they're engaged in the act of apprehending offenders. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They can still get in trouble if they do it dangerously, though. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh of course. I was just making an analogy.  A cop who's investigating a child porn racket may unavoidably view illegal images, that's OK.  If they go the extra mile and collect their own private database of images, that's not OK, and they'll run the same risk as the offenders they're chasing.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons To Dislike The UK
After the above US-version, I would be interested to know what people who are not from the UK think. We Brits, personally, hate the place and our government, and our 'credit crunch', and housing crisis, and the rest I could write. But, foriegners do not experience it like we do. Anyone want to start?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't ask original questions? :-) Well, the stereotypical Brit has this kind of class orientation thing that we Canucks find puzzling. Worried about who is more closely related to the ninth earl of Bumwick or whatever. In Canada, we know we're not a huge international power; what pull we have seems to stem from the idea that we're a bunch of nice guys and if we're scolding you, it must mean you're in the wrong, y'know? Brits seem to think they're still a significant power in the world, when that hasn't been the case in half a century. That's not really a dig at Brits, per se, but their government's foreign policy. Oh yeah, and that accent you hear on EastEnders just sounds completely put on and fake. To my ears, even the broadest Texan, Aussie, or Newfie accent at least sounds legitimate, but not those. I still like Brits though! Matt Deres (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When did the reference desk become a forum? When did personal opinion pass for questions (or answers for that matter)? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We Americans just love the UK. Especially if it is the country our ancestors came to America from before that unpleasantness in the 1770's, and especially if we watch the great programs from the BBC and read novels by British authors. It is the only place I go for foreign vacations. Roger Miller said it best in his 1966 hit "England Swings . Edison (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Robert Mugabe certainly has something against us... ask him! --Tango (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like most things about the UK, but the big exception for me is the utter shemozzle when it comes to Terminology of the British Isles. I know this now includes Ireland as well, but it used to be part of the UK.  Is there any other nation on Earth that uses so many names in different contexts? There's no such person as the "Queen of England", but people regularly refer to her that way because saying it any other way is just too hard.  There are countless debates here about whether a given notable person is British rather than English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish.  Can't they all just agree to be British first and whatever else second?  That's the recognised demonym for the whole country and it's what's on their passports.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I ignored the previous "reasons to dislike the usa" soapbox. But I've got something on this one: 1) Who won the war Germany? Oh really, only 5% of German troops ever fought against a British soldier in world war II. So the answer is probably the Soviet Union. 2) We're all British! Sorry, says who? That "identity" was forged militarily, not by any love for a super national state. Thats one of the reasons we left. 3)....well not much else to be honest, well maybe the famine, Northern Ireland etc. but in general I like the UK. Great place to visit, very much similar to ourselves, and great craic....But anyway Jack, I don't think the people of the UK need to "accept" their Britishness. It was imposed and is voluntary, no? Fribbler (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, well it seems so far, that only the people who live in the United Kingdom Of Great Britain Northern Ireland actually don't like it or think it is so 'great'. This is why we all thrive to live abroad!!!--ChokinBako (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except me. Republic of Ireland. By a few mile south. :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, Fribbler, but I am a scouser! The only reason we Brits can be proud about 'winning the war' is because we are the only European nation that Germany attacked and yet never had a single enemy boot on the ground, being an island nation with storms all over the English Channel helping to defend these isles, much like the kamikaze that saved the Japanese from Mongol attacks a thousand years earlier. In fact, no foreign boots have been on our soil since 1066. Not many nations can claim that.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is very soapboxy. But I'll bite. Germany never invaded the UK, other than the channel islands. Hey, we got a few stray German bombs too. So even my hometown was "attacked"; so the UK wasn't the only country "attacked" without boots on the ground. A thing that irks me about English nationalists (and yes, they are rarely Welsh or Scottish) is the idea that England seen the worst during the Blitz. I think it's insulting to Warsaw, Stalingrad, Dresden and the like. Germany was distracted by a war on many fronts. Don't pretend you won in a staring match. Not being invaded wasnt due to Stiff Upper Lip, rather luck. Damn, I'm exhausted by ranting....anyhoo this whole thing can be boiled down to yes, there are people who dislike the UK. Thank you :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, that nicely illustrates my point above about terminological confusion. The Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, and also part of the British Islands (different thing) - but they are NOT part of Great Britain, and they are NOT part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  The question was about the UK.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. But the "British Isles" debate is one I've only seen on WP. Anyone I know happily lives in the British Isles. I don't think that's the point of "Reasons to Dislike the UK".Fribbler (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to suggest removal of this thread. It will never lead to a conclusion, and provides a soapbox to, well, people like me, :-) and others. We should deal in facts. Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Because when you go to an Indian restaurant in the UK, instead of smiling and saying, "Hello, what can I get you this evening," the waiter scowls and says disinterestedly, "Yes, please." And then when you ask for salad dressing he looks at you like you're from Mars and says "Salad ... dressing???" And if you try to strike up a conversation with the guy next to you at the bus stop he looks at you like you're a child molester. And when you go to a pub on a Saturday to watch college football on NASN the manager says he can't turn any of the TVs off rugby. And they invented The Mosquito. And the concentration camp. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to suggest removal of this thread. It will never lead to a conclusion, and provides a soapbox to, well, people like me, :-) and others. We should deal in facts. Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I've refactored and collapsed it as a preliminary step. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

kosher salt
I ate a pinch of kosher salt straight out of the box. Now my throat feels a little tight and I feel like I am going to vomit. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ask a doctor? Technically, this is a medical question, I guess, but really, there's not a thing wrong with eating a bit of salt "straight up". You probably feel nauseous because of the strong taste; if it really made people sick, pretzels would be outlawed! On the other hand, there may be something wrong with ya that's completely unrelated to the salt at all, which is why you may want to get a Doc to look at you. Matt Deres (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Drink some water. And stop eating salt. Too much can destroy your kidneys.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been drinking water for hours and my throat still feels tight and I still can't shake that feeling that I'm about to throw up. What else should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See a doctor or call a nurse-advice line if you have one in your area. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you fear that the salt was significantly different from other salt because of the word "kosher", questioner, put your mind at rest. Kosher salt is in no way chemically any different from almost all other salt. Quote from our article: "Kosher salt gets its name not because it follows the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah (nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt), but rather because of its use in making meats kosher".  A coarser form is used for this purpose, rather than the finer form we normally use.  So, there's certainly nothing about it chemically that's causing any problem.  It would have to have been a really huge grain to scratch the lining of your throat.  Maybe you caught a bug at around the same time, and the bug's causing the problem, not the salt.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See a doctor. Everyone, remember we can't give medical advice (and some of the answers above are crossing dangerously close to that line). Even if we think salt couldn't possibly cause anything wrong, that doesn't mean there couldn't be something wrong that's not caused by the salt. --Random832 (contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that person could have some kind of intolerance to salt that we don't know about, and it is for reasons such as this that we have the medical disclaimer. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Kosher salt is just salt; it's just ground more coarsely and doesn't have iodine added. You can't have an intolerance for kosher salt and not for "normal" salt. The only way it can harm you is by raising your sodium levels. If the OP feels sick, s/he should see a doctor, but the salt has nothing to do with it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Distinctive) Evil Women, fictional or real
I have been invited to a fancy dress partner and the rules are - go as someone/something evil. I'm fine (as a male) because there's loads of choice it seems, but it's much harder for my girlfriend. Any ideas beyond witches? Ideally it would something quite distinctive so once people are told who it is they can 'see' it (or better still can guess purely from the outfit). Any help/ideas would be brilliant, the more the better.ny156uk (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Depending on her looks (hair color and length) it might be easy to create a recognizable likeness of some female politician who is not liked by a portion of the American public. The views of those at the party might vary as to whether a particular woman was evil. Edison (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruella de Vil? The step-mother in Disney's Snow White? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.103.130 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not make something really unexpectedly evil, like a bunny girl with a machine gun or a knife, or something really shocking like that? That would certainly turn some eyebrows. --ChokinBako (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's obvious to point out you do not take along a real machine gun or a knife or your evening might end up more shocking than you expected... Lemon martini (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah Kerrigan if the crowd is into PC games.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Myra Hindley, if the boundaries of good taste are not a problem to you. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bella Abzug? Golda Meir?  Betty Friedan?  Blossom Rock? (I'm talking about looking evilish, not saying these ladies were evil).  Oh, which reminds me - Morticia Addams or Lily Munster.   --  JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything with devil horns and a tail? Maybe that isn't "fancy dress" enough.  Plasticup  T / C  23:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Margaret Thatcher? Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My most hated villian from all of fiction, surpassing Iago, the Marquise de Merteuil, and Sigmund Ausfaller, is Nurse Ratched. I'm not sure how you'd dress up like her, though, other than just dressing as a nurse, which people might misunderstand. --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Bathory if you're into history mixed with pop culture.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the crowd, howabout just putting your hair up and wearing some glasses? ;-) (Oh, if only she were actually evil.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Eva Braun? Also Anne Coulter, who is I suppose more mean than evil. You could go Biblical and try Jezebel, Delilah, or Herodias. Cruella de Ville would be really really funny, too. I also like Maleficent, and Ursula would be funny. She could also go as a generic siren or harpy. My dad suggests any James Bone woman. Then there's Dolores Umbridge. --Masamage ♫ 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume that that was a borderline-Freudian slip of the finger, and that Masamage actually meant James Bond's girls, and not James Bone's.... :D
 * On a more serious note, you can actually pull in a bunch of hits – real and fictional – by doing a Google search for list of evil women (movies) or some such. Many bloggers have made lists of their favourite evil ladies.  AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains has a few female villians, though many have already been named above.
 * One more thought&mdash;could you be an evil couple? Adolf and Eva are a bit obvious, I suppose, but Bonnie and Clyde are a possibility.  Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What's so evil about poor Eva? Bad taste in men? (Now, Madam Ceauşescu is another story. Put her together with Nicolae and I think you've got something.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Joan Crawford, particularly in her title role in Mildred Pierce, or even as portrayed as she allegedly was in real life by Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest. A more evil bitch one could not find.
 * Oh, how remiss of me. I've just remembered Mrs Danvers as played by Dame Judith Anderson  in Rebecca.  (For those who don't know the movie, "Mrs. Danvers as conceived by Judith Anderson is widely considered one of the screen's most memorable and sexually ambiguous female villains".).   --  JackofOz (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I did mean James Bond. Ooooopsy-doodle.
 * Also, coming back to this, my favorite entry so far has been Nurse Rached. She could wear a name tag, even, because nurses often do. Entirely awesome. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignitaries around the world born on August 31st
Who are the dignitaries born on August 31st who have created history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Click on August 31 and you'll have a very comprehensive list. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)