Greg H.

My wife and I live in a Condo, so our space is really limited, but I'm having good luck this year with a whiskey barrel garden. I just got some half barrels and planeted different crops in each one. Something I am looking forward to trying next year is the semi-vertical stair riser garden (see below). I figure then I can use my barrels for deep root crops (like carrots and potatoes) and the riser trays for shallower crops like lettuce and peas.

First of all, you're not going to get a terminal connection to a web server unless the owner of the server is an idiot about security (or it is a public terminal server). Second. one of those server types you have listed above is a database server, not a web server, which means that in order to extract any information from it, you would need to execute a properly formatted SQL instruction (which are likely to be severely limited, unless you happen to have system access to the server in question). So let's back up and start from the beginning - what information, specifically, are you trying to get from the server?

Tiny little nitpick, but I'm pretty sure the volume should be in km3, not km2.

I bet if we had a binary planet with both worlds being habitable, we'd be spending a lot more money on space flight. "I'm going to visit grandma. Back in 6 months."

The question, as phrased, is a poor way of looking at the subject. As we have pointed out, the human body is a composite object, and thus contains different states of matter at the same time. It can react to forces like a solid or a liquid/gas filled solid membrane depending on which part of the body is reacting.to the outside force. If you absolutely had no choice but to pick only ONE state, I would probably go with solid, since that's how most people perceive and interact with it - but it's a really simple way of answering the question.

As it turns out, someone has already done a study. Basically anything above 25 mph reduces the effectiveness of the airbags, according to the study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16210197

First just to clarify, do you mean these functions? [math]y = (x - 2)^2 + 1[/math] and [math]y = -((x - 2)^2 + 1)[/math] Second, I don't know what you're trying to determine. Can you elaborate?

Which is all very well and good, but what do you do with the animal that can no longer produce those products? At some point, you're going to have a lot of dead cows on your hands - it is inevitable - and you will need to dispose of them. Better to control the burial problem ahead of time and render it into food before it becomes inedible.

When that happens, I'll do what I normally do with people - ignore them and carry on about my business.

Or a very large scotch.

It contains all three. Can you clarify your question? You'd probably get a more precise answer that way.

Not really, except as a safeguard against population growth exceeding production capacity. It may be that, in the future, killing animals is the least efficient way of harvesting large amounts of proteins, as well as nutrients we can only get from meats, and feeding everyone that needs fed. In which case, I expect we'll stop killing the animals, and eat lab grown meat products. But I don't expect we'll stop eating meat.

I see your point. The connotation of the word can influence the message, which is often something I forget (I spend more time talking to computers than people, to be frank).

No problem. Good luck with your search.

I would just do a quick google search, find a few companies that sell liquid crystals, and send them your specs. They would be able to tell you a lot faster if there is anything on the market that matches your requirements, since it's in their best interests to know. You could also check with MERCK to see if they have a replacement on the market for the one they no longer make.

I'm not sure that we'll all become vegetarians, but we may alter the kind of meat we eat, opting for more small animals that can be economically raised with less food and water consumption (chickens, sheep, goats, fish, etc).

Personally I think the whole idea stems from an over developed sense of victimization that modern society seems to somehow acquired in the last couple of decades. If I say "This is a stupid idea", is my meaning somehow unclear? Is my grasp of English so poor that I have somehow miscontrued the meaning of that sentence as I was typing it? It's the same reason we have public officials in America having to resign because they used the word niggardly correctly. It's the dumbing down of language, and in turn we are losing our ability to communicate clearly, effectively, and concisely without resorting to hand holding our audience so they don't get their feelings hurt. Edit: Now obviously, if I said, "This is a stupid idea and you're a moron for thinking it" my meaning is equally clear, and that is, in fact, a personal attack.

It would be far more cost effective to mine, refine, and use your resources "locally" than it woiuld be to try and claw your way out of a gravity well with them. What this means is that, if you're building orbital infrastructure, you use asteroids. If you're colonizing a new planet, you use the locally available resources on that planet. As Phi said, trying to mine Mars and ship the materials back to Earth is silly.

Except that we can observe the ice caps melting, and we know that the water has to go somewhere, ergo we get sea level rise. The part of the problem you have to come to grips with is the sheer amount of liquid we're talking about. I mean the oceans are fracking huge. Take an example. If you melted enough ice to get a volume of water equal to Mount Everest and dumped all that water into the ocean (ignoring evaporation, ground absorption, and any other effect that might reduce the volume), you would raise global sea levels by roughly 1/4 of 1 inch. In other words, if a new Mount Everest sprung up from the Earth's crust and remained totally underwater, no one* would notice until they updated the sonar maps of the ocean. If you wanted to raise the water level world wide by 1 inch, you'd have to drop in roughly 3 and 1/2 Everests. calculations are rough, and are based on conversions between the volume of water indicated spread evenly across 361 million km2 of ocean surface, and 2400 km3 of volume for Mt Everest. * - Except of course the seismologists, and probably the SOSUS warning nets.

I would have never thought of it that way. +1 for an original idea. Like you, I have no idea if that's even a possibility, but it's definitely a new way of looking at the problem.

Since ships float by displacement, sure, given sufficient numbers. Note however, that sufficient numbers in this case would probably be equal to more ships than have been built in the whole of human history combined and then multiplied by several orders of magnitude. In short, yes in theory, but in practical application no.

Demonstrate how to divide a cake into 0 equal parts, while retaining the ability to reassemble them into a whole. That's dividing by zero.

I numbered your questions for ease of answering them. 1. No. What is means is that if you have two masses, the larger one requires more force to accelerate, assuming they accelerate at equal rates. 2. Your units should always be consistent, as was already pointed out. Both sides of the equation should use units from the same measuring system. This doesn't change the inherent relationship between the values themselves. 3. No, it means the greater the mass, the greater the force for equal acceleration. As has already been pointed out, Force is a derived unit, not an inherent one. It is possible (in theory at least) for an object with substantial mass to have an F of 0. Mass determines force, force does not determine mass. Force can be used to calculate mass, but that's a different kettle of fish all together.

First, you seem to have a misconception about how evolution works. Evolution doesn't choose the best or most efficient choice out of a basket - evolution is the slow accumulation of random changes that were best suited for a given environment at the time they were expressed.Why are bodies are chemical based probably has a lot to do with the fact that life as we know it most likely arose from a chemical soup. Since evolution will only make use of what's available, it then follows that our bodies would have a chemical signalling system.

Asking why the speed of light is 186,000 miles/second is like asking why mass creates gravity. We don't really know, it seems to be an intrinsic property of the universe, like the Planck constant, the mass of a proton, or Newton's constant of gravitation. It may be that these values were set when the universe was created because this combination of values is one of the combinations (or the only combination) that yields a stable universe with solid matter that doesn't collapse in on itself seconds after forming.