March 26

I have an Earthlink e-mail account and the spam I get is very.. odd. Here is a sample:

"Ah!--Indeed I am very sorry.--Come, shake hands with me." "It is so cold, so very cold--and looks and feels so very much like sn She was the youngest of the two daughters of a most affectionate, indu She had no doubt of what Mr. Weston was often thinking about. His quic The Picture, elegantly framed, came safely to hand

I am not kidding, this is seriously in my known spam folder, altough it also has a banner for <a company>. Can someone explain to me why this is so... this?

I hope you don't mind that I deleted most of the text of the spam message. Spammers use nonsense text as a technique to evade

Spam filtering -- Diletante

And I hope the poster doesn't mind I've removed the company name as well. Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I can assume they were trying to avoid spam blockers even though they failed?

Correct. StuRat 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unless you got the email in your spam folder, it means they succeeded in avoiding spam blockers. Xiner (talk, email) 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he says he got it in his spam folder. --

^{talk email}

See also

Word salad (computer science)... and here and here... --Shirt58 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to see these snippets in context, they are all from "Emma" by Jane Austin which you can read online at[1]. Of course you recognized them immediately, didn't you? And shouldn't it be the "younger" of two daughters, not the "youngest?" Edison 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also also filler text. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I write a legit check worth a thousand bucks with ABA Routing # and account #, but that is written on a piece of notebook paper, will the bank give the person depositing it any troulbe?

In normal checks, the numbers at the bottom are written in special magnetic ink, in a special font (E-13B), so that they can be read by a machine. At least some banks will start levying service charges if their

MrRedact 05:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

They're making a small (and IMO, bad) joke about whether the check is good or not. People used to bite coins to determine whether they were legitimate or not. I don't know if the real coins would dent or if it was the fakes. But either way, it's a reference to that. Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Silver and gold are soft enough to dent when bittenhotclaws**== 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the idea was to bite thru the thin coating of gold and see the base metal underneath, if it was fake. StuRat 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the articles-thing comes through again! Gold has: There is an age-old tradition of biting gold in order to test its authenticity. Although this is certainly not a professional way of examining gold, the bite test should score the gold because gold is considered a soft metal according to the Mohs' scale of mineral hardness. The purer the gold the easier it should be to mark it. Painted lead can cheat this test because lead is softer than gold (and may invite a small risk of lead poisoning if sufficient lead is absorbed by the biting). --Zeizmic 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i thought it was to check, if someone was trying to swindle you with chocolate coins!--Lerdthenerd 08:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swindle?! I love chocolate coins!! V-Man - ^T/_C 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the average salaries of the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL? —The preceding

Googling "average player salary" answers this question readily. Here's NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL, ranked high to low. — Lomn 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the difference between tube and rail stations in London? —The preceding

Tube stations are "underground stations" (subway) <mainly underground>, rail stations are "railroad (railway) stations" <only on surface> -- Meister 06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, "tube" is the informal name for the London Underground system, which crisscrosses Central London with a network of underground lines that have stations mostly at close intervals 1/2 to 1 mile. Most of these lines extend well out into Greater London, often running at ground level once they leave the central area. Many of the lines have small tunnels (less than 12 feet in diameter) and use special trains with a squat profile to fit in them. Many stations are quite deep underground, 60 feet or more, and the platforms are reached by lifts (elevators) or long escalators. In general the Underground is designed for relatively short trips, although people living near the suburban parts of the system certainly use it for longer trips into Central London. It is an urban transit system.

By "rail" or "railway" station, one usually means a station on the national railway network. Some routes on this network are also designed for relatively short trips and have an urban transit nature, especially in South London where there are fewer Underground lines. But in general the national rail system is designed for longer trips: it has higher speeds than the Underground, stops are farther apart, but trains are also less frequent. Also, in London most railway lines radiate outwards from different terminal stations in the city center, and do not cross it. (In fact, one of the original reasons that the Underground got started in the 1860s -- when they had to use steam rather than electric trains! -- was to enable people to travel conveniently between the different railway terminals.)

--Anonymous, March 26, 2007, 07:59 (UTC).

There is also the private 'tube' network owned and operated by the Post Office for rapid movement of mail between central London sorting offices.--88.109.206.48 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more; the

Post Office Railway

, latterly called MailRail, was shut down in 2003. (The patterns of mail movement had changed in the 80-odd years since it was built.) Anyway, the original poster was obviously asking about stations open to the public, which this wasn't. --Anon, March 26, 18:57 (UTC).

While "The Tube" is the informal name for the whole London Underground network, there is a technical difference caused by their construction method between the early "cut and cover" lines (Circle, District, Metropolitan, etc) which have quite large trains, and the deep-level "tube" lines (Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria, Jubilee, etc) which have small trains with an essentially circular cross-section. -- Arwel (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but only railfans and professionals use "tube" that way any more. --Anonymous, March 28, 2007, 01:03 (UTC).

Broadly speaking, the above answers are correct - for the most part, rail lines and stations (often called "mainline" stations) are above ground and tube lines and stations are underground (in central London). But, as with many things, there are exceptions. Most mainline stations have a tube station with the same name - except for

Hammersmith and City line platforms at London Paddington station are officially tube lines, but are actually part of the mainline station, and quite separate from the underground part of Paddington tube station. And at Moorgate station four tube lines and two rail lines all share a common underground station complex - so this breaks all the rules ! Gandalf61 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Over 50% of the London Underground is actually overground; did you know that! Think outside the box 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its all over ground as there is more ground under the ground the trains run under :] HS7 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phone i am getting for my new verizon plan is a MotoRAZR V3m. I looked at the product description and it says it is an EVDO only phone. With this in mind would i still be able to Verizon's internet and enhanced sevices network.--logger 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spell Bush wassie? It means the educated public. I think its an english word. —The preceding

Do you mean bourgeoisie? If so, it doesn't have quite the meaning you think it does. Clarityfiend 08:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That WAS cleaver of Clarityfiend, I would never have worked that one out!--88.109.206.48 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 'cause I would have spelled Bush Wussie as Alberto Gonzales.

Atlant 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawd, Lawd, ain't gonna live in no Bushwa town"

Bourgeois Blues. --LarryMac 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok so this is kinda a homework question but I really can't think of much other than reduced crash rate from people doing stupid things, but what are the benefits of raising the drivng age to 18? Thanks a lot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none, honestly. Other than obvious statistics, such as a reduced amount of teenage colliosions. It's much better to teach responsibility than limit age. Idiots will always be idiots, I know people who are 16 and drive fine, I know people who are 30 and drive like a lunatic, and I know people that are over 45 and still drive drunk. -- feb^talk 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I thinks but unfortunately we are on the positive team and I am running out of ideas. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an environmental benefit: less cars on the road means less traffic, less pollution, etc. There's also likely to be several secondary economic benefits to families, since a) insurance rates would be slightly less, and kick in later in life, and b) less families would have to pay for their kids' cars and gas, and could thus have more money for their kids' schooling. And, while I agree that it is better to teach responsibility, a raised driving age would at least provide three more years of possible maturity and schooling (about mechanics, too!) on average for new drivers, even if not everyone was more mature or skilled at the end of those three years. And tying the economic issues TO that, if all drivers were old enough to work for their gas and car money, might at least some of them not be more careful with their cars and driving? Jfarber 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance and other direct cost associated with driving are not a factor. As with all economic decisions, the parents would not let their 15 year old drive (or at least not get them a car) it they did not feel that the benefits were worth the cost. We are looking for externalities that cost people besides the child and the parents, such as collision, Air pollution, and traffic. However most of those are reason to limit anyone from driving (maximum driving age?). Perhaps one could argue that raising the driving age will cause student to focus more on their studies and increase their education which is a beneficial externality. Jon513 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that I was thinking about for a while. Can you identify and explain to me how an extensive range of physical processes shape coastal enviroments? –211.30.205.243 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Coastal erosion which explains what shapes the coast, and Coastal management for how people are trying to manage this. If you need further help please be more speific in your question :) Think outside the box 10:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For additional processes, also see the "Coastal processes" section of

MrRedact 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, man; please do your own homework. I'll give you credit for tricking the volunteers, though. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 10:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say a 14-and-a-half year old girl goes to party, she's : (5'6) tall and weighs 64kg (140lb), she's never had a full drink in her life, and she's eaten dinner beforehand. How many alcoholic drinks (for example, Vodka Cruisers or Bacardi Breezers) could she drink at the party before she starts experiencing negative side effects (eg. nausea, vomiting). This is not a homework question, I need to know this before Friday night! --124.181.131.222 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will depend a lot on the person. Since I probably can't talk you out of this, I will say, the best way to drink is always in moderation. Unless you enjoy vomiting, in which case, who cares? -- feb^talk 11:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a 14 year old?, zero, zero,zero! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Agree with above post. However, who says the questioner is the one who will drink? (Although it is likely...) · AO ^Talk 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with those recommending caution/moderation (and for the person who wrote "never", see below -- there are SOME cases in which this 14 year old could drink, and our opinions about whether that's a good idea aren't relevant to reference desk services.) I've searched numerous articles, from

Drunkeness to Effects of Alcohol on the body; though all agree that excessive drinking in both short term and long term can cause both social and medical problems, there is no formula given to determine how much alcohol a given person can consume before the body starts rebelling. Bodies are different; weight is not the only factor which would make a difference. That said: it is important to know that the rate at which the body absorbs alcohol is often slower than one thinks, and will depend on what else is in the stomach, among other things -- so if you're an inexperienced drinker, I recommend taking it VERY slow. Like, a couple of drinks over the course of the evening slow. Jfarber 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: the querent's IP address shows that s/he is is Australia, where the legal drinking age is 18, BUT, according to our own article, states allow drinking or possessing alcohol on private premises for people under the age of 18 (under the supervision of an adult[s]). AND It is also illegal to provide minors with alcohol, and one can be fined by it if caught in the act. Whether you are the girl in question or merely the person hoping to provide alcohol, be advised that there are only very limited parameters in which the activity you describe is legal in your country. HOWEVER, since it is not for us to assume that the querent is NOT the responsible adult in the room in question, I have crossed out, rather than deleted, my above original response. Jfarber 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more little thing. In my personal experience, people who haven't drunk much before don't initially notice when they have drunk too much and start to suffer negative effects. This can lead them to continue drinking past the point when an experienced drinker would stop, leading to much misery later. So, really, really, go slowly, as Jfarber recommends. Skittle 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am 18 now and have very little alcohol tolerence :( I haven't ever been drunk, but have been quite close after just a pint of beer, and I find that alcohol, especially beer, makes me feel ill and as if I had swallowed a stone, so 1) alcohol tolerance can vary a lot between similar people and 2) don't drink it is a bad idea :) HS7 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, people, we're supposed to be acting as reference librarians here, not advice columnists.

Here's a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) calculator that looks like it's pretty much exactly what you're looking for.[3] Note that according to the "Effects at different levels" section of the

Yes I agree with the post above, do you really think a 14 year old is going to take "zero zero zero" for an answer? If they are smart enough to ask here for information, they are probably at least a little more responsible and interested in their own welfare then some other people. Giving them flat out 'zero' answers will do less good then harm. So to address the question, I had a drink when I was 14 and don't think it screwed me up, yes there are risks, especially if you are in an environment where there are a lot of other people who try to convince you it is 'cool' or 'normal' or something. The truth is, it isn't cool, I really believe part of growing up and being cool is the opposite of getting drunk, all I did was look at all the people getting wasted and making idiots of them selves to realise it, it didn't take me long, but some of my friends never learned… That doesn't mean don't ever drink, but it means drink responsibly, and for a fourteen year old, it does actually mean try not to drink. Vespine 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a lifelong teetotaller I agree with Vespine; and at the risk of giving advice, please keep your drink in hand at all times; there are much much worse things for 14 a year old girl to worry about at parties than barfing all over her slingbacks. That advice applies to girls who don't drink alcohol at parties too. Anchoress 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im want to know about protocol management in clinical trials —The preceding

Atlant 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't let the occasional vandal raise your ire. StuRat 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise_it. Clarityfiend 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple of years living in Japan, I recently moved to Canada after spending three months in my home country of England. In the month that I've been here, I haven't had a single good shave; I've been bleeding all over the place and coming away in complete facial agony. But while I was back home in England everything was fine. No bad shaves, no cutting, no rashes. I brought over all the same equipment, blades, shaving gel and so on, so the only thing that's changed (as far as I can see) is the water. So, my question, having seen that Canada and the UK have different water styles (UK = v. hard, Canada = soft), can that have an effect on quality of shaves? Or is there something else I'm not thinking of? Or am I crazy? Phileas 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most of Canada, the air is quite a bit drier than in much of the UK. It's possible that your skin is drying out and becoming more sensitive to the trauma of shaving. A colleague of mine moved from Ireland to Canada for a year, and she found – particularly in the winter months, when there's a great deal of forced-air heating – her skin tended to become very dry and irritated unless she moisturized regularly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "hardness" of water effects how it interacts with soap, and how "slippery" it feels, so I wouldn't be suprised if this made it harder or easier to shave. hard water has some info -- Diletante 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cold, dry air sounds like the culprit; I find that shaving in winter is less comfortable, and requires more hot water. Make sure that your skin is thoroughly soaked with hot water, but before you do that, hold a hot towel to your face to open up the pores. Barbers use that technique. And change your blade more frequently whenever your experience discomfort. Adrian M. H. 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Wisconsin. Here in Wisconsin we call ourselves "Wisconsinites" What would a person from New Hampshire call themself? 75.54.61.158 15:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)IRC[reply]

"Cold". Otherwise, a New Hampshirite or Granite Stater.

Atlant 16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_U.S._state_residents_names -- Diletante 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As a native of Hampshire England I am proud to be a HAMPSHIRE HOG. (This is not appreciated these days and so Hawk is suggested as a replacement.)86.219.166.158 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Piggywiggy[reply]

And here I thought "Wisconsinites" were called cheeseheads. StuRat 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these names official? · AO ^Talk 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some are and some aren't. Many legislatures prefer to waste their time on other matters rather than spend it on debating and approving the official name for their residents. In such states, the name of their residents remains unofficial. StuRat 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you delete an old account you do not want anymore? --Bfissa 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see meta:right to vanish for more info. -- Diletante 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes! Is there some unfortunate editor out there who can't change usernames by having more than 200,000 edits? Clarityfiend 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many did Light Current have? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find an

Well if you follow your own wikilink, you'll find a link to this article, which mentions the following:

Chicago, Illinois

who represents a more conservative and scholarly element in the movement. His blog has been a catalyst for emerging church discussion.

I'd suggest checking out Scot's WP article, and looking for his blog. Anchoress 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been faced with the option of paying for goods or services by credit card (which I don't use) and, recently, by having the amount added to my phone bill (ATT). What's this about, who governs it, what protections exist?BMcEH 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to debate with the credit card company, who holds nothing they can use against you except maybe your credit history, than with your phone company, which with the regional Bells are monopolies. Credit card companies are regulated by the feds, while the Bells are protected by state utility commissions. I'd call up AT&T and ask for an explanation of your rights in writing, but pay with my credit card as much as possible. Xiner (talk, email) 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in the US you can notify the phone company that you dispute a third-party bill and they will remove it. After all, they don't want to lose you as a customer just because you owe somebody else money. StuRat 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across a discussion on a talk page somewhere where an editor voiced a preference for a threaded, more traditional "message board" format for talk pages rather than the current wiki-driven format used in all other namespaces. For the life of me, I can't find it anymore, and I am looking to use it in a paper I am writing about trade-offs in varying forms of electronic communication. For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain it wasn't on any of the village pump pages as I don't frequent them as often as I'd like. I know it's a long shot but if anyone has a clue where this conversation may have taken place (or even a specific link), I'd be eternally grateful! — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it on one of these pages:

• • Mailing lists
  • Why wikithreads are bad
  • Wiki discussion vs messageboard

--Anchoress 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe somewhere in

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page -- Diletante 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Well, as "pretty certain" as I was that it wasn't in VP anywhere, you proved me wrong! That's the discussion I was looking for. The other two will be of some use as well, I imagine. Thanks!! — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The Wikipedia Google Queen

My daughter is within 3 courses of her degree. One of these is organic chem. She is having a lot of problems with this course and may not be able to pass it. Is it possible to sub another course when this is a required course? This degree is from a Texas college. It is not part of the UT system.129.112.109.251 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask the college. Clarityfiend 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are usually only two reasons organic chemistry is "required": for a chemistry-related major or for application to medical school. If she is having that much trouble with organic chemistry, she may need to rethink whether either is realistic. alteripse 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case your daughter decides to continue with organic chemistry, my experience is that organic chemistry makes much more sense if you can visualise the structures of the molecules involved. My son, who has a very strong orientation towards visual thinking, found organic chemistry a struggle until he got himself a molecular modelling kit (like this one). Once he could make physical models of the molecules described in his textbooks, it all became a lot clearer. Gandalf61 10:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how important is this information, but I learned a little bit of organic chemistry last year and I heavily used Wikipedia articles to help me on that. Organic chemistry can be actually quite enjoyable to learn, since it follows only a small set of rules and so everything makes more sense than in inorganic chemistry. Learning how to know the name of the molecules when given the formula and vice-versa can be quite a rewarding task, and you don't feel totally lost when people talk of ethanol, hydrocarbons, polymers and other common substances we hear about all the time. A.Z. 04:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could people create a dragon? Would it be possible to genetically engineer the DNA for an entire animal, such as a dragon, and thereby create a new specis? And would this be legal? I would assume we would have to start with bacteria &c and work our way up, or would it be easier to take an existing animal and modify it?HS7 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Genetic engineering isn't up to it yet, and they would create fun-loving dinosaurs first! :) But the sad thing is that if Science creates mystical creatures, they would subject to boring scientific laws, which are very dragon-hostile. --Zeizmic 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some day, however, such genetic engineering might be possible, by combining traits from different animals. We already have glowing monkeys, for example, with jellyfish DNA used to make them glow (for those of us who keep losing our monkeys in the dark). However, some characteristics of dragons, like breathing fire, don't seem to exist anywhere in nature. For a dragon to fly, it would have to be fairly small. StuRat 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, see Spore (video game) if you're into genes. · AO ^Talk 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I find my monkey after losing it in the dark, I give it a good

spanking.  :) JackofOz 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe you could so something with genes from a Bombardier beetle - they come pretty close to generating fire - albeit from the wrong end of their bodies...SteveBaker 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a video once that said it would be possible to recreate dinosaurs (and probably also pterosaurs, which are probably as close to dragons as have ever existed on Earth, just add fire) from DNA already recovered from fossils, but that a planet this small can't support a creature that large while it's also supporting six billion humans. Maybe once we can find a different planet to try it out on, or construct one. . . . NeonMerlin 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me a little more time! It's difficult with all these other projects... V-Man - ^T/_C 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth certainly supports blue whales, which are larger than any dinosaur that ever lived (with the possible expection of Bruhathkayosaurus). JackofOz 06:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but dinosaurs can't live in the ocean, leaving the land and land-based life free for the humans, the way whales do. NeonMerlin 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to see how any DNA could be found in dinosaur fossils, since fossils are mineralised - the original organic structures have been completely replaced by minerals. Our article on ancient DNA says "few recent studies have succeeded in amplifying DNA from remains older than several hundred thousand years". Gandalf61 10:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it disagrees with the video. (Here are the details for the video, if it helps.) NeonMerlin 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the

Jurasic Park method (blood from the dino in mosquitos trapped in amber) ? Could that method actually work ? StuRat 10:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You could just use the genes from fire. amirite? Capuchin 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons would be hard. They wouldn't be able to fly -- the upper limit for flying using flapping wings seems to be somewhere around 30 pounds, which requires wings ten feet across and a high place to take off from. Breathing fire would be easier: there are plenty of animals that secrete and spit substances, so it would simply be a matter of changing the chemicals to a pair of

hypergolic chemicals, or to a substance with a low autoignition temperature. --Carnildo 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I still have some research left from a previous idea I had which suggests that the maximum weight of a bird is 100kg, with 8m wings :) HS7 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not now have the technology to create arbitrary lifeforms by specifying its DNA sequence and synthesizing it, then raising it in an artificial egg or womb like in

No one really knows--

$UIT 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

But, since you asked that, the ghost of a ten-year-old girl who was murdered by a psychotic madman will wake you up tonight and stand at the foot of your bed until you fall asleep. V-Man - ^T/_C 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make a page on Wikipedia?Mimartinez3 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Michael M.[reply]

I would suggest reading

Help:Starting a new page. Splintercellguy 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

After reading the page suggested, if you wanted to create a page called anything, you just enter the title you want in the search box, click on Go, and (if no such page exists) you will see a search page that says "No page with that title exists. You can create this page or request it." Click on the red "create this page" link and a page will open with a box. Type your new page info into the box. For instance you could create User:Mimartinez3/Sandbox this way and have a place to experiment or draft an article on something without having someone swoop in and delete it before you have added your references. Edison 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is aiki jiu jitsu? on the page you have it only says where it comes from. Is it aikido and jiu jitsu in one style? —The preceding

This question has been already asked here →EdGl 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no one has answered —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Despite semi-frequent behavior to the contrary, we're reference desk specialists, not literal know-it-alls; I'm a librarian-type, but that doesn't mean every book in the library is also in my head. So here's an actual reference desk ANSWER: as this information is not in a general-knowledge

Martial Arts school, which is likely to have specialised resources for just such a query. Jfarber 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I would expect you would want the area to be the same for them to "seem" to be the same size. StuRat 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this article. It notes that at the UN flag display, all the flags are the same dimensions - 4 feet by 6 feet. It goes on to say that this does indeed result in some flags not quite looking correct. kmccoy (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck making the flag of Nepal into a 4x6 rectangle. StuRat 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told (heresay) that legally, here in Canada, our flag has to be flown 6 inches higher than any other.

Nope. From the Department of Canadian Heritage [4]:

"When flown with the flags of other sovereign nations, all flags should be flown on separate flagpoles/masts and at the same height, all being of the same size...."

The Canadian flag (when in Canada) must be given precedence. It is flown in the leftmost place when in a line of flags, and in the centre when flown in a group of three. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic (or, perhaps, only slightly on topic)

Her Maj's Personal Canadian Flag 'takes precedence above the National flag', apparently. Which I think 86.219.34.109 already mentioned, sort of. --Shirt58 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to sort a confusion.... leftmost place means left when viewed by the audience. The senior flag should be in the place of honour, i.e. on the right and behind the Head of State, senior person, etc.86.219.34.109 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]