Mr Skeptic

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! Don't forget the second law of thermodynamics, which says entropy always increases. Newton's first law only applies if there is no force on the object, though that is often a pretty good approximation of a near frictionless environment. He had to state it like that because before that people thought things always decelerated if you stopped pushing them. Basically, things keep moving at a constant velocity unless acted upon by a force, and a friction force of some kind or other is always present to some extent.

One that you won't shed any tears if it dies And increase the acidity/alkalinity slowly, so it has time to adapt. I thought that the pH effects were more with the root system than with photosynthesis itself. It would be quite odd if you could change the entire plant's pH by how you water it.

Yes, but who will lead it?

So you want to make a biodegradable, living vehicle? I think it is definitely possible. I even think I might be able to make one. Below is my suggested design:

What if instead of mirrors we just threw a bunch of very bright powder down there?

So, what happens when you move the electron to the infinith orbital (ie, remove the electron from the atom)?

Unfortunately, even if this were economically feasible, it could have significant privacy concerns if it could detect people from far enough away to activate.

It would be easier to put mirrors in space (they wouldn't require structural support, and you wouldn't have to waste fuel landing them on the moon). In any case, if you want to make a huge bright thing lots of people will complain.

But a baby is "ready to drive" well before it is born. If you suddenly decide to induce birth or do a c section, even if it is before the mother and baby started the birth process, the baby could survive independent of its mother. Kind of like a car needs to leave the building to be able to drive, otherwise it has nowhere to go and limited oxygen. Well, part of the problem is defining a person, which is not a science question, though science could perhaps help. Once the definition is decided upon, it certainly is a science question whether a specific organism is a person. So then a castrated person, or a very old person, or any mule, wouldn't be alive because they can't reproduce? I think it is very significant that their cells are alive and able to reproduce.

Perhaps a possum? They sometimes go on the ground, and are active at night.

First of all, there's no way that smoking in space will be allowed any time soon. NASA already took a lot of flack from a report of a drunk astronaut, and I doubt that anyone would approve of spending our tax dollars so an astronaut can take a smoke. Apart from the health and political issues, it would also be a bad idea practically. The smoke would have to be specially filtered out, and its using precious oxygen for little reason (you have to take the oxygen there still, I think). A cigarette would not actually have the problem of convection currents that a regular fire would have because the smoker would be sucking air through it. So it would be much like a regular cigarette except that the smoke cloud would not go up and the air will need cleaning.

If you allow for just any kind of flame, you can make one that you can hold your hand in without getting burned. But if you want to talk about burning a carbon based object in regular atmosphere, it will have to be quite hot.

Personally, I'd be most interested in protein engineering. But you should pick the topic you are most interested in or comfortable with.

Aging is not something unavoidable for all living things, it is something that we acquired along the way. Single-celled creatures (and human cancers) do not age, rather they split into two daughter cells that are both young. A similar aspect has by necessity been preserved in our reproductive cells. Among other things, they have enzymes which add telomers back to the DNA.

I don't think I'd use a kid as a weapon, or do the option they suggested (biting, gauging eyes, etc) for fighting dirty, as I think it would be less effective, and in the case of the kid-bat, more tiring.

I have nothing against women, but I too am glad that Obama did so well against that particular woman.

While this is amusing, it is wrong on many levels. He's completely ignoring the fact that women can do just about anything that men can, and that it would be much easier to replace men than women for reproductive purposes. In any case, it is highly unlikely for extreme sexism to take over again, though I must admit that extreme feminists are quite annoying and should go away.

You can add a poll to your post, you know. That way people can vote for their answer. I think that genetially modified organisms are potentially dangerous but definitely advantageous. I think that the research should be allowed, but precautions should be taken. Much like is already being done. In any case, GMO are the logical next step after we have exhausted the usefulness of selective breeding. I'm not waiting millions of years for evolution to do its thing, I want results in my lifetime

Only until they notice their buddies getting hurt. They're not that dumb.

So, build two radars. One radar can cover the blind spot of the other, leaving only a very small area near the wind farm blind.

I got 31... I'm sure I could take out much more than that in real life (unless they had weapons). They are small and weak, and I am trained in martial arts (I can kick over 6 feet high, and the questioneer seemed to think 3 feet high was high). A single good kick should knock one out. A 5 year old can hardly punch, so I just need to make sure they don't bite me. And fearless 5 year olds don't really exist anyways, so it would be even easier than that.

The only ways I can see war helping the economy is if the government has to borrow or cut costs to finance the war, or if people have to increase their working hours to produce the war equipment, or if "loot" is gained from the war. Other than that, it would be a negative real cost, and an even larger negative opportunity cost. But if Halliburton needs to show very small profit margins on a delicious government contract, they can simply increase the salaries of everyone, hence increasing their costs and lowering their profits. No matter how little something would cost nor how much they are getting paid for it, they can always have very low profit margins if they so choose. With proper bidding, they have to minimize their costs to retain a profit -- hence lower costs, even if the "profit margin" remains the same.

You're still young. You can become a doctor if you really want to, but it would be harder than it would if you had gotten good grades at school. However, make sure that the reason you got those bad grades really was the situation that you say has been taken care of. If you are just making excuses for yourself, you may find that your grades don't improve even if you don't have the drug problem and abusive household. If you work hard, there is no reason that you can't become a doctor.

Very few types of retroviruses can infect germ cells. HIV infects macrophages and T helper cells; it can only infect cells that have a CD4+ protein and a special coreceptor. Most of your cells cannot get infected by HIV, including your sperm. However, HIV does have a presence in semen, just that it is not inside sperm nor integrated into the sperm DNA. I would assume that HIV easily have a presence in pre-ejaculate fluid, and even if it doesn't it could leak out if there were even a small cut. So you still have to wear protection if you have HIV, even if you are trying coitus interruptus.

They actually do do some fusion in a similar manner. They use a pyroelectric crystal to generate the insane electric fields needed. Read up on pyroelectric_fusion. However, it is rather inefficient but is used as a portable neutron source.