Cap'n Refsmmat

You can also try Project Euler if you're a math person. Start on the easy problems and work your way up. (They do get really, really hard.) It's a great way to learn some nifty programming techniques.

I am guessing that the length of the cannon's barrel is to be ignored. That's the way all of the problems I have seen are. You'll need to split the velocity into x and y components (even if you don't know the angle, fill in what you can) and plug those into the equations you do know. Eventually you'll know enough variables to solve for the angle. Try it and tell us how far you get and we'll see if we can give you some more ideas.

Your calculator must not do order of operations correctly.

[hide]1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8*9[/hide] That should be it.

I've heard of this technology before. It can stimulate or even shut off parts of the brain remotely with no side effects. They use it in studies to see if people can talk when it temporarily shuts down their speech center, and other stuff. Sounds like it could work. I'd wait for the NIH to decide.

I just checked this in Wireshark, which records network traffic from your PC to the Internet. Nothing happens when you click the poll. It's programmed into the Flash thing. It doesn't even hit the server at all. edit: Never mind that. It actually does send data. It just doesn't appear to do anything with it.

So you've shifted from having to supply batteries to having to produce food for the bacteria. That just changes the problem rather than solving it.

Why use bacteria when you can just use normal copper and silver?

Seems to be working for me. I'll do some more tests and see if I can figure anything out.

1M is pretty dang safe -- I've watched a chemistry teacher get it all over her hands with now problems. (She dried it off in a minute or two.)

Nothing's going back in time. Antiparticles don't violate causality.

You can put some in a plastic bottle, put in some warm water, and then close the cap. Stand a safe distance away so you don't get plastic shrapnel injuries.

For doing math, I either do it in my head or grab a piece of paper. I think quickly, and there's no way I could type the LaTeX to a math problem fast enough to keep up with my train of thought. For anything else, I'd be willing to go electronic. I have no problem reading things on a screen.

This thread sucks.

What sort of equipment and chemicals do you have easy access to? Just whatever you can find in your house?

If the powder consisted of, say, sodium or potassium (potassium would make a much more violent reaction), and the liquid had water in it, there would be a rapid reaction producing flame. A video of potassium reacting with water:

The thing is, AP Chemistry doesn't have to be amazingly hard. In my experience, teachers seem to find ways to make it harder than it is. It's one of those classes where you really have to understand how things work to do well, and teachers aren't usually able to explain things in a way to get students to understand well. They resort to metaphors that don't work in all situations. Admittedly, AP Chem is hard. But you should be able to survive if you look at it the right way.

Yes they can. I just logged out and could still read the edit notification.

Factorial.

What just happened? Can we move back to the point now? Sources have been provided, so it's all good. If anyone has any problems with other people they can just talk to me about it.

I think mooeypoo wins.

Good point.

We don't really have one, but if you have questions I'd be glad to answer them for you (assuming I know the answers...).

Generally speaking, you'll find that it's possible for glaciers to have small amounts of water underneath them, either because the pressure melts the water or because it's just warmer down there on the ground. (You'll notice that streams and lakes freeze from the top down.) Also, the sheer pressure from the weight of the glacier can break the intermolecular bonds between layers of water molecules, allowing the glacier to move.

You have absolutely no evidence for this claim, whereas I could provide studies detailing which genes had to mutate for various resistances to appear. The change for them to become "more virulent" makes them more likely to survive, and thus, healthier. I never said they mutate into "healthy cells" per se. Only ones more fit for survival. If antibiotic resistance makes them more fit to survive, that mutation survives on. Please answer these questions: Do you deny that genes can mutate? Do you deny that some mutations can be advantageous? Do you deny that these traits would be passed on?