Miscellaneous desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 10

Spanish Book

Does anyone know where I could get a summary of the book "Patricia va a California"? The author is Blaine Ray. I am currently unable to go to many websites other than Wikipedia, so If you could post the actual summary here, that would be "fantastico!" ^_^ Thanks! --PolarWolf ( grrr... ) 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia is a 15-year-old girl from Guatemala. She goes to California as an exchange student. She lives with a caring American family but encounters prejudice at school, especially from a girl named Debbie. By chance, Patricia finds Debbie in a dangerous situation. She acts quickly and decisively to rescue her. The two girls become fast friends, and eventually Debbie goes to Guatemala to visit Patricia and her family.

And if you are able to access this site you can get more details. http://users.rcn.com/jgoldste/pvac.htm Richard Avery 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm able to go to other websites now, so this is great. :) --PolarWolf ( grrr... ) 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific wikipedia article on clockwork automata?

Like wind up clocks, but other than something that keeps time.

See Clockwork and Wind-up for starters. The latter is just a disambiguation page, so it has non-relevant content. Perhaps if you have some free time you can expand it. dr.ef.tymac 01:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton is a pretty good article. SteveBaker 04:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy our all-too-brief article about the Musée Mécanique.

Atlant 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or check out the video for the song "Coin-Operated Boy" :) Corvus cornix 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

old people living in freshman dorms

Since lots of older people are going to college now, could they live in freshman dorms? I mean like 60 year olds living with all the 18 year olds.

Quite often those people live in the community that the college is in and therefore already have their own homes/apartments/etc. Dismas|^(talk) 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly vary from campus to campus, but the answer is probably "yes" at most places. I'd imagine that (1) most campuses aren't averse to pulling in housing fees and (2) there's probably some sort of no-age-discrimination clause that applies. — Lomn 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember a story about an elderly woman who decided in her 70s or 80s to do the whole college thing at Kent State University a few years back, including living on campus. She eventually graduated. -- Mwalcoff 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in residence with older people, although not as old as 60. But that was an upper year/graduate student residence. Adam Bishop 07:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona College doesn't have freshman dorms, but rather mixed-class dorms (although Sophomores tend to end up in the least desirable dorm rooms since Frosh get distributed around the dorms into reserved-for-frosh rooms while juniors and seniors get first pick of rooms). There was a senior citizen student there in the late 80s who was living in the dorms, so yes, it can and has happened. Donald Hosek 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A variation on this: in the Netherlands I know of only one university that has a campus. Instead, we normally have student houses. I live in one and I'm the oldest inhabitant at 44. So not that 'bad'. :) There are some more older inhabitants and the reason is that the alternatives are a whole lot more expensive, so people don't move until they have a steady well paid job. Btw, even if I had one, I might still not move because I like to live together with a bunch of educated people. (Also, I've got one of the best views one can hope for in Amsterdam, at an intersection of canals and a view of two of the most beautiful towers in the city.) DirkvdM 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't swear

If, in the USA, you refuse to swear on the bible in a court of law, what is the procedure? Keria 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't (...wait for it...) swear to this, but I think in almost any jurisdiction you are permitted to "affirm" rather than "swear", and you don't have to use any holy book. Swearing on a Christian bible is a very strange idea on its face, given that Jesus did explicitly forbid it; it's right there in red letters. --Trovatore 06:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And AFAIA, the "procedure" is you tell the usher you wish to affirm rather than swear an oath. In some places, they'll ask you which you want to do as a matter of course; in others, a particular oath will be assumed unless you request otherwise. FiggyBee 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, so I hear, the judge will sometimes advise the jury that the affirmation is no less binding than the oath and that they must not allow the witness's refusal of a religious oath to prejudice them towards the testimony.--Rallette 09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find ACLU of N.C. & Syidah Matteen v. State of North Carolina interesting. Jon513 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be pedantic, since this question is USA-specific, the term in US courts is bailiff, not usher. :) Corvus cornix 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then there was the "unorthodox" procedure from Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe/Fried Green Tomatoes (film)...

Atlant 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, refusal to swear on a Bible was used as a basis for disallowing the testimony of nonChristians (such as Chinese immigrants) in the U.S in the 1800's. The later allowance of "affirm" was an accomodation to non-Christian witnesses. Edison 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first sentence, could be; a lot of things have happened in this country. But as to the second sentence, no, I really don't think so. The phrase "oath or affirmation" appears in the original U.S. Constitution three times. I think it was at least partly an accommodation for Christian witnesses who took one of Jesus's lesser-known, but more explicit, commandments seriously. It's really kind of bizarre, when you think about it, that people "swear to tell the truth" with their hand on a book containing the following passage:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

--Trovatore 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that the "or affirm(ation)" language was written with Quakers especially in mind. I've heard somewhere that Richard Nixon "affirm"ed. —Tamfang 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, Franklin Pierce has been the only president to "affirm", and he was an Episcopalian. --Anon, 23:20 UTC, October 11.

Football

I know this may not realy b what u wikipedia people r used 2 but i have a bet with people at my work who believe they know alot more about football than i do so i have challenged the in a fantacy league, would any of you be able to suggest player who would b good adisions to my team?? plz i ned 2 win this!! thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You feel that you are more knowledgable than your co-workers when it comes to football but you're looking to us for advice on who you should pick? Does the player we choose have to display as much good sportsmanship as you are? Dismas|^(talk) 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that (because all's fair in fantasy football and showing up one's co-workers), which football? Given the timing, I'm guessing the gridiron variety, in which case the season has started and you're not drafting a clean slate. It's utterly impossible to give specific advice since we don't know the state of your league, but consider searching the web at large and/or sports sites for fantasy advice. There's a big market for this sort of thing. — Lomn 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's IP address is in Watford, England, so it's a probable hundred to one on that he's asking us about soccer players. For a fantasy team, the contenders include Pelé, Gerd Müller, Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruijff, Alfredo di Stefano, Diego Maradona, Garrincha, George Best, Michel Platini, Eusébio, Ferenc Puskás, Bobby Charlton and Zinedine Zidane. In goal, I'd like to see Lev Yashin, but maybe you could try Gordon Banks, Dino Zoff or Peter Schmeichel. Xn4 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he means a all time greatest team, but a fantasy football league in which you choose 11 or so premiership players and get points depending on how they perform each week for their clubs. Umm I tend to lose these things despite being a keen fan, but my advice is get two or three expensive players, these will be the best. Cristiano Ronaldo tends to score a lot of points. Then fill up the team with cheaper players. Look for players who are playing against the lower down teams, or who may be playing twice in a week. Look at the statistics available already from the league you are in, and watch out for injuries. Lots of time to decide though, because it's internationals this week, so no fixtures. Cyta 10:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders who take penalties are always a good option. And if you can't afford a goalkeeper from a good defensive team (NB not the same as a good goalkeeper!) pay the minimum for a goalkeeper that never plays. --Dweller 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munchausen by Proxy

This is not a medical question, it's a historical one. I'm curious to see if there have been any documented cases of Munchausen by Proxy in which the feigned illness in the child was a mental one rather than a physical one - it seems that'd be easier to fake, wouldn't it, by exaggerating symptoms? Kuronue | Talk 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As munchausen syndrome is a psychiatric illness, then feigning a psychiatric illness would be a case of munchausen syndrome - and so it would be a real illness - a sort of contradiction...)

(clarify : Also Munchausen by Proxy involves faking or causing illnesses in others in order to bring attention to oneself ("by proxy") - I wonder how one could give someone else a psychiatric illness - maybe by giving pyschoactive drugs or something?)

Did you mean something like a parent/guardian claiming their child is 'autistic' or whatever the latest fashionable middle class disease is - as an example - something like that???87.102.79.56 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can I add a mild objection to describing autism as a 'fashionable middle class disease'? Autism is a disorder and the autistic spectrum is vast, ranging from problems with social communication right through to the child who is locked into their own world - and many, many other things besides. (That absent-minded uncle of yours who hides away in his study might have Asperger's Syndrome - that's on the autistic spectrum). thanks 83.104.131.135 08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But at the same time, you do get parents claiming their child has 'the latest fashionable middle class disease', which might at that time be autism. I get very angry at parents who claim their children are allergic to peanuts when they clearly aren't. They complain that the doctor won't prescribe them an epipen, at the same time they hand their child a bowl of peanuts to throw to the birds! They're endangering the lives of those who actually have allergies, because they lead other people to believe that a peanut allergy is nothing serious, or that it's just something parents claim. It also screws the children up a little; I knew someone in their early twenties who calmly told me that he was allergic to peanuts while eating an entire bag of them. He was utterly convinced, because his mother had told him so and a 'doctor' had apparently agreed. I imagine autism has a similar problem at times, hence 87.102's comment. 130.88.140.43 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean; taking the kid to shrink after shrink until they find one who will say the kid is depressed/bipolar/autistic/what have ye. Kuronue | Talk 03:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more information on cornerstone

Greetings,

I was reading the other day about the chief cornerstone spoken of in the Bible. So I checked out your site and was wondering if you had any info about this stone being the cap-stone of the prymids of Egypt. In reading the description of the stone in the Scriptures and the description of this cap-stone, it seems to me they are very simuliar. Just wanted your view and any further information that you might have on the matter.

Thank-you, John Hill Thomasville, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.23.140 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e-mail removed for spam reasons)

There are a couple of examples in the bible - which one?

Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame... The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone." (1 Peter 2:4-8)

Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20)

from http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/chapt15.htm

I don't see a major connection as yet87.102.79.56 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although chief might connote top, the foundation context would tend to mitigate against associating chief cornerstones with cap-stones. I found an article with this quote, which may help: "How was the tabernacle kept at the proper form and angles? Special "corner" clips or sockets maintained right angles. The temple was built using this same architecture means by working from the first stone being set properly and the rest of the building being established from that point. The NT uses this analogy of the temple reerring to the cornerstone. If the chief cornerstone was misplaced or in error, the whole building as out square and unstable" --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on cornerstone mentions the Biblical references and supports the idea of a foundation stone rather than a capstone. Foundation stone is certainly the meaning that I have always associated with these passages. Gandalf61 09:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SNES PAL to NTSC Converter

What was the latest PAL to NTSC converter released by any company for the SNES and thus had the ability to play the greatest amount of Japanese/American imports. Furthermore are there any converters that can actually play " ALL " games.?

Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.119.56 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAL and NTSC are video formats. I suspect you're actually asking about SNES modchips that allow you to skirt Regional lockouts. Personally, I'd look for an emulator rather than a hardware solution. Keep in mind that Wikipedia can't really give you advice regarding illegal activities. --Mdwyer 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not asking about modchips or anything illicit whatsoever. There exists devices, ( search ebay if your unsure ) or even google it, that allow you to play the American or Japanese SNES games on the European console. They are not illegal whatsoever. You place the converter in the console along with any PAL (UK version) game and then the NTSC( or American.Japanese) game and it can play it. Again see previous question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.119.56 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom teeth...

The dentist said recently that I'll need my wisdom teeth pulled soon, which annoyed me quite a bit. I was wondering though, is it better to get all four pulled at once, or one at a time (one fourth the dose of whatever it is they inject my gums with...), or does it not matter? Thanks in advance! Pessimistic Nonconformist? 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was me, I'd definitely get them all at once. The prep takes time, and so does the recovery; the whole thing is sufficiently unpleasant that dragging it out to cover four completely separate occasions would be terrible. --Masamage ♫ 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above post -- do it all at once and get it over and done with. That's what I did. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. All at once. Just go in, get them pulled, get some good drugs so you don't care about the pain for a few days, sit on the couch and eat ice cream, and watch way too much day time television. Plan on having it done on a Friday or sometime when you know that you'll miss a limited amount of work like a three day governmental holiday weekend. Dismas|^(talk) 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you hate your job. :D --Masamage ♫ 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would anyone want it done at a weekend? Surely better to have it done Monday morning! DuncanHill 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would depend on whether your company lets you take sickleave for such things. I might rather have a bad weekend than burn vacation time. These days a lot of companies don't make any distinction between the two anyway, which is great if you don't get sick (because these companies usually give you a bit more of this combined vacation/sick time than you get in pure vacation time from companies that distinguish), but tends to incentivize presenteeism. --Trovatore 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm still in high-school, but homeschooled, so maybe my mom will let me take a couple days off. :) Okay, thanks for the overwhelmingly-one-sided responses, I'll have them all pulled in one day (wish me luck!). · A Pessimistic Nonconformist? • Talk 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad. My cheeks were really swollen (I had mine out when I was 14), but that's about it. --_{King of the Wontons} | _{lol wut?} | _{Oh noes! Vandals!} 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I got 4 teeth pulled out for my braces (not wisdoms, 5th from the front), I chose to have one side of my mouth done at a time, with 2 weeks in between. It still sucked, but if I got them all done at once, I would have been twice the drooling mess I was. --Candy-Panda 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they need to be removed? You might want to read our article on wisdom teeth, particularly the bit about the controversy. Also check with your dentist how long it will take to have all four removed at the same time. My dentist took an hour to remove just one of mine (though admittedly there were complications).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine weren't breaking through yet, and they took all 4 at once, I don't really remember any problems with that, but they did put me entirely under for the procedure(using an IV), I think it was about 2 hours. I'll vouch for it not being that bad really (recovery I mean). Dureo 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira: Yes, they have to be removed, since they're pushing my other teeth forward, and they aren't even out yet. Pessimistic Nonconformist? 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one other piece of advice for you. Under no circumstances allow your parents or whoever does the cooking at your house to serve peas for as long as your mouth is healing. When I had mine out, my mother served peas with dinner a few days after the extraction. One fell in the hole in my gums and it took me probably 20 minutes getting it out with a toothpick. Dismas|^(talk) 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Are we allowed to do culinary advice here?!?? :-) --Anonymous jester, 23:23 UTC, October 11, 2007.

He, I'll remember that. :) Pessimistic Nonconformist? 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest mushy peas? DuncanHill 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but I'm fairly sure that I can go without peas for a while... :) Pessimistic Nonconformist? 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the peas: when my lower two were removed I was given some weird little plunger device thingamabob, which shot out a stream of water that was used to remove food detritus that had accumulated in the holes where my teeth used to be; some pretty gross stuff would come out when I used it. Also, I found using Ibuprofen, or some other over the counter drug, as my pain management drug worked fine, allowing me to "save" the prescription drug my dentist prescribed to me. 38.112.225.84 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember being given a thingamabob but then I don't think it would have helped. The pea was just about the same size as the hole which made the extraction of said pea difficult. Thus the toothpick. I would have tried to suck it out but I was advised not to use drinking straws for at least two weeks due to the possibility of the pressure causing problems of some sort. Dismas|^(talk) 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll keep your suggestions in mind. Pessimistic Nonconformist? 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I got mine out, my sense of taste was screwed up for a few weeks afterwards. The day it returned to normal was the happiest day of my life! Adam Bishop 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering my mom makes a mixture of cabbage, tomatoes, diet yogurt, yeast powder, and whey every day, I think I won't mind that. :) Pessimistic Nonconformist? 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to your mum - I'm sure she is a wonderful person - but I'd rather have my teeth pulled than eat that! DuncanHill 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a dentist tell me over 35 years ago that I should have my wisdom teeth out because "Someday they're going to bother you". They're still there, and they haven't bothered me yet. Corvus cornix 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is they're already pushing the rest of my teeth forward. :( Pessimistic Nonconformist? 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't even have any. And just one twelve-year molar. >__> My mouth is incredibly tiny. --Masamage ♫ 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get someone to drive you cuz you'll be too fucked up from all the pain killers to do so yourself. --MKnight9989 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safety seal equality

How come my orange juice, my dog's arthritis medicine, and my power steering fluid need those paper/foil safety seals but my dishwashing soap does not? For what it's worth, I'm in the States. Dismas|^(talk) 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're unlikely to be poisoned by the soap, since it is rinsed away. The power steering fluid almost certainly has a seal for reasons distinct from the food products - less to do with possible adulteration and more to do with making a good seal, I'd expect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sealed products would otherwise 'spoil' more quickly? Alternatively a lot of products now have a 'child safe' seal that makes it difficult (or at least less easy) for children to get into containers/products that could be harmful to them. It could also be that certain products are more prone to leaking and so need more seals than others, or that packaging firm X has an automated sealer machine, but firm Y don't and so their produce doesn't come sealed - as it is unlikely to be a legal requirement to seal things such as OJ it would come down to company preference. Certainly I find that sometimes our '4 pinters' in the Uk come with a variety of good and bad seals for the lid. Some are incredible hard to remove in one fell swoop, others much easier. This is almost certainly a difference caused by different packaging/bottling machinery installed at different plants. ny156uk 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The seal on the power steering fluid (and on other things like brake fluid) is to keep atmospheric water vapor from contaminating the fluid. The arthritis medicine is probably also sealed for that reason. The orange juice seal is probably because the juice has been pasteurized, and the seal keeps bacteria out, giving it a longer shelf life. --Carnildo 23:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1982 a truly evil person killed several people by putting poison in Tylenol capsules. Tamper-evident seals on products became common after that, especially for packages anyone could adulterate, then place on a store shelf. Many years earlier, foil seals were added to the rubber tops of injectable drugs to prevent harmful substances being added, and to prevent narcotics being removed and replaced by inert liquid. In other areas of comerce, like gas stations, a foil seal on a product like a gas additive prevents the merchant from refilling a gas additive bottle with gas and seling it for more money. Edison 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am old enough to remember the Tylenol scare. In fact, I grew up less than 20 miles from most, if not all, the victims. And I can see why seals on automotive products would benefit the products by keeping water vapor out. But it just seems to me that something could be put into the soap and end up on my silverware and dishes. Therefore, maybe there should be seals on this as well. Dismas|^(talk) 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The safety seals were never to actually make you safer. Only to make you feel safer. It was a marketing technique to make Tylenol appear to be reacting to the crisis. Stoping someone from tampering with all the food products you consume is virtually impossible. Imagine a hypodermic needle going through a plastic bag of chips. You'd never notice the hole. Or think of the whole produce section in the supermarket. If it were a real danger people would be dropping dead on a regular basis. Better to spend your effort on making your automobile safer. 69.95.50.15 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagine a hypodermic needle going through a plastic bag of chips. You'd never notice the hole." Maybe you wouldn't, I would because the bag would no longer have a full seal; it would deflate when squeezed. I never buy something that doesn't have a full seal if I know it's supposed to. I've even reported products that deflate, when they're supposed to be airtight, to the shop staff (they may not do anything about it, but I'd feel awful if I didn't). 130.88.140.43 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's EASILY fixed. If I was going to go through all the trouble of poisoning your chips, I'd take the simple precaution of dabbing a bit of glue over the hole. Possibly even coating the needle with glue would be enough. (Some experimentation would be required.) Wouldn't be as strong, but you don't normally go around squeezing the bag. In any case, the chips were just my first thought. I assume you "report" unsealed bags because you're worried your fellow consumers will get stale chips, because, if you wanted to poison random people for no good reason there are loads of things in the supermarket you could poison completely undetectably with even less effort. (The entire produce section, for example.) It gets even even easier if you consider the possibility of buying something, tampering with it and heat-sealing it at home then sneaking it back into the store.

My point is that there are absolutely no protections against this sort of thing, and yet it still doesn't happen. I am always honestly confused by people who insist that this is a clear and present danger, and are completely blasé about real, but boring, dangers like automobile accidents, heart disease, etc. 69.95.50.15 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "paper/foil safety seal"? --Dweller 12:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the cap off the bottle there will be a seal across the mouth of the bottle. They are generally made out of either paper or some foil backed paper. It's glued to the opening. So once you screw off the cap, you have to then peel this paper or foil seal off. Some are even made of plastic but most are a thick paper or foil backed paper. Dismas|^(talk) 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]