insane_alien

well... technically there's nothing stopping you wearing a bra... i'm a bit skeptical to its operation. it sounds like it could be triggered by almost anything. (nearly being hit by a car, a roller coaster, a scary movie etc.) seems to me like there is an extreme potential for false alarm.

yep. its been done sevaral times in labs. its only possible within the human life span because fruitflies breed so quickly.

notice how those articles say 'catastrophic climate change?' ie. the agree with me rather than you.

can you post the links to where computers have said the breakdown of the gulf stream doesn't cause major ecological disruption?

computer model says its a crap idea. and even a day would reuslt in severe disruption. how do they know this? because they've simulated a similar scenario based on a natural way the thermo-halinecycle that drives the gulf streame stopping due to dilution of the northern atlantic with fresh water. basically, north america would be the least affected only experiencing severe droughts through summer, other places will be hit by frezzing temperatures, flooding, excessively hot temperatures, more droughts, larger hurricanes(holy crap isn't that what you're trying to stop.) basically, what you are proposing is that we bugger up the rest of the worlds climate for the sake of florida.(which would still get massive hurricanes as the gulfstream is no longer cooling the atlantic). yeah, not only technologically infeasible but also ecologically disasterous. there are other methods more likely to work (as in the experiments, while small in scale had a measurable effect on the hurricanes). better to look into less disruptive methods.

lightbulb and a pair of pantyhose is the least sophisticated one i've seen.

this still doesn't change the fact that you misinterpreted the question and gave a wrong answer. you gave methods of transmission instead of characteristics that allowed such methods of transmission. besides, its a homework question so you shouldn't have just gave away an answer so freely. you agreed not to when you signed up. also, a little offtopic here, i notice you are still typing your entire post in the title bar, stop it. it disrupts the flow of the thread as most people don't bother reading the title of a post and merged posts(which you do frequently) lose the second (and then on) title bars. the wall of text style doesn't do you any favours either.

yeah, thats just wrong on all levels.

your not doing any cooling though, your just spreading the heat around a bit more(and disrupting one of the currents that COOLS DOWN the equatorial regions). removing the gulf stream would cause colder winters in the UK and scandinavian countries, the north eastern passage would close up locking many russian ports in ice all year round and disrupting trade routes. eco systems local to where the system is would be disrupted as well. the flow of nutrients to most of the world oceans would also be disrupted causing some areas of the oceans to eutrophy and others to starve. not to mention that it would cost trillions of dollars to build(and last time i checked the US has the largest debt in the world by an order of magnitude, not to mention the current economic crisis). you'd be FAR better spending the money on upgrading buildings to survive hurricanes than this.

yes but you can't get it up there faster than the flow of water. what you are proposing is we turn the flow of the gulf stream and increase it by ~35% then deliver it all to the one place for seven days. also, have you ever though that this might(just might) have sever global reprocussions as the gulf stream is a pretty big player in the global redistribution of heat.

yes, but the gulf stream is a flow of warm water, below that where the water is cold ther isn't much of a current. and you still have massive amounts of infrastructure and only about 5% of what would be required for a midget hurricane (as per my calculations above.) edit just checked a number there, what you were proposing (cooling an area of ocean a week before hand) and using the area of a midget hurricane, you need a flowrate that is 1.34 times that of the gulf stream itself. we do not have the technology to shift this amount of water. at least not at tremendous cost(far more than the damage that is likely to be caused by a hurricane) EDIT2: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28pi*222km%29^2+*50m%2Fweek%29+%2F+30000000m^3%2Fs calculation

i think you are underestimating the scale of a hurricane. a midget hurricane is classed as having a radius of about 222km. now, and its roughly the top 100m of water that provides the heat for a hurricane. so, it would be resonable to assume that we need to replace say 30% of that water with colder water from below to dissipate the hurricane. now thats a tremendous amount of water (14592 cubic kilometers of water http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28pi+*+222km%29^2+*30+m ). and you have to provide the energy to move that. because its safe to assume that you will be using boats to do this and they will tend to move with the water so you'll have to have the engines going and a significant velocity. not only that but you'll need a fleet of thousands to get that volume up in 7 days. EDIT, just to reemphasis, that is for a VERY SMALL hurricane. the ones that don't do too much damage.

yes, but not the ability to move a significant amount of water. certainly not enough to defeat a hurricane.

well, achieving orgasm is supposed to bolster the immune system, so thats one possible hole. but then again, lots of rest is advised and having sex isn't resting. but at least having an orgasm is a good way of relieving a blocked nose enough for you to get to sleep easier. not sure how that works or when i discovered it, but it does.

well, the sea level at the equator would rise(of course not all of the water is goign to go there but some of it would) so mass migrates outwards, therefore to conserve angular momentum the earth would spin slower. its not going to be a massive slowdown(maybe an extra millisecond to the day or there abouts) but a slow down none the less.

slower, try spinning round in a chair holding your arms in close then letting them out, you'll slow down your rate of spin.

well, its not likely to be that high, and your right, it does vary with the speed of exhalation so i'd suggest putting a small clamp on the tube and adjust as necessary.

nobodies complicating it. we're trying to show you how your answer doesn't do anything to answer the question at all as it does not describe characteristics of the bacteria at all. its like confusing the road a car is driving on (the transmission vector) with the features of the car.

well, the thing is, nature already does this and in far far greater quantities than we could do without spending all the money in the world(literally). its a big part of the global currents.

well for one the fact that it can be transmitted by insect bites is an infection vector not a characteristic of the bacteria itself. a car can drive along a road but that is not a characteristic of the car. what is it about the bacteria that allows it to be transmitted in such a manner. that is the characteristic of the bacteria that makes it contagious. for example, in the case of airborne bacteria the bacteria must be capable of surviving exposure to air. not all bacteria can do that. listen dr syntax, you haven't been doing a lot of that.

umm, no not really.

well, the amount of waste IS very small. but it would probably need to be a larger storage facility than a football field. but it is likely that they transport the waste to a single place. the biggest reason to be wary is the waste. meltdowns are nigh on impossible these days and only 2(out of 8) released a significant amount of radiation. one was the windscale fire(biggest consequence of the radiation was a lot of milk was thrown out) and the other was chernobyl. in the first it was caused by inexperience(the US wouldn't share info on the manhattan project despite britain playing a major role in it). and in the second it was caused by a combination of sheer dumbassery and poor reactor design, the safety mechanisms(which stpped the meltdown several times before some smart ass decided to order disabled so he could perform tests that were causing them to trip) were disable and the reactor house had insufficient containment. if a modern reactor underwent meltdown(despite the multi-redundant safety mechanisms to stop such an occurence) the worst that happens is that it is no longer possible to use that reactor and you have a very expensive clean up on your hands. but, most people are afraid of nuclear power because they immediately think NUKES! CHERNOBYL! RADIATION! MUTANT FISH OFF THE SIMPSONS! a little bit of education would go a long way here. but it is true that fission is a messy solution, but on the other hand it is looking like it will be a necessary solution with oil and gas getting more sparse, greenhouse gasses and insufficient progress in renewable source. ideally we'd want to get some fusion up and running since it eliminates a lot of the problems with fisson and fuel is more abundant

no you didn't you gave methods by which bacteria can be transmited, not what allows them to be transmitted in that fashion. when everyone else is saying your wrong, just maybe you are wrong. a little analogy, if the question asked what characteristics of a car made them useful for transportaion? your answer is equivalent to roads, motorways, off road, trails, up hills, down hills, race tracks and bridges. not one of them describes a damn charactersitic of a car.

there's no need, we know that you can raise water by using the kinetic energy of the water itself.

a monopolistic fire service is better than when there were many fire service and they would call in fake reports and set fires deliberately to get more profitable jobs.