Slashdot Mirror


Quake Changes Earth's Rotation, Moves Islands

kernel panic attack writes "This week's deadly Asian Quake and Tsunami may have been so powerful, that it changed the rate of Earth's rotation. In a Reuters article, a NASA geophysicist theorizes that the quake compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds. A second article says the quake moved undersea tectonic plates by up to 98 feet, shifting islands near Sumatra out to sea an unknown distance. Also, a USGS team wants images from commercial satellite operators to help pinpoint coastline damage. Lastly, an interesting article from the Australian Spaceguard Survey about the need for a Tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean. The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves." The current estimated death toll is now nearly 70,000; Amazon and Google, among others, have added front-page links to simplify donating to the disaster relief effort.

917 comments

  1. Apple Too by ack154 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Probably not as much traffic as Amazon or Google, but Apple also has also modified their front page to offer multiple relief links. Even the four boxes at the bottom have been changed to different organizations.

    1. Re:Apple Too by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      How is it off topic? It references points made at the end of the summary.

      With as many catastrophic effects as this event had to both people and (evidently) the planet, I don't think that an occasional nod to the groups willing to help out is a bad thing.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    2. Re:Apple Too by ack154 · · Score: 1

      67,000 people dead, and you're complaining about "fanbois"? Of which, I am not. I happened to visit the site today and thought their change of site was a very nice gesture. Just STFU.

    3. Re:Apple Too by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't know why they couldn't put the link in the article summary, but the Amazon donation link is in the sig below:

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    4. Re:Apple Too by didde · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Apple has been doing this for quite some time. Last one I remember was the salutation of Jimmy Carter (sorry I couldn't find a better reference). I think they also ironically did the same thing when one of the Beatles passed away.

    5. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      67,000 people dead

      I know, but its a good start.

    6. Re:Apple Too by stupidfoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      F'en stingy Americans! How dare you raise millions and millions of dollars privately!?! Clearly your taxes are too low!

    7. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try looking for such condolence from MS...

      EVIL!

    8. Re:Apple Too by silence535 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Modifying their front page to link to donation sites does not cost them a single penny.

      Why are the big companies not offering financial aid? Amazon made record braking money with the X-mas business and Apple reportedly had a good year. BP for example had almost four billion (!) dollars profit (!) last quarter.

      Would it hurt to spend a couple of bucks for aid?

      But oh wait, this would reduce the sacred shareholder value.

      Under certain viewpoints capitalizm sucks.

      -silence

      --
      Dyslectics of the world, untie!
    9. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, funny guy, it's your very own American CEOs who send your jobs overseas, then manage to pay less taxes than the indian phone operator...

    10. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me a troll if you wish...

      But I am amazed at the lack of importance attached to this humand kind tragedy by Slashdot; I remember the 9/11 got all the attention (like the sky was falling apart)... Both disasters (one man-made the other nature-made), but I think all in all this quake has already had far more devastating consequences... Perhaps over 30 times the number of dead in 9 or more countries (not counting tourists from other countries)... Perhaps the deadliest incident in recorded history....

    11. Re:Apple Too by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Many companies donate millions of dollars each year but they don't make big announcements about it. It isn't exactly in the spirit of charity if you turn it into a publicity stunt. I also think it is a good thing that they give mostly to local charities. It is important to help the community that directly and indirectly supports you business. Not to sound bleeding heart but there are people starving in the US.

      To also clarify the other gentleman's point about paper cash. If Microsoft decided to liquidate even a small percentage of their investments it would trigger a significant market downturn. Instead of thinking of it as an investment think of it as trying to sell widgets. If I decide to sell all of my widgets at the same time I will flood the market and the price I will get for each individual one will be a lot less than if I sold them in small batches.

    12. Re:Apple Too by EinarH · · Score: 3, Insightful
      With the danger of sounding like a depreciative bitch I'm willing to play the devils advocate and say that "this whole donate privatly a few bucks on some page" is, allthough good, as significant as a mouse peeing in the ocean to rasie the level.

      Private donatins and charity and campaigns like this are the kind of feel-good actions that do very little overall. They are usualy short-term campaigns tha collect a few millions than fade into obscurity within a week and bring little long term benefit.
      Fast forward a week or two. Amazon may have collected $5-10 million then everyone forgets about the whole deal. It's a perfect setup. Those that give a few bucks get the feeling that they contributed "enough", some people got some help, politicans can take the populistic "sure we are helping through private aid", the private NGOs get they paycheck and got the chance to help _some_ and off couse promote their agenda. And everyone in the western world is happy.

      So yes I think private charity like this is insignificant comapred to large initiatives, long term work and state based aid.

      So yes I do think Americans are stingy, together with the rest of the rich world. I know because I'm a stingy person myself on this area*. But then again I'm honest enough to admit it.

      *For the record I gave less than $100 to the Red Cross yesterday. Should/Could have given much more.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    13. Re:Apple Too by surefooted1 · · Score: 1

      I'd bet Bill Gates(himself, not MS) will be the single biggest contributor of funds to this tragedy. Even more so than some European countries combined.

    14. Re:Apple Too by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      *For the record I gave less than $100 to the Red Cross yesterday. Should/Could have given much more.

      If every American gave as much as you did then you'd have collectively raised $30 billion for the relief effort. The UN is estimating they'll only need $5 billion in total.

      The problem isn't with you, so don't feel guilty. The problem is with the billions of people worldwide who will donate nothing.

      At the risk of sounding socialist (I'm sure I just caused a few Americans to faint from shock) this is why we have mandatory taxes and government aid. Because left to ourselves, we're all a bunch of selfish pricks.

      Yourself excluded, of course ;-)

    15. Re:Apple Too by bruthasj · · Score: 2, Funny

      No more Food, I mean Oil, uh, I mean Kickbacks, for you Kofi!

    16. Re:Apple Too by nathanh · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      To be fair, Americans are the most generous people in the world. We donate significantly more in total and per person than any other country.

      You do not. You are out-generoused by FRANCE for christsake. See other comments to this article.

      Stop telling yourself lies. You are starting to believe your own propaganda.

    17. Re:Apple Too by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Why are the big companies not offering financial aid?

      Why do you think they aren't?

      For instance:
      "In response to floods that caused extensive damage and loss of life in the Philippines during December, 2004, Johnson & Johnson made a donation of two disaster relief modules and over 2,000 hygiene kits to partner organizations in that country. In addition, a donation was made by Johnson & Johnson to support the efforts of local disaster relief groups"

      "In response to the powerful earthquake that rocked southeastern Iran on December 26, 2003, killing more than 30,000 people and leaving some 100,000 people homeless, Johnson & Johnson contributed product modules including sutures, casting & bracing materials and pain relief products."

      "Johnson & Johnson has supplied ravaged areas with Disaster Relief Modules, containing much needed medical supplies. In 2002, these modules were sent to Afghanistan for earthquake relief, as well as to Kentucky for flood relief and to the Congo to aid recovery after a volcano eruption."

    18. Re:Apple Too by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      To be fair, Americans are the most generous people in the world. We donate significantly more in total and per person than any other country.

      That's true. After all, think about the billions of dollars worth of warheads and bullets that were donated at the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    19. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      With taxes you have no choice but to "donate". I cannot believe people bitch about Americans not donating enough or being stingy. What a load of shit. They donate with their taxes AND donate freely because they choose to.

      The world bitches about Americans getting involved in everything, yet when the world needs help and it arrives from Americans they bitch about them not doing enough.

      The U.S. could have done what most other countries did when the twin towers fell and donated absolutely nothing. Even if American tax dollars aren't pumped into this tragedy, their private donations will equate to more than most countries will give.

    20. Re:Apple Too by kaustik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bet any one of the people receiving any sort of benefit from this (food, shelter, medical attention) would beg to differ.

    21. Re:Apple Too by rcamera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      as of now, amazon claims to have collected $2,120,581.09. the us federal government pledged $35 million while the entire eu pledged $4 million. overall, nations pledged "at least $102 million" (see first link). amazon alone has collected over 50% of the eu's pledge and 2% of total aid pledged by all nations. i wonder what the red cross has collected (without amazon), as well as unicef, cidi, etc. i imagine that compared to the $102 million, private collections are NOT insignificant.

      if you think that immediate response is insignificant compared to long term initiatives, then you are insane. while long term initiatives are important, people eating TODAY is more important than any long term aid. if you disagree, i challenge you to live out of a destroyed mud hut, drink dirty water and eat only what you find on the side of the road knowing that in a few weeks/months/years things may be better. see how much consilation that is...

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    22. Re:Apple Too by rcamera · · Score: 1

      for 'bergen.com' link, go through google news to avoid registration

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    23. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you check the BBC web site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4133005 .stm), you'll see the British government has pledged 15 million GBP (about $29 million). My adopted country has a lovely island spirit when tragedy strikes.

    24. Re:Apple Too by siphi · · Score: 0

      why is this flamebait?

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    25. Re:Apple Too by mynickwastaken · · Score: 0

      Gee... Micro$oft has no time for such unprofitable actions. They are mixing, fight against spam and of course still selling s+arcks...

    26. Re:Apple Too by mpe · · Score: 1

      "In response to floods that caused extensive damage and loss of life in the Philippines during December, 2004, Johnson & Johnson made a donation of two disaster relief modules and over 2,000 hygiene kits to partner organizations in that country. In addition, a donation was made by Johnson & Johnson to support the efforts of local disaster relief groups"

      This is effectivly a company saying "we are so good because we donated X". It dosn't tell you much about how much use their donations were to paramedics and doctors in the affected areas. It dosn't even make it clear if what was sent was specifically requested or what people thousands of miles away thought might be useful.

    27. Re:Apple Too by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      What do you want? A detailed, line item breakdown of what they did and sent? This was merely a blurb on their website.
      I'm sure if you wrote to their PR dept, they could tell you that.

    28. Re:Apple Too by jrumney · · Score: 1
      the us federal government pledged $35 million while the entire eu pledged $4 million.

      £15 million of which was from the UK. Wait a minute, £15 million is almost $30 million, so either that $4 million dollars is what the EU is giving in addition to individual countries within the EU, or you pulled that figure out of your arse.

    29. Re:Apple Too by mpe · · Score: 1

      What do you want? A detailed, line item breakdown of what they did and sent? This was merely a blurb on their website.

      Intended to make them look good, which is meaningless.

      I'm sure if you wrote to their PR dept, they could tell you that.

      As if they are going to give an accurate assessment of what they sent which was useful, what was useless and what was junk which got in the way... They will claim that it was all valuable stuff.
      The point is that just because companies (,governments and individuals) trumpet how generous they are does not mean that they are. It's perfectly possible that such companies are donating what amounts to commercial waste.

    30. Re:Apple Too by tjarrett · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's my site! Here's a faster version of that article from my new server.

      Note that I've updated the article (over two years old) to point to the Internet Archive version of the Apple salute to Jimmy Carter.

    31. Re:Apple Too by lildogie · · Score: 1

      I, for one, would rather not have "W" skimming my charitable dollars.

    32. Re:Apple Too by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      True. But they are also, being good capitalists, generating brand recognition among current future customers. Foisting off a bunch of worthless crap to the people in need (and the doctors, nurses, aid workers) would only serve to screw their name among those potential customers.

      Isn't it possible that they actually did sport some worthwhile items?

      And in this instance, J&J was not really trumpeting, but merely listed that on its website. I've not heard anything else. It took some looking to find it. And frankly, as long as aid actually does get to where it's needed, I don't care if they sing it from the mountaintops. (which they didn't)

      If they don't give anything, they are assholes. If they do give, they may still be assholes. (they = companies, governments and individuals)
      So whats the response supposed to be to a tragedy like this? Send lots of product and money, but tell no one? Then they are accused of doing nothing. And the shareholders would notice a few million missing.

    33. Re:Apple Too by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Um, actually, it does cost them. It cost them credit card transaction fees.

      Which seems pointless, but the Red Cross would be paying those if people donated individually to them with credit cards. This way, they just get one big check, and Amazon eats the fees.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    34. Re:Apple Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those of you who would like to know about what is required and how it is spent, this is a field report for Chennai from Balaji Sampath.

      (Request to mods: please mod this up so that people may read it. Thank you.)

      (Information: 1 lakh = 1e5
      1 crore = 1e7
      India country code: 91)

      ======

      Dear Friends,

      After the initial shock and chaos, we are now quite well organized to handle the relief efforts. A number of organizations have started working together to handle the relief work - AID, TNSF, Pondicherry Science Forum, DYFI, Vidyarambam, Pratham and the PHM Organizations. We have formed a quick informal coalition to coordinate this work. As of now the state level coordination is being done from the AID-India office in Gopalapuram Chennai. We are together working on relief efforts in Chennai, Cuddalore and Pondicherry, Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari. The relief work is planned in 3 phases:

      (1)Immediate Relief - food, clothing, blankets, temporary shelter, medicines and health camps for emergencies and epidemics.
      (2)Second Level Relief - Construction of huts and houses and health needs.
      (3)Third Level Relief - Livelihood needs for the families affected.

      Right now all our focus in on the first phase.

      In Chennai - we have divided ourselves into 3 teams:

      1.Collection and Information Team: This team will handle calls, receive donations of money, clothes, medicines, blankets and vessels and send receipts, give information on the current status of relief work. This team will also give out press releases, send out email reports and call for further donations based on the needs. This is the team that people from outside must contact. The people to contact:

      Bharati/Manohar/Hari (AID office) (44-28350403),
      Ravishankar (IIT Prof) (94440-84910),
      Chandra Anil (93823-30752, 44-28350403)
      Smitha Kalyani (98401-73800)
      Vibha Ravindran (98402-63275)
      Balaji Sampath (94440-61033, 44-28350403(Office))

      (I - Balaji - may not be available for the next 4 days as I am going to Nagai and Cuddalore to help with the field coordination.)

      2.Allocation and Distribution: This team will get the needs from various field locations, sort the materials collected, divide it up for different locations based on the need and send it to the field coordinators for distribution.

      3.Field Team: In each area we have a team of volunteers who will be coordinating the relief efforts and distribution of materials.

      In Chennai we have started the relief work in 5 areas:
      Pattinampakkam (Foreshore Estate)
      Tiruvanmiyur and Olcott Kuppam
      Kottivakkam
      Royapuram

      In each area we have allocated 2 people to coordinate with the distribution. These 2 people are taking down names of people, family survey, needs survey
      and what is being distributed. The idea is that this individual rapport that is built will be useful in working with the people over the next few months - ensuring rehabilitation and livelihood as well. Every day as the collections are being done, the field coordinators will go to the relief camps to provide the people with what they need.

      This is the plan everywhere - we work with a community, get a rapport during the initial relief phase and then work with them on the house constructions
      and livelihood rehab phase.

      In Nagapattinam district - which is the worst hit in Tamilnadu - we have 3 organizations on the field working: Tamilnadu Science Forum, Vidyarambam
      and DYFI. We are also trying to get other orgns and the dist administration into a joint coordination effort. Many of our volunteers of who are from fishing villages have died and so have many of the children studying in the support centers. Ranganathan from Vidyarambam left yesterday from Chennai with a van load of clothes and relief materials. Locally DYFI and TNSF have collected some materials and started the distribution. We have sent them some immediate funds and I will be taking more funds and relie

    35. Re:Apple Too by hesiod · · Score: 1

      You're right, it shouldn't be "flamebait"... it should be "troll."

    36. Re:Apple Too by hesiod · · Score: 1

      No offense to you in your choice of news outlets, but that piece is so full of shit it turned my screen brown. It's claiming that Muslims will start to like the US if only we'd donate more money to disaster relief.

      The author of that (yes, opinion) piece really needs to stick to the point he claims he's trying to make instead of using every possible excuse to point out how fucking horrible the U.S. is.

      Oh well, nothing I can do about an editorial...

    37. Re:Apple Too by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Helen Wachs said her daughter told her they would need "some serious counseling" upon their return to Los Angeles.

      What her daughter really needs is a hard slap upside her arrogant, pretentious little head. Counselling... SHE WAS ON FUCKING VACATION, SCUBA DIVING. She's got a home and a bank account in the U.S. The people she just left have NOTHING. THOUSANDS ARE DEAD. MILLIONS ARE WITHOUT SHELTER OR FOOD, and she's worried about her goddamned THERAPIST??? And she wants us to feel sorry for her? Fuck that.

      But the blame doesn't stop there. Look at this sensationalist tripe here:

      > Because they had lost all their possessions

      They didn't lose anything compared to anyone who lived there. Basically, THEY LOST THEIR LUGGAGE! Did they seriously take everything in the world that they owned on vacation in Asia? No, they lost a few changes of clothes, luggage, ID, possibly a good bit of cash, -- $1000 max, assuming they left their wallet/purse elsewhere: but she had her ATM card, access to ALL her money -- maybe some crap they picked up from the local market... Scuba gear, assuming they owned & not rented it. Even then, their true losses were minimal. Stop whining: you have the ability to go home and eat a meal. Before complaining about what you lost, look at what you still have. Would I be upset if I lost all that stuff? Heck yeah. Would it be worthy of a CNN article? No.

      The stupid bitch aside, assuming she was totally correct about the airport thing and not exaggerating or selectively stating the events, I'm markedly unsurprised. To think the U.S. government cares about anything other than companies inside its borders is laughable.

      In their defense though, it's been what, 3 days? There isn't even an accurate death toll or assessment of damage. Giving money away without yet knowing who needs it is a bit silly. They also did not state that they would not give more than 35 million, just that that is what has been allotted so far.

      Sorry for ranting, but that article totally rubbed me the wrong way.

    38. Re:Apple Too by rcamera · · Score: 1

      the point was that the eu was giving $4 million. perhaps a non-opinion news source would have been a better choice, but i quoted the first news source i found instead of wasting time finding the one that seemed like it would offend the least amount of people. perhaps the link i provided now is no good because funds are quoted in pounds instead of us dollars?

      fyi: it seems more like bush bashing than america bashing. most folks living in new jersey don't hate the us. but they don't like bush (nj has voted democratic for at least the last 2 elections).

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    39. Re:Apple Too by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > the point was that the eu was giving $4 million

      Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to say that it changed the "correctness" of your statement.

    40. Re:Apple Too by palion · · Score: 1

      Oh, Slashdot moderators are an unpolitical bunch of people, it seems, and posts that are critical towards the US of A tend to be marked as Troll or Flame.

      Does not make them wrong. It just is unfair as it demolishes Karma of serious and earnest people.

      --
      Well, well
    41. Re:Apple Too by palion · · Score: 1

      You're right. But now shut up.

      --
      Well, well
  2. Rotation by Manan+Shah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would not think a quake, even of this magnitude could have that much effect on rotation. Then again, the speculation is that there could never be enough energy for a 10.0 quake, so 9.0 is pretty high up on the list. It is impossible to comprehend, but an 8.6 earthquake has enough energy to equal 60,000 hydrogen bombs. Amazing.

    1. Re:Rotation by justkarl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not surprised that it sped up the rotation by 3 microseconds(not much), but I'm wondering if this really has any secondary effect on the planet. Like "The Day After Tomorrow"-like effects. And I don't mean special effects laced with bad screenwriting.

    2. Re:Rotation by lordsilence · · Score: 1

      Since the richter scale is 10-logarithmic, 10.0 is a great deal bigger then 9.0.

    3. Re:Rotation by tomjen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      acording to ajazeera it now takes the earth 3 miliseconds less for a full rotation.

      read the article here

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    4. Re:Rotation by Squareball · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great now we'll have Leap-Second

    5. Re:Rotation by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      Think of a ballerina: as she brings her hands closer in, her rotation speeds up. What this did, it seems, is to push a mass of Earth closer to the center of the center, thus speeding it up. I wonder what effect celestial debris, large volcanoes, and so on have on the Earth's rotation.

    6. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaik we (er, the US at least) no longer uses the Richter scale to measure earthquakes, the current magnatude scale we use is different. I would thank to thank FOX NEWS for tell this to me one boring weekday night.

    7. Re:Rotation by Issue9mm · · Score: 2, Informative

      We already have leap seconds: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

      -9mm-

    8. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      magnatude scale

      No doubt proposed by the misunderestimated people in the government... ;)

    9. Re:Rotation by BridgeBum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We already do. The first one was in 1972.

      --
      My UID is the product of 2 primes.
    10. Re:Rotation by Kunnis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well it was enough to move a tetonic plate 80 feet, that means an entire part of the earth's crust shifted 80 feet. If you think about basic physics, for every action there is an equal reaction. We're on a spinning ball, part of the surface of the ball shifts to one side. Suddenly the rate at which the ball is spinning has changed. Makes sense to me to have an effect on the length of a day

    11. Re:Rotation by idolcrash · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I think the rotation would slow back down after other gravitational forces re-exert their inifluence, but I'm not a physics major, so I may be off.

    12. Re:Rotation by andreMA · · Score: 1
      Think of a ballerina
      I think you mean a figure skater. Ballerinas kick on each turn. :)

      But yes, a good example of conservation of angular momentum. Another is the moon receding as the Earth (over millions of years) slows its rotation (partly tidal friction, but in the oceans and the semi-liquid mantle)

    13. Re:Rotation by nwbvt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thing is that stuff like this is really not out of the ordinary. This was the largest quake in 40 years, that means a larger one happened 40 years ago. And there were 3 larger ones in the past 100 years. Now for a human being once in every 40 years is rare, but for the planet that is pretty routine. We are all brought up to believe that the Earth is this fragile thing in which the slightest alteration screws up the balance of nature, but that really is not the case. It is a constantly changing giant rock spinning around in space.

      Now that doesn't mean that the quake can't have changes just because larger recent quakes didn't do anything. In fact we know that massive changes in the Earth have happened before in the more distant past, and I seriously doubt they were from SUVs polluting too much, so it is perfectly possible that there is something special about this quake (other than just its magnitude) that will cause major changes.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    14. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so can anyone calculate how did one's weight change due to the change in rotation speed. or maybe this didn't have such an effect?

    15. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author of this article obviously isn't a scientist. 'Speeding up a rotation by 3 microseconds' is a meaningless phrase. The unit of speed is meter per second, not second.

    16. Re:Rotation by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      There would have to be some sort of counter-force to undo whatever this earthquake did to the planet's rotation, an 'anti-earthquake' of sorts. I don't see that happening in the immediate future.

      This quake and all quakes are caused by shifts in the tectonic plates. The plates that shifted to cause this quake had such enormous potential energy, that when they finally buckled, the kinetic energy unleashed, something on the order of probably a 70-80,000 megaton yeild hydrogen bomb, created a disturbance that slightly 'pushed' one side of the planet in a vector, increasing our rotational velocity by some small degree. I wonder if this applied any force in a vector that ran perpendicular or in any other direction relative to the earth's rotation, possibly causing a gradual shift in our axis... Its obvious to me that it would be quite improbable that the force vector causing the increase in rotational velocity was directly inline with the earth's rotation, hence only causing an increase in our rotational velocity.

      In sum, If it caused a 3 microsecond drop in our day time, who's to say that same force did not create some order of disturbance with our axis or quite possibly, our orbit? (Don't fret, the numbers are probably quite negligable). And no, it is unlikely that any gravitational forces will correct this change in rotational velocity.

    17. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we care that Al-Jazeera confirms what is already stated in the article summary? Is there something special about them that makes them any more credible when it comes to science? I am more surprised they aren't blaming America somehow for it or at least Allah. If I do a google search for another article on this topic can I get modded informative also?

    18. Re:Rotation by Lord+Ender · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You really shouldn't claim to on the trademark on the phrase "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" because that would be a fraudulent claim. And if it is supposed to be a joke, it's not funny because the C in DMCA is Copyright, not Trade Mark.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    19. Re:Rotation by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they also pull their leg right back in after kicking, don't they?

      (Although I'm sure the GP meant figure skaters.)

    20. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahahahaha "The Day After Tomorrow"-like effects.

      I thought that movie was a comedy because the science in it was so bad.

      Shortly after that movie came out an article in Scientific American came out that indicated rapid climate shift was possible - i.e. a rapid climate shift of 6-10 degrees C over a period of a few years, not of asinine -200F insta-freeze eye-of-hurricane blizzards from hell creating the next ice age in three days.

    21. Re:Rotation by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      Just a side note, that the earth already experiences a reduction in rotational speed as a side effect of having a satelite in orbit around it (the Moon). Think of it as a decelerating car... you hit your brakes, but someone nudges you from behind. You sill slow down, but it took just a bit longer for it to happen. This is the same thing, only the parameters are orders of magnitude smaller.

    22. Re:Rotation by BengalsUF · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually the increase in rotation was not caused by any "push", but because one fault slipping under another pulled more mass towards the center of the Earth. Being a body in rotation, the more compact it is, the faster it will spin.

    23. Re:Rotation by jensen404 · · Score: 1

      He was belittling the geological effect of the quake.

    24. Re:Rotation by JollyFinn · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You are the definition of an Ugly American motherfucker.

      Motherfucker? Are you claiming he has fucked someone? Come on this is slashdot.

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    25. Re:Rotation by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Discussing the geological ramifications of a large earthquake is belittling the tragedy it caused? What would you do, call it an Act of God and never speak of it again?

      And I hardly see anything in that post that justifies SUVs in there, in fact the only mention of SUVs was a claim that they did not cause the major changes in the Earth's climate millions of years ago. If thats what you call a justification, you have serious problems.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    26. Re:Rotation by jensen404 · · Score: 1

      The unit of speed in the article is rotations per second (or seconds per rotation)

    27. Re:Rotation by CPrimerPlus · · Score: 1

      If i could mod you up i would. Although the loss of life is tragic. on a global perspective and in the long term ppl do kinda get bent out of shape about this. I understand how significant it is, because for some it is personal, but for earth, the universe if you will, this is harldly worth noting. Life happens then death comes - deal with it. If it makes you feel better to send money to help out or goods for that matter do so. But don't hate on the OP because he put this in perspective. 100 years from now not many will remember this - the world moves on. This is not flamebait, my sympathy goes out to those who have lost their loved ones- i'm just being truthful.

    28. Re:Rotation by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      > The author of this article obviously isn't a scientist.
      > 'Speeding up a rotation by 3 microseconds' is a meaningless phrase.
      > The unit of speed is meter per second, not second.

      Well, the author isn't talking about speed... he's talking about angular speed, which is not defined in m/s. Angular speed's unit can be expresses in terms of revolutions and time. A rotation can be defined as "one complete revolution," aka, 2*pi rads. In this context, it makes sense to say "speeding up rotation by 3 microseconds" - the planet's rotation speed, 2*pi/X, is now 3 microseconds shorter, or 2*pi/(X-3^e-06). I like the way the article said it better, though.

    29. Re:Rotation by andreMA · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the energy added by the kick was my concern. If it happened fast enough a ballerina would exhibit the same effect - without the kicks - but skates on ice have a hell of a lot less energy loss ny friction, so the effect is easier to observe there.

    30. Re:Rotation by jaxdahl · · Score: 1

      Rock mechanics preclude earthquakes of larger than about 9.5 and smaller than -1.0

    31. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayyyup, looks like you blew a head gasket in your sedementary zone. I'll need to keep your rock in the shop for at least a week while I order in some parts from the big city.

    32. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Using (TM) doesn't indicate that you own the trademark, it simply indicates that it is a protected trademark.

      And I don't belive that the DMCA in that context is trademarked. Now, if you're talking about the Direct Mail Corporation of America, that's a different story.

    33. Re:Rotation by glass_window · · Score: 1

      That really depends on how close to the equator you live. Earth's spin has less effect on your weight the closer you get to the poles.

    34. Re:Rotation by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      But if one pushes under the other, won't the one on top move away from the earth's center? So one moves closer while the other moves away???

      Phil

    35. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bigger problem is that the word is spelled "millennium," not "millenium."

    36. Re:Rotation by adeydas · · Score: 1

      day after tomorrow effects were more from global warming not tectonic movements...

    37. Re:Rotation by b!arg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are so right. The Earth is far from fragile. I've always had problems with people trying to "Save the Earth." What they are trying to do is Save the Humans. The Earth will be around LOOOONG after we are, but it will probably not be inhabitable by humans as we are today. Since our brief view of Earth during our lifetime makes us see it as a static thing (i.e. it is always rainy in Seattle and Northern Africa will always be a desert), it is incredibly dynamic. This has been one of the scariest things to me (but only during moments of random paranoia). Civilization as we know it today relies on the Earth being a static entity.

      --

      Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
    38. Re:Rotation by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 1

      I thought I felt a few micrograms lighter. Now if only my waistline would shrink with it.

      --
      But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
    39. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been out of physics for a bit, but microseconds is not a valid unit for change in acceleration. I have been trying to figure out what is meant by it sped up rotation by 3 microseconds. Is that change 3ms per day, year, millennium, or what?
      Or does it possibly mean that each full rotation (day) is now 3ms shorter?
      Sorry to be nitpicky, but this is a techish site. (damn this is almost a troll- it'll be my first)

    40. Re:Rotation by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the more I think about this, I don't buy it. Isn't the mass of earth still the same? (That's a rhetorical question, btw.) And all things considered, (hypothetically) if the earth does speed up, won't the earth's water bodies increase in depth as the increase velocity throws the water away from the earth's center thereby negating the effect of the landmass moving closer to the earth's center?

      Phil

    41. Re:Rotation by Auxon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      OK, I think the parent you were replying to was misunderstood, but you're a shallow, shameful person. You're just shrugging your shoulders. Even to the "universe" I believe this is "worth noting".

      Oh and by the way, in 100 years the world will remember this very well indeed; just as they have remembered other massive disasters of this magnitude, you asshole. But we'll try hard to forget people like you.

    42. Re:Rotation by Idylwyld · · Score: 2, Informative

      The speed of rotation increased due to mass moving toward the center of rotation (remember the figure skater example). The subduction of the eastern (Pacific?) plate under the western (Indian?) plate moved more mass closer to the center than was moved away. The basic math on it is mass x radius change of the diving plate - the mass x radius change of the rising plate. Movements in have a greater effect on rotational speed (due to the percentage change in radius) than movements out by a common objective distance.

      --
      "Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
    43. Re:Rotation by Idylwyld · · Score: 1

      3 millisecond increase in the earth's speed of rotation may result (extreme long term) in global warming due to cumulative heat loss differences as the night side now has 1.5 milliseconds less time during which to dissipate heat. Then again this may balance out certain global warming effects due to the fact that we now will have 1.5 milliseconds less per day in which to accumulate heat that will be trapped by green house gasses.

      --
      "Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
    44. Re:Rotation by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      I get the whole idea behind the figure skater example. I'm more concerned with Newton's Third Law and how people use it to say the earth will speed up. The figure skater example doesn't work in this case because all of the mass of the skater is pulled in. In this case, the earth has things (water) which can react outward. (A skater's tutu would react outward as well, but the mass of said tutu is negligible.) Since the earth's mass is 2/3 water, you're telling me that the water won't get thrown out away from the center thereby slowing it back down? And I see your math equation, but don't really appreciate it as it's overly simplified. :) Regardless, isn't the inertia formula for a sphere (simplifying the earth's classification): I=.4mr^2? With that said, I believe that moving a mass outward (increasing radius) will have a greater effect on rotational speed that moving a mass inward (decreasing radius).

      Actually, I envision the earth "bouncing" if you will, while the increased speed (if any) and the resulting increase in rotational inertia at the equator balance each other out. I wouldn't call this a "permanent" increase in speed. But then I'm not a physics guru.

      Phil

    45. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whose God?

    46. Re:Rotation by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      But once again, this theory is predicated on the idea that the Earth is constant and never changing. That is simply not true. It is constantly changing. Do you think those earlier larger quakes had no effect on the speed of the planent's rotation? Or that the Moon doesn't alter it? The amount of time that one side of the planent faces the sun each day isn't some constant that has been that way since the beginning of time.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    47. Re:Rotation by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I would assume your god, or the god of the origional AC if you two are different, though since I was asking you (or the origional AC) what you would do you get to decide. Though its rare that someone will blame something on someone else's god.

      Or did you mean "Who's God"? In that case you can't even troll correctly.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    48. Re:Rotation by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The total heat energy reaching earth is not dependant on the rotation at all. (The effects you mention cancel out). What is dependant on the rotation, however, is certain lifeforms that have adapted to the current day-night cycle. A slower day means a larger difference between the high temperature in the day and the low temperature at night, making the weather more chaotic. A faster day actually ends up smoothing the temperature off more, making the weather more dull.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    49. Re:Rotation by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Informative


      Isn't the mass of earth still the same?

      When a figure skater doing a spin pulls her arms in toward herself to speed up, her mass is the same also, but it still works. This is the same principle.

      Linear momentum depends just on the mass. Angular momentum depends both on the mass and on the radius of that mass.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    50. Re:Rotation by palndrumm · · Score: 1

      Since the earth's mass is 2/3 water

      The earth's surface is 2/3 water, not the earth's mass. This site says that the hydrosphere makes up 0.04% of the earth's mass.

      you're telling me that the water won't get thrown out away from the center thereby slowing it back down?

      I'm not completely sure on this one, but I don't think that's how it works. The oceans are still being held quite strongly in their basins by gravity, which is many times stronger than the centripetal force the rotation of the earth imparts on the oceans...

    51. Re:Rotation by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      Keep reading my posts. As I said, I understand the figure skater example. But as speed increases, so does centripetal force. Take a ball on a string. The required tension (centripetal force) will increase the faster you swing the ball around by the string. If you cannot keep the required tension, the ball flies off at a tangent to the point at which tension was lost. If you do this with a bungee cord, the ball will still stay attached, although the faster you swing it, the larger the radius becomes.

      So, I ask again, won't the increase in the earth's rotational speed "fling" the water away from the earth's center?

      Phil

    52. Re:Rotation by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      So, I ask again, won't the increase in the earth's rotational speed "fling" the water away from the earth's center?

      You created a chicken-and-egg probem. The effect you mention is caused by the very effect you claim it would cancel out. If the water being flung out succeeded in keeping the earth from getting faster, that would mean the water wouldn't really be flung out after all and so the earth could still spin faster after all.

      Thus the water-flings-out effect CANNOT stop the earth-goes-faster effect. At most it can dampen it and make it happen to a lesser degree.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    53. Re:Rotation by mpe · · Score: 1

      That is simply not true. It is constantly changing. Do you think those earlier larger quakes had no effect on the speed of the planent's rotation? Or that the Moon doesn't alter it?

      The effect of gravity of the Earth's rotation is fairly constant and predictable. An effect which, like earthquakes, is neither is the solar wind interacting with the magnetosphere. To some extent it follows the sunspot cycle, but there is randomness as to if particles from a solar erruption will be heading in the direction of Earth and how much shielding will be provided by the Moon.

    54. Re:Rotation by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the more I think about this, I don't buy it. Isn't the mass of earth still the same?

      For rotation the relevent factor is "moment of inertia" which depends on the distribution of mass (with respect to the axis of rotation.)

    55. Re:Rotation by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      The water gets flung out thereby changing the moment of intertia at the equator which would slow the earth back down, no? After all, the torque is a set number, isn't it? The larger the moment of intertia, the harder it is to turn an object.

      My main claim is that this is not a permanent speed up because I tend to think there are other factors at play which will cause the earth to slow back down. What about the atmosphere and it's shearing effects on the land? The friction was increased some when the earth suddenly sped up, no? Eventually, the atmosphere would stabilize again, sure, but still, it should've had some initial effect.

    56. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I meant "whose."

      Can I blame it on the sun then? After all, per George Carlin, it is my god. At least it's real.

    57. Re:Rotation by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      We are all brought up to believe that the Earth is this fragile thing in which the slightest alteration screws up the balance of nature, but that really is not the case.

      The thing with chaotic systems, though, is that there is no way to tell what the effects of a change in input will be. It could be nothing, or it could be everything...who knows...

    58. Re:Rotation by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      The water gets flung out thereby changing the moment of intertia at the equator which would slow the earth back down, no?

      It would slow the earth down, yes - but not below the speed it started at. The eventual equilibrium reached after the fluctuations stopped would be somewhere between what it was before the earthquake and what it would be after the earthquake if the oceans were solid masses that didn't get flung out.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    59. Re:Rotation by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The tidal forces slow down the Earth by 1.4us/day/century.
      This quake sped us by 3us/day.

      So uhm, it moved a big disaster away by 214 years! :p

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    60. Re:Rotation by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      You know, that was really well point. Sorry I let my mod points expire. :-(

      -a

    61. Re:Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once could be a typo; twice indicates your stupidity. For future reference, you ought to know the word is spelled "original" (only one "o"). While I'm at it, the contraction of "it is" is "it's" (with the apostrophe).

      Hope this helps, you narcissistic turd. Please stop posting everything at +2.
      --
      Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

    62. Re:Rotation by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Whatever floats your boat.

      I personally prefer to use a scientific perspective, which requires me to look at it from an objective viewpoint without worrying about whether or not I'll offend someone because I'm "belittling the tragedy".

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    63. Re:Rotation by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Life happens then death comes - deal with it.

      I think you're missing the human part of the equasion. You sound young or inexperienced with death and the impact it has on you.

      We all know that life happens. We all know that death comes. But death still sucks.

      I hope you live long and have a happy life. But when you are lying there on your death bed, or when your friend is dying from cancer, or when your son is bleeding to death after a car accident or when your daughter is smashed to death by a massive ocean wave, I sincerely hope that some jerk doesn't come to you and say
      "Life happens then death comes - deal with it".

    64. Re:Rotation by CPrimerPlus · · Score: 1

      hmmmm, let us see. I lost one family member in a hail of gunfire, i lost another to cancer, wait two to cancer. friends to drinking and driving, hmmm....oh and friends of the family to breast cancer, ovarian cancer. best friend in high school to falling asleep at the wheel...sure there is more, just forgetting right now. how about a different quote. "those who love life will surely lose it, and those who don't will gain it." I'm not young and inexperienced, i'm not an asshole. I'm just truthful, and can see the certainty of this existance that last for seconds in the blink of an eye. Its too bad, you guys have never used your eyes. Your muscles have atrophied, you're still living in the matrix. I hope to god someone gets you out of there soon. here is another: "its the nature of humanity, that tomorrow's truth are todays hearsies" "life happens and death comes DEAL WITH IT!"

  3. Makes me wonder by lordsilence · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    if this will have any affect on the asteroid 2004MN4 course, related to the earth.

    1. Re:Makes me wonder by tage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Earthquakes can't change the Earth's orbit anymore than you can fly by pulling your hair upwards.

    2. Re:Makes me wonder by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      But of the circumference of the earth is now smaller because of a large shift in mass, the rotational period will alter.

      Its like the effect figureskaters have when they tuck arms in when spinning.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Makes me wonder by tage · · Score: 1

      ...oh, and earthquakes certainly don't change the orbits of asteroids.

    4. Re:Makes me wonder by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only a fool would try to fly by pulling their hair upwards. Everyone knows you have to throw yourself at the ground and miss to fly.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    5. Re:Makes me wonder by Enigma_Man · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right. Earthquakes didn't change the earth's orbit, they changed the earth's rate of rotation, which is a completely different animal.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    6. Re:Makes me wonder by tage · · Score: 1

      Point taken. So, the asteroid that was about to hit the Earth will now probably miss us, since the Earth's diameter is now, what, 1.5 meters less than before? Thank goodness, we're saved!

    7. Re:Makes me wonder by lordsilence · · Score: 1

      Uhm.. silly, but that's not the point I tried to make. If the asteroid changes the earths speed by 3microseconds, would this have the slightest impact on the calculations on which the NASA scientist and others are trying to make. Trying to find out which path the asteroid will take. 1/41 hit probabibility anyone? Or was it 1/39 now?

      Just cause it wont or may not happen doesn't mean it's not worth investigating. "No, the earth has got less then ~2% chance of getting hit, lets just forget about scanning for asteroids.. it wont happen anyhow!".

    8. Re:Makes me wonder by phil+reed · · Score: 1

      But of the circumference of the earth is now smaller because of a large shift in mass, the rotational period will alter

      True, but that will have no relevance to the gravational field generated by the earth's mass, which did not change (and is the only thing that matters).

      NASA will have to account for the change when communicating with deep space satellites, but that should be the only real apparent effect.

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    9. Re:Makes me wonder by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      If the asteroid changes the earths speed by 3microseconds, would this have the slightest impact on the calculations on which the NASA scientist and others are trying to make.

      The speed that was affected was the speed at which the earth ROTATED on its axis.

      The speed at which the earth REVOLVES around Sol in its orbit remains unchanged by this event.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    10. Re:Makes me wonder by Cornelius42 · · Score: 1
      Earthquakes can't change the Earth's orbit anymore than you can fly by pulling your hair upwards.

      Yea, tell that to an ice skater.

    11. Re:Makes me wonder by JDevers · · Score: 1

      The only change it could possibly make is WHERE on Earth it would strike if it were to actually hit us. This changed the Earths rotation, not it's orbit. This means that whatever part of Earth's surface which would be in a specific 3D coordinate in our solar system in whatever time of impact would be different, but Earth will still be there. Our mass didn't change, just the average density (and then only very slightly).

    12. Re:Makes me wonder by tage · · Score: 1

      Imagine that you are sitting in a spaceship in soalr orbit holding a nice long-range rifle. You aim the rifle at the Earth. Would the speed with which the planet rotates around it's own axis affect your aim? Nope. If the planet got smaller, that may make a difference, but we're probably talking a couple of feet in changed diameter, which is not much considering the size of teh target.

      What you seem to be missing is that the speed with which the Earth orbits the Sun is not what has been affected. No mass has been ejected into space, just redistributed within the Earth, so no change in the Earth's orbit around the Sun has happened. Basic physics, really. I seem to recall something about forces in opposite directions that some Englishman discovered a few hundred years ago.

    13. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pulling hair is not the same...

      A better example would be sitting in one of those tilt-a-whirl's at the carnivals. Imagine it spinning around at a constant rate... now what do you do to make it spin faster or slower? Shift your weight.

      Same principle applies here... the weight of the earth's crust shifted in a new direction. We are talking about billions of tons of rock movement from this quake, so it is entirely realistic that the rotation changed ever so slightly.

    14. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, tell that to an ice skater.

      Are you implying that ice skaters can fly by pulling their hair upwards? That would certainly impress the judges.

      Now, please consult your sixth grade science book and look up the difference between the Earth's "rotation" (think "day") and the Earth's "orbit" (think "year"). Changing the distribution of a spinning body's mass does, indeed, change its rotational velocity. Its orbit, however, is unchanged as the total mass remains the same.

      Had the disaster resulted in an explosion sending large chunks of the planet flying off into space (think Praxis, Star Trek 6) then we'd be whistling a different tune.

    15. Re:Makes me wonder by Plural+of+Mongoose · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      The change from the earthquake had an effect on the spin of the earth, much like your ice skater example; the mass of the earth did not change, and therefore there is no effect on its orbit.

      --
      The last fucking thing you want is my undivided attention...
    16. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, shifting your weight does not change the speed of your single tilt-a-whirl car as it orbits around the track. You can spin it faster, yes, but the orbit remains the same. For a tilt-a-whirl, this is because it's a machine with a designated speed. For the Earth, this is because the total mass did not change.

      Please refer to a dictionary for the difference between "rotation" and "orbit."

    17. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Hitchhickers guide will need to be modified for the landing vectors of spacecraft since the rotation is off by 3 seconds.

      Surely Airplanes will have to be updated so their IFR info adjusts for the 90 foot change in location of the airport.

    18. Re:Makes me wonder by tage · · Score: 1

      You are confusing rotation with orbit. And the person who moderated you post probably does, too.

      Yes, the planet may very well spin a bit faster. But no, that does not affect its orbit around the Sun.

      Pick up your old physics boook and check out Newtons third law of motion: "For each action there is an equal and opposite re-action." Unless the earthquake ejected a large mass into space, the Earth's orbit hasn't changed due to the quake.

    19. Re:Makes me wonder by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Only a fool would try to fly by pulling their hair upwards. Everyone knows you have to throw yourself at the ground and miss to fly."

      Technically, if you took off your shoe and threw it at the ground with enough force, the 'kickback' from this action would cause you to 'fly' for a short time. (So says Newtons' Third Law of Motion.)

    20. Re:Makes me wonder by slungsolow · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the earth is any smaller than it normally would be. I think that the result of the earthquake may have been normal subduction that takes place due to the increase in mass from the atlantic ridge. This is just a guess though, since all of my knowledge of plate tectonics comes from Bill Nye the Science Guy.

    21. Re:Makes me wonder by mforbes · · Score: 1

      (and yes, this is a deliberate troll... but bear with it for the humor, please!)

      Yup, NASA's the only agency that'll have to account for the change. ESA, NASDA, the Israelis, Russians, and Brazilians don't have to worry about it at all ;)

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    22. Re:Makes me wonder by wass · · Score: 1
      Earthquakes can't change the Earth's orbit anymore than you can fly by pulling your hair upwards.

      nitpicking correction - earthquakes cannot change the orbit of Earth's center of mass. An explosion powerful enough to eject some matter in space, while probably nearly impossible, will effect the orbit of the remaining earth (however slightly).

      Just like a grenade's center of mass follows the same orbit(trajectory) before and after the explosion (ignoring air resistance). But the explosion does change the trajectory of all the little shards.

      --

      make world, not war

    23. Re:Makes me wonder by zwaffle · · Score: 1

      Actually, a change in the earth's shape/composition can alter its orbital trajectory around the sun.

      That's because of tidal effects: planets are soft and deform due to the gravitational forces they exert on eachother. Those plastic deformations result in friction, i.e. the gravitational energy is being converted into heat and orbits are modified.

      For example, the distance between the moon and the earth is slowly decreasing (in a distant future we will no longer observe solar eclipses!), and a similar effect exists between the sun and the earth.

      So a big change in the earth's tectonic plates could in theory affect tidal effects, hence the earth's orbit around the sun (but the effect is probably tiny).

      A change in the earth's inner composition could also modify its magnetic field, but I don't think that would affect its orbit around the sun.

  4. Friends in Asia by Rock-n-Rolf · · Score: 1

    I have 3 friends which were supposed to be in Asia at the time. 2 have come back before the desaster happened and on had some water around his feet, not realizing the dramatic extend of the desaster. He's safe home now.
    Lucky day for my friends, but other people are far from that. I'll donate this evening.

    --
    In Korea, all your base are Only For Old People
  5. a NASA geophysicist theorizes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    but it doesnt make it fact

    1. Re:a NASA geophysicist theorizes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it's just a theory. According to the Bible, it COULDN'T have been an earthquake, it was merely Gawd exercising his righteous indignation against apostate nations.

    2. Re:a NASA geophysicist theorizes by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      I don't believe apostate is the correct word.

      Infidel a word that's probably more accurate from a Christian standpoint.

      Apostate
      One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.

      Infidel
      An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

      In order for the countries that had been hit the worst to be considered apostate by Christianity, they must have held Christian beliefs and then rejected them. Since they are not Christian, they would be considered infidels, at least by the Christian.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  6. What is the impact? by zeux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it changed the rate of Earth's rotation. In a Reuters article, a NASA geophysicist theorizes that the quake compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds

    What will be the impact of this on geostationnary satellites?
    On the measuring of time?
    On the GPS?

    1. Re:What is the impact? by khrtt · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to the article, the impact is 3 microseconds/day.

    2. Re:What is the impact? by aslate · · Score: 1

      Seeing as time is measured using the cesium atom, i can't quite see an earthquake having an effect on it...

      Useless fact courtesy of Bill Bailey.

    3. Re:What is the impact? by UNCfan4life · · Score: 1

      It looks as though the change was no more substantial than normal fluctuations relating to tides and such. As for the measurement of time, since we generally defer to an atomic clock on that, it certainly is not going to influence the speed of vibrations of the cesium atom.

      --
      Caution - poster has no actual knowledge. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:What is the impact? by Soft · · Score: 5, Informative
      What will be the impact of this on geostationnary satellites?

      No more than usual perturbations, I suppose: geostationary satellites already tend to drift a little and need stationkeeping.

      On the measuring of time?

      None. The second is defined relative to quantum levels in the caesium atom, that won't change. As for keeping up with the calendar, the Earth's rotation already has small variations; since 3 microseconds is roughly 1/300 second, we might have to subtract a leap second next July or December. (E.g. straight from 2005-12-31/23:59:58 to 2006-01-01/0:00:00 UTC.)

      On the GPS?

      Don't know, but don't think the resolution is that precise.

    5. Re:What is the impact? by Soft · · Score: 1
      since 3 microseconds is roughly 1/300 second

      Oops... Mistook microseconds for milliseconds, it seems. Forget that.

    6. Re:What is the impact? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Some but not really noticable.
      This type of thing happens all the time(just not this large at once), because of tides, smaller earthquakes,etc. What they do is once it starts adding up they do a leap second.

    7. Re:What is the impact? by Epistax · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the GPS?

      You press the degauss button. It'll look funny for a few seconds but then it'll click and be fine.

    8. Re:What is the impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the earth's frame dragging will fix that.

      duh, did not not study your advanced physics?

    9. Re:What is the impact? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      1s = 1_000 ms = 1_000_000 microsec

      3 microseconds less a day makes the year 3e-6 * 365 = 0.001095 seconds shorter, we "lose" less than 1.1 ms. To knock of a full second of the year we would have to have roughly 900 events like this. Considering the year has 365 days we would have to have at least 2-3 of these events a day to shorten the day a full second.

    10. Re:What is the impact? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Geostationary satellites would have to come slightly closer in in order to remain in position. I don't have a particularly useful calculator, so my calculation is probably only experimental error, but I came up with 0.00009087762539 meters, which is probably wrong by orders of magnitude due to crappy precision and too many years since high school physics.
      As far as the measurement of time, we don't go by the rotational period anyway. You may be surprised to know that the Earth rotates every 23.9 hours, not every 24 hours. The reason we don't see the day shifting by 4 minutes every day is due to the fact the Earth is also moving about the sun and presents a slightly different face each day depending on the time of year.
      Unfortunately, the Earth has not caught on to this whole metric thing and thus the number of rotations of the Earth bears no whole number resemblance to the time it takes to go around the sun. Also, the interaction of the Earth and the moon is causing the length of our day to increase and the distance from the Earth to the Moon to increase by about 3 cm per year. The Earths day has been getting longer by about 0.00016 seconds each year.
      GPS satellites, like any satellite, are subject to drift, and are tracked and corrected via stations on the ground. GPS satellites use atomic clocks and do NOT account for leap seconds and are affected by relativity causing an error of around 38 microseconds per day which is corrected by on board electronics. This error, which existed long before the earthquake, already represents a 10fold error beyond the changes caused by the earthquake. The biggest problem I could think of relating to GPS is if one of the ground stations was on the islands which moved. If that were the case, I would imagine that they would immediately stop that facility from updating tracking information on the satellites until such time as the precise new location of the factility could be determined.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:What is the impact? by jekewa · · Score: 1
      On the GPS?

      Don't know, but don't think the resolution is that precise.

      Actually the GPS that the US military uses is second only to laser-guidance systems for accuracy. Its margin of error is about half the wavelength of light. The GPS you're used to in your car (or handheld or whatever) has a margin of error of around a meter.

      Note that the impact on use of GPS is marginal; you'll still be at whatever longitude, latitude and altitude above mean sea level. If the ground indeed moved, as the article suggests, then the GPS mapping software telling you where things are will need to be updated. Even the GPS you get at your favorite electronics store will notice a shift of several feet.

      --
      End the FUD
    12. Re:What is the impact? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      From what I've read (don't have a link handy) GPS is not corrected with leap seconds. And thus is currently several seconds ahead of UTC because of this. So this speed-up shouldn't effect GPS at all.

      AFAIK *current* time isn't so important to GPS as the difference in time between signals. Just so they all agree what time it is at any given moment (even if they agree incorrectly, just so long as it's the same number).

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    13. Re:What is the impact? by MotorNeuron11 · · Score: 1

      The impact on GPS itself is negligible -the system's observation/ephemeris system adjusts for this sort of thing (ie: the change in Earth's rotation speed).
      One possible problem with a quake shifting land masses around is simply that your electronic or paper map has just become obsolete. The coordinates from the magic box are still correct, but that trail you're attempting to follow has moved.

  7. Damnit! First daylight savings time and now THIS? by erroneus · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does this mean we are going to switch to that guy's alternative calendar now?

  8. Wait... by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought Quake was set on Mars, not Earth.

    --

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    1. Re:Wait... by bje2 · · Score: 1

      it's sad, but that's exactly what i thought of when i read the headline...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:Wait... by justkarl · · Score: 1

      It dosen't matter, you'd need Quad Damage to even think about changing any kind of rotational speed.

    3. Re:Wait... by actor_au · · Score: 1

      Quake, at least Quake 1, was set in an alternate dimension controlled by the Demon Lord Quake, this dimension existed between the jumpgates that were humanities newest system of transportation and lead to an Earth/Quake war the secret final blow of which was destroyed moments before the first Quake game began(the army was wiped out by Quake while the player was off getting some supplies).

      Quake 2 and 3 were set on Strogg world during the human invasion(retribution for an attack on Earth apparently) and the Arena Dimension that Sarge was taken to before dying respectively.

      Doom 1, 2 and 3(ignoring the many assorted mission packs, expansions etc) were set on The Mars Moon Phobos, The missing Moon Deimos and finally the dimension of Hell in Doom 1, The invaded Earth in Doom 2 and Mars proper in Doom 3.

      I need a girlfriend.
      And iD needs more stories like these ones.

      --
      Read Errant Story.
    4. Re:Wait... by robyannetta · · Score: 1

      Okay, this is unrelated and will probably be modded down, but here's a link to new screenshots of Quake IV using the Doom 3 engine.

      --
      - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  9. Ugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    3 microseconds faster! 3 microseconds!? That quake is robbing me of SLEEP. I want a 25 hour day dammit, so I can sleep in ONE HOUR extra each day... although, I might not get into the swing of resetting my watch.

    1. Re:Ugh! by gagge · · Score: 1

      Nah, you get home from work 3 microseconds earlier than before :)

  10. 3 microseconds per _what_? by WillerZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Article is useless, and indeed meaningless without the _what_ filled in...

    Phil

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
    1. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by Mz6 · · Score: 1

      Well.. that earth rotates once every 24 hours right? So, by the article, that means that the day is shortened by 3 microseconds.

      --
      Hmmm.
    2. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by bje2 · · Score: 1

      i thought that was pretty clear...the earth's rotation would be 3 microseconds faster...so, whereas before the quake the rotation was 24 hours (that's probably not exact), now it's [24 hours - 3 microseconds] (atleast by this theory)...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    3. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're right, that's 1 millisecond per year, or 1/10 of a second per century.

      Therefore it'll be 789041 centuries before all the geostationary satellites are lined up again...

      Seriously though, how far off can they be before (say) satellite TV stops working?

      Phil

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    4. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      three... apples

      I got this from a reliable source at Nasa ;)

    5. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      >earth rotates once every 24 hours right?
      Wrong.
      Wikipedia

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      " i thought that was pretty clear...the earth's rotation would be 3 microseconds faster..."

      If you thought that the article said that a single earth's rotation would be faster by 3 microseconds then you're mistaken. The article said nothing of the sort. It said "caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds, or 3 millionths of a second, faster". 'spin' is a verb that doesn't mean any set number of rotations so this statement is scientifically meaningless.

      Reading the Reuters article it was immediately apparent that the information given was unqualified and not meaningful. Just because you ASSUMED it was "per day" doesn't make the article any less inaccurate. This is exactly what the grandfather post was complaining about and rightly so. It didn't say 3 microseconds per day. It could have been 3 microseconds per rotation (not the same thing). It could have been 3 mocroseconds per year or 3 microseconds per century.

      A quick search on google for more information shows that the information was misquoted and that the original quote was that "May have shortened the day by 3 microseconds" which IS a meaningful statement.

      I've noticed that problems like these are virtually always a journalist trying to reword a quote to make it sound "better" but screwing things up severely because they don't understand what's being said.

    7. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      Well.. that earth rotates once every 24 hours right? So, by the article, that means that the day is shortened by 3 microseconds.

      What does "earth rotates once every 24 hours" have to do with anything?

      • The article DIDN'T say that one rotation was shortened by 3 microseconds.
      • The article DIDN'T say that one day was shortened by 3 microseconds.
      • The article DIDN'T say that one month was shortened by 3 microseconds.
      That's what the previous post was correctly complaining about!

      When dealing with a time differential as in this case, you have to have a reference. Most articles dealing with changes in the earths rotational velocity deal with long time periods such as "3 microseconds per decade", so you can't always just assume anything you want to.

    8. Re:3 microseconds per _what_? by D0+J00+W4n7+K4r473 · · Score: 0

      Give the guy a break. It's Reuters, not some physics journal. I think most reasonable people are going to understand from the article that it's 3 microseconds per day, which would be the truth.

      --
      Your Ad Here! $2.00 Per Day!
  11. Equalizes out by randomErr · · Score: 3, Funny

    "a NASA geophysicist theorizes that the quake compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds."

    Thats alright, it all works out in the end. You see everytime we launch a explortion vehicle we loose a nanoscopic amount of rotation speed.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    1. Re:Equalizes out by glass_window · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be great if we found this to be true, and it turned out that the earthquake was Earth's mechanism to correct the shift in time? Those contries out there are mad enough at us as it is for global warming causing their islands to eventually become submerged, but now if they had this to blame on us as well...

    2. Re:Equalizes out by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what we do, the Earth, in about 400 billion years will not rotate at all. This is due to our relationship with what we refer to as our moon, which is actually celestially speaking, the second of the pair in our binary planet system. Eventually, one side of the Earth will be constantly facing the moon.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Equalizes out by JollyFinn · · Score: 1
      Regardless of what we do, the Earth, in about 400 billion years will not rotate at all. This is due to our relationship with what we refer to as our moon, which is actually celestially speaking, the second of the pair in our binary planet system. Eventually, one side of the Earth will be constantly facing the moon.

      Actually it doesn't mean that earth will not rotate. It means that a day equals month. If it would mean earth wouldn't rotate that would mean moon would have stopped moving around earth and by simply physics wouldn't be around earth anymore, it would be either inside earth. Or moved away from earth.

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    4. Re:Equalizes out by snooo53 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like we need to have more launches into space!

      --
      The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
    5. Re:Equalizes out by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I found another site that says that the Earth will never stop rotating, but will stabilize at a rotation once every 55 days, as will the moon. Still, this means that eventually the Earth and the moon will always have the same faces facing each other. This has already happened in the moon. This is called Tidal Locking. The same is true of every moon in our solar system except for Hyperion. Our moon did used to rotate with respect to Earth, but tidal locking eventually slowed it down to where it always faces the same face toward Earth now. This will eventually happen to Earth as well, except that the Earth's mass is much larger than the moon, so it will take longer to happen. The Earth and the moon will still rotate with respect to the sun. Pluto has already locked one face towards its moon, Charon.
      Hyperion will never stop rotating with respect to Saturn, because other moons of Saturn exert forces on it causing it to "tumble".

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Equalizes out by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Possibly this was calculated in metric, so NASA could be underestimating the potential effects. Or overestimating it. All *I* realy know these days is that scare-mongering moves at 16 quintillion micromilimiles per second at sea level atmospheric pressure.

  12. Over what time? by GeekLife.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Richard Gross, a geophysicist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, theorized that a shift of mass toward the Earth's center during the quake on Sunday caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds, or 3 millionths of a second, faster and to tilt about an inch on its axis."

    3 millionths of a second faster...per year? Per day? Per second? It would seem that that would be critical information left out of this and all other articles I've seen mentioning this change.

    1. Re:Over what time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess per rotation. Use some common sense.

    2. Re:Over what time? by arkanes · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know what one rotation of the earth is called, right? One of those is 3 microseconds faster.

    3. Re:Over what time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the only answer that makes sense is ... per day!!!111!!eleven!!111!!!omg!lol

    4. Re:Over what time? by Orne · · Score: 1

      Well lets see. We're talking about the time it takes for "the planet to spin", which we currently clock as about 1 day for the same equatorial point to make one complete rotation about the axis of the earth. Due to a change in the earth's angular velocity, it now takes 3x10e-6 seconds less time to make one rotation. The best explanation I have seen for this is that a piece of the earth's crust has broken away and slipped more towards the center of the earth; like the ice skater pulling in her arms, the rotational speed increases.

      Lucky for us, the US Navy is already on the job tracking the tilt of the earth & speeds of rotation. What's also interesting is that the rotational speed is not constant, and has been slowing for almost a century...

    5. Re:Over what time? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      The moon and the tides have been gradually slowing the earth's rotation.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    6. Re:Over what time? by sploxx · · Score: 1

      I would immediately assume per day or maybe per day/(2*PI) (but this doesn't really change the order of magnitude). Of course, measuring speed changes in "microseconds" is rather sloppy...

      Why?
      Because angular frequency omega=2*PI*f is measured in "per second". And, often s^(-1) or Hz makes the distinction between angular frequency and frequency. So they could mean

      a) Delta T=Delta (1/f)=3 microsecond
      b) or Delta (1/omega)=Delta (1/(2*pi*f))=3/(2*pi) microsecond

      IMHO, the most reasonable would be a). But that is purely subjective :)

      IANAG (geophysicist), though.

    7. Re:Over what time? by slowhand · · Score: 1

      "You know what one rotation of the earth is called, right? One of those is 3 microseconds faster."

      These go to eleven! - SpinalTap

      --
      Busy aligning my non-linear thoughts.
    8. Re:Over what time? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I don't know what scientific basis that link had for saying that the rotational period has EVER been constant. I mean, FRICTION folks! Geological evidence supports that 900 million years ago the Earth rotated once every 18 hours, and the moon was only 200,000 KM from Earth and had 50% more influence on tides. (Gravitational forces decrease cubically with distance). Friction due to tidal forces slows the moon down, increasing it's distance from Earth, as well as slowing the Earth's rotational period.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Over what time? by Orne · · Score: 1

      Heh, I know that, you know that, but apparently that doomsday site doesn't know that. It's funny what Google picks up sometimes.

    10. Re:Over what time? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You know what one rotation of the earth is called, right? One of those is 3 microseconds faster.

      Which would be great if the article had actually said that the 3 milliseconds was per rotation (which it didn't).

    11. Re:Over what time? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      "We're talking about the time it takes for 'the planet to spin'"

      Are we? Let's see now ...

      • Do you mean "to spin once? Hmmm.. don't think that was anywhere in the article.
      • Or maybe you thought that "spin" somehow actually means 'just once'. Guess not.
      • Maybe you made an *ASSUMPTION*.

      Well, maybe that's what the previous post was getting at. Ya think? ;)

      When dealing with a time differential as in this case, you have to have a reference. Most articles dealing with changes in the earths rotational velocity deal with long time periods such as "3 microseconds per decade", so you can't always just assume anything you want to.

    12. Re:Over what time? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1

      Most articles dealing with changes in the earths rotational velocity deal with long time periods such as "3 microseconds per decade", so you can't always just assume anything you want to.

    13. Re:Over what time? by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Most English speakers will understand "rotates 3ms faster" to mean that one rotation is completed in 3ms less time.

    14. Re:Over what time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it left me out of the loop. "rotates 3ms faster" does not mean "finished one rotation 3 ms faster than before." If my new car "goes 5 miles faster than my old one", what does that really mean?

      Basically, since I do know there are leap seconds every so often, I assumed the write-up meant an annual increase, not a perceptible daily increase.

  13. As was mentioned yesterday by AbbyNormal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the wiki is here and some amazing videos are here

    Absolutely amazing, the death-toll is reaching 69,000. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but would a warning system really have helped, though? I mean there are accounts of entire villages just being swept out to sea. Any life, obviously, is worth saving, but in the future I wonder how you could warn villages without power/communication systems. Very tragic.

    --
    Sig it.
    1. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by tomjen · · Score: 1

      One of the coasts had lifeguard towers. They where so high that the guards discovered the tsumi in time to warn the persons on the beach and get them in safety. only 3 people died.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    2. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by slutdot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd think there would be some sort of international warning system for events like this but apparently there isn't. According to this article, U.S. scientists tried to reach contacts in the reach but since there is no warning system in place, they couldn't let anyone know what was happening.

    3. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by will_die · · Score: 1

      It is a rare event, in having the earthquake in that area, the force of the earthquake and then the size of the tsumani, so why spent resources on a something like that.

    4. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I'm writing this from Chennai/Madras which was hit quite badly (over 3000+ folks were killed from areas here and around).

      The problem is that this region has never seen Tsunamis before, and most people were just curious to see what the hell was happening. That made it only worse - a lot of them were morning walkers who were wondering what's up with the sea.

      If erudite urban folks are this naive, what can you expect off villagers? Actually, there is a story making the rounds of a guy from Singapore who called up his village and warned them about this, and they all moved to safety and nobody in the village was affected.

      The problem is that, it is not enough if you had a warning system -- you would need to know what to do with it. It's not sufficient to warn people, you need to tell them where to go and what to do, too.

    5. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by slutdot · · Score: 1

      Agreed but I figured there would be some warning/communication system for extraordinary events, not just specific to tsunamis and earthquakes.

    6. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      True, but what I was getting at was, how do you warn people who live in very rural areas with no or little communications? If one person gets the call, how does he/she relay the information to everyone in the village? I would think a air-raid warning system would be a little impractical/cost prohibitive for every such village. Even with some sort of system, it is only effective if the people know where to go (emergency planning).

      Hum...Mabe Some sort of emergency satellite read-only feed (by NOAA or NASA), with a small linux box that just constantly monitors the signal (and nothing else), and maybe a couple of Loud Horns or something. If the signal pattern changes, the computer immediately sounds the horns. The only costs would be installation, satellite receiver, horns.

      Dunno, just some ideas. I'm sure if Slashdot puts their collective heads together, some great ideas could be brought out to light.

      --
      Sig it.
    7. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by skraps · · Score: 1
      The cost of the warning system is surely less than the additional recovery costs that are incurred without it.

      Then again, it may be cheaper. If a whole village dies, there is no immediate need to rebuild it.

      I guess it depends on how many dollars a human life is worth.

      --
      Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
    8. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The best prevention is education -- a scientist on a news channel in the U.S. yesterday said that when the sea recedes like it did before Sunday's tsunami, you have between 5-10 minutes to run the opposite direction. From most accounts, few did.

      It is noted that Sumatra was devastated by the 9.0 earthquake, followed twenty minutes later by the worst of the tsunami. In addition, parts of the Indian subcontinent were flooded up to several miles inland, making the visual warning inadequate. On the hillier islands, it may have made a considerable difference.

      Because this event is so legendary, it stands to reason that this knowledge can stick around and prevent such large loss of life in the future.

    9. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by Reignking · · Score: 1

      Why? Because Hawaii was hit with a tsumani years ago, and we installed a warning system.

      Why? How about 100,000+++ reasons???

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    10. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by Ced_Ex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read that most people were actually confused when they saw the ocean receding from the beach. They never made the connection between the extremely low tide and the forth coming tsunami.

      The people just stood around on the beach watching the water leave the beach, only to see it return as a huge wave.

      It's so sad to see such devestation. Please people, go and donate at UNICEF it's the least you can do. I mean, if you saw someone fall and break a leg, would you not stop to help? Since we can't go over to help them, send money.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    11. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Generally villages without a modern communication system do not grow very large, and often have some system of noise makings to call everyone to attention for communcation. Remember tele-phone, tele-graph and tele-woman.

    12. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow, I've only seen the first one so far but it's pretty amazing, in the scariest sense of the word.
      It's like the ocean is just swallowing the island whole.

      Thanks for the links!

    13. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by robertjw · · Score: 1

      If erudite urban folks are this naive, what can you expect of villagers?

      In my experience, people with a simpler way of life, in this case villagers, generally have a more practical view of the world.

      I would anticipate that villagers would be much more likely to heed a warning and get to safety than a city dweller that has a mindset of "it won't happen to me".

    14. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I believe that Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that the chunk of Sri Lanka that was devastated by the Tsunami of 2004 was also taken out by a tsunami generated by the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.

      That was a pretty Legendary event. People forgot it.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    15. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by Jordy · · Score: 1

      Any life, obviously, is worth saving, but in the future I wonder how you could warn villages without power/communication systems. Very tragic.

      Air raid sirens. The same system that exists in Hawaii to warn of incoming tsunamis. Sure it takes a little education to understand them, but they are cheap and carry long distances (4 miles).

      If you don't have power strung out, you can hook them up to diesel engines and have a person responsible for flipping it on if they hear another one. They'll go off in relay and it'll take a little longer, but it is better than nothing. I imagine you could also use solar and a decent sized set of batteries + something that would pick up the sound of another siren and just go off.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    16. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by mbbac · · Score: 1

      All of the videos I saw were taken by and of dumbasses gathering by the shore waiting for the tsunami to roll in.

      Then again, I guess all the videos would be taken by dumbasses because the people that could benefit from an early warning system wouldn't have been hanging out on the shore.

      I have no sympathy for the people killed while sightseeing. But I mourn for those caught unprepared.

      --

      mbbac

    17. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Legendary events don't really mean much I think; to believe otherwise would suggest that a large tsunami has never hit the Indian subcontinent and the southeast Asia area before because the reaction of the locals tells us they've not had to react before.

      I believe that cultural memory is very low, maybe no more than 3 or 4 generations, unless it is embedded into the daily lifestyle or an explicit lifestyle adjustment is made (such as early warning systems and educational mandates).

    18. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by macaulay805 · · Score: 1

      wonder how you could warn villages without power/communication systems.

      Not to be an ass or anything, but I believe public education regarding this issue would have brought the death toll down a significant amount. Hell, public education regarding ANY matter might be the only way to help protect themselves. Maybe I should dedicate a private website about the different natural disasters and how one may go about in a logical systematic manner on protecting themselves. Then once the compiled instruction set is complete, ask for donations to try to distribute those booklets world-wide.

    19. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some amazing videos are here

      Would it be in bad taste to suggest that these videos be made available via Bittorrent? MPlayer has trouble with these videos anyway...

    20. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just to note that singapore was NOT affected by the tsunami, and also that it is not comprised of "villages" or tribes=)

    21. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by winwar · · Score: 1

      "The problem is that this region has never seen Tsunamis before, and most people were just curious to see what the hell was happening. That made it only worse - a lot of them were morning walkers who were wondering what's up with the sea."

      Well, what is the phrase, something to the effect "curiosity killed the cat".

      If someone was stupid enough to come to the ocean because a tsunami was predicted I think the gene pool will be better off without them. It might suck for friends and family but they would be doing the human race a favor....

      "The problem is that, it is not enough if you had a warning system -- you would need to know what to do with it. It's not sufficient to warn people, you need to tell them where to go and what to do, too."

      True. Of course I am amused about the "tsunami evacuation route" signs near the coast of Washington. If there is an actual need for the evacuation, the routes will probably be useless due to the massive 9 to 10 intensity EQ off the coast that preceded it...

    22. Re:As was mentioned yesterday by dhandler · · Score: 1

      It is criminal that this many people had to die - In my opinion they had an early warning - everybody (in a position to do something) knew there was an earthquake in the ocean nearby (in geologic terms). Hasn't history taught that when there in an earthquake in the ocean, that nearby tides are affected? That is why an "early warning system" was setup in the pacific. Local police and/or other authorities should have gone out and altered people to move inland. I think they had about two hours between the quake itself and when the wave came in. Granted, many people still would have died and the physical destruction would still have happenned, but a couple of thousands of people could have been saved. I am sure the logistics are mind boggling, but just some bullhorns to clear the beaches off would have done something, wouldn't it?

  14. Oh! by beatdown · · Score: 0

    Sp that's why I was feeling dizzy for the past week!

  15. Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by night_flyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Scientist warns of Atlantic tidal wave

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5652141/

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by justkarl · · Score: 1

      That's why it's nice to live in the Southwest!

    2. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That wouldn't be a tidal wave, since it has nothing to do with tides.

      I'm not merely being pedantic, I'm fed up with amateurish, downright sloppy "scientific" journalism.

      And I've been hearing about this Canary Island thing for about a decade now, I guess given last weeks catastrophe, it's time for the media to dust it off and make a few bucks sowing fear.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fsck, here went my moderation.

      I have been on that island (it is worth visiting while it lasts). Nearly killed myself aquaplaning in a tropical rainstorm on a road with 400+ meter cliff going into the sea on the right and 400+ cliff going up towards the volcano in question on the left.

      Anyway, on subject:

      It has a US Geological Survey run GPS station network every several hundred meters or so in some places do detect any movement and try to predict the next eruption. There will be a fair warning on this one. It is a question if anyone will dare to use that warning wisely which I doubt.

      That is the good bit.

      The bad bit is that compared to a worst case La Palma scenario the tsunami from 2004 Christmas earthquake will be a child's game in a puddle. The predicted worst case tsunami for La Palma is 800m at the start, 100+m at Marroco and Capo Verde, 30+m at Lisbon, Rio and the Caribean, 10+ m along the entire East Coast of the US including New York and Ireland and 5+ at the South coast of the UK. The death toll if there will be no evacuation will be in the tens of millions if not hundreds. That is the worst case scenario which is if it slides the same way it slid 1+ million years ago when the current north caldera has formed (it is the largest volcanic caldera formed by a landslide on the planet - 30km+ diameter). Even if it is a fraction of that it is still really scary.

      Just to make things worse is that current models are that a landslide is likely to follow one of the next 3-5 eruptions and it erupts every 20 years on average.

      And worst part is that it has not erupted for nearly 33 years now so the next eruption is likely to be bigger then usual.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by BanthaPoodoo · · Score: 1

      Just curious: whats the feasibility of sending antiwaves into oncoming tsunamis to reduce their effect?

    5. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is roughly as feasible as dropping antimatter on the wave to destroy it before it hits land.

    6. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by DeeFresh · · Score: 1

      You can see some pictures of La Palma and the projected dissemination of the potential La Palma mega tsunami here: http://www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/tsunamis/la_pa lma_images.htm/

      Looks like it would take about 6 hours for the tsunami to hit the East Coasts of North and South America.

    7. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by 1tsm3 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't assume the worst case (the land falling into the sea in one piece) would happen. Scientists from Britan have said that it is more likely that it will fall into the sea in pieces (while it crumbles due to the erruption). I guess it's just a bunch of underfunded researchers trying to get attention.

      --
      -ItsME
    8. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Zapman · · Score: 1

      BanthaPoodoo wrote:
      Just curious: whats the feasibility of sending antiwaves into oncoming tsunamis to reduce their effect?

      None. Think about it. The Tsunamis are circular, originating from a central point. There's no way to set up your 'antiwave' to blunt it.

      Even if that wern't a problem, the other problem is raw force. These things have the power that's measured in megatons. The only things we have that can produce that force are nukes. How do you think people would feel if there was a nuke parked beside any volcano, fault line, etc? And also one that had to be detonated instantly, without human oversight and control?

      --
      Zapman
    9. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      No "tidal wave" has anything to do with tides. Seems kind of pointless to complain about this instance when the whole thing is a misnomer, just like a "nova" isn't a new star. But you're not going to get people to start calling it something different now.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    10. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      What about the evil scenario like the one from Superman, would it be possible using many nukes to nudge it out of place and start the chain of events? Is that even possible in theory.

      There was a tape a while ago of Jirinovsky, a russian ultra-nationalistic party leader that threatened Americans with something like that, how they (Russians) would be able to change the axis the earth or cause a tsunami and sink New York. Sounded like a tin-foil hat theory but now I am starting to wonder. Anybody else know more about this?

    11. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by svallarian · · Score: 1

      So why couldn't we go ahead and destroy the island using controlled explosions?

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    12. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you think people would feel if there was a nuke parked beside any volcano, fault line, etc? And also one that had to be detonated instantly, without human oversight and control?

      Clearly, this is a job for Skynet!

    13. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      You are asking the people whose answer to effects of Global Warming is the Sport Utility Vehicle...

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    14. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's it exactly.

      Who cares what scientists think? God will save us all anyways. The sooner we die to sooner we get to be in the loving arms of Jesus. Pass the jello please.

    15. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Less than zero! In theory I could create an anti-wave that would protect one small beach. However other beaches around the world would receive two tsunamis, one from the original, and one from my anti-wave. There may also be a couple beaches that receive a worse tsunami, which is the combined wave of the original, plus the anti-tsunami rolled into one because things add different!

      In short, you don't want to try.

    16. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

      very low

      (slashdot lameness filter really bites.)

    17. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      I believe the term tidal wave comes from tidal bore which looks similar to a tsunami.

    18. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're all DOOOMED!

    19. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the most interesting posts I've seen on /. for a very long time.
      Nice to have you on board.

    20. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped short of an up-mod (and I got some points) but that last sentence really set me off. Good show!

    21. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      >I'm not merely being pedantic, I'm fed up with amateurish, downright sloppy "scientific" journalism.
      Darn straight. This morning the weather guy said the sun would rise at 7:37 AM and set at 5:25 PM. I mean, this is a professional meteorologist. Can't he even get basic astrology right?
      Okay, so I'm being sarcastic. The point is, if you are going to get offended every time somebody can't get scientific terms right, you're going to be pretty darn miserable. But hey, you keep correcting people. Maybe it'll catch on.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    22. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      How about a baffle. Maybe some kind of sacrificial breakwater? Probably prohibitably expensive, though. And environmentally rude to the fishies, as well.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    23. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Wudbaer · · Score: 1

      Try to read up about the large Vajont dam disaster that killed over 2100 people in 1963 in Italy when a whole mountainside collapsed into the dam's reservoir, making it splash over the dam and flooding several villages and small cities in minutes.

      There also several experts warned that the mountainside, having been found instable for a considerable amount of time, could slide in one piece right into the lake. The experts of the Italian government and of the company operating the dam said exactly what you said above. Yeah, could happen but will not. It will break into small pieces, which will be a nuisance for the dam's operations but nothing more. They were wrong. Lots of people died.

      Better safe than sorry if that much might be on the line (even if it might be a futile exercise nevertheless; even if you know what will happen it's not realistic to evacuate the whole Atlantic seacoast in several continents in a couple of days).

    24. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      along the entire East Coast of the US including New York and Ireland

      Holy cow! When did they move Ireland to the US? Anyway, glad they made it; maybe now we can get some decent beer!

    25. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by RustyTaco · · Score: 1

      Well how else are you going to keep the AC running full blast unless you have a big, gas guzzling engine to power it?

      - RustyTaco

    26. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was going to reply with the same example, but did not remember the place and time and did not have time to do digging.

      Disclaimer: IANAG and IANAV. (Geologist and Vulcanologist respetively).

      From what I know, the way a landslide commences is largely dependant on how steep the slope is. The steeper the slope, the higher the likelyhood of it all going in one go.

      And this is the exact reason why everyone is scared shitless of La Palma. I may be wrong, but off the top of my head I cannot think of a single place on the planet to have the same steepness of the slope with the same or higher height if we count from the ocean floor. It is 6km+ (2.5 above, 3.5+ under) with an angle which on the average exceeds 45 degrees. And it is a very active volcano on top of that.

      In btw, I perfectly understand the parent poster. I would have been saying the same thing if I did not see it for myself several times. The place is crazy. If you see the slopes there you start believing in it going downhill in one go. In fact you start wandering why the hell it is still there.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    27. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Russians have had 100M bombs for 30+ years. These 8+ ton monsters did not fit in any of their bombers at the time without completely blowing the aerodynamics to hell. So noone really understood why they have them. That is until someone thought of what exactly will happen if a sub drops a few of these at even intervals off the coast of NY outside the US territorial waters timed to blow up at the same time.
      Dunno if Jirik was just raving the way he usually does or referring to this.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    28. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by arivanov · · Score: 1

      1. It happens to be Spanish. It also happens to be an independent country at the moment.
      2. So what happens if we miss? If it all goes off at once? Do you see any of the currently elected mindless twats on either side of the pond accepting the responsibility?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    29. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, let's all bash the term 'tidal wave' now. Let's insist everyone use the scientific term 'tsunami'.

      Wait, tsunami isn't scientific, it's just Japanese. It translates to "harbor wave". So let's all call these big waves 'harbor waves' in Japanese even if they hit land where there isn't a harbor, or a Japanese. Yeah, that makes more sense than calling them the incorrect 'tidal wave'.

    30. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > this is a professional meteorologist. Can't he even get basic astrology right?

      Psh, shows what YOU know. He's a meteorologist. What does he know about weather, he studies meteors! If you want weather, talk to a weather man, duh!

      (umm, yeah I know)

    31. Re:Indian ocean isnt the only place one is needed by whtdimds7 · · Score: 1

      The one thing that I have been trying to determine and so far have been unsuccessful at is exactly how far inland did the waves come. I live on the east coast of Florida, and the La Palma deal would effect us considerably as we are maybe five miles from the ocean. The TV doesn't really clarify how many miles or feet or yards the waves over there actually came on shore to create such a decimation. Anybody have a guess or answer? I had no idea about La Palma til we watched Dixcovery Channel Spotlight last night. That's scary.

  16. slowing rotation by justforaday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I seem to remember seeing something a few months ago about the earth's rotation slowing a bit -- something that the scientists can't seem to explain. Any chance this sort of thing could be related or a partial explanation?

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    1. Re:slowing rotation by justforaday · · Score: 1

      Here are two prior /. articles I found on the subject thanks to google (cos /.'s search sucks so bad)...

      Is the Earth's Rotation Changing?

      and

      The Future of Leap Seconds

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:slowing rotation by LucidBeast · · Score: 1
      My ninth grade science teacher also told us this fact, but I had hard time believing it, because according to his numbers T-Rex would have had only 2 1/2 hours of day light back in its days.

      My sceptism was ignored by him and rest of the class.

    3. Re:slowing rotation by at_18 · · Score: 1

      Your teacher was right on the effect, but wrong on the exact value. The average slowdown measured is about two milliseconds per century.

      So 65 million years ago the day would have been about 20 minutes shorter than now, which isn't a huge amount.

    4. Re:slowing rotation by glass_window · · Score: 1

      That is assuming events like this have not occured, in which there is basically time flux that isn't accounted for in there. For all we know, the earth could be slowing down and speeding up within a given limit (i.e. say +/-5 seconds). Now, knowing this earthquake along with the fold in the crust sped up the Earth's rotation, what would the earth be doing to counteract this? This is probably why all of this is related. All the volcanic erruptions and earthquakes pushing crust upward contribute to pushing earth material towards the surface, that would slow the planet, but is this happening on a consistant basis, sort of an equilibrium effect, where so many of these activities slowing the rotation cause the opposite activity to speed the rotation? Would this be a chapter in Geology, or would this spark an entirely new subject: the Planetary lifecycles? Today we will be talking about the homeostasis of a planet, class.

    5. Re:slowing rotation by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Another poster already pointed out that the difference in time is true, but in wrong proportions. But even so, the 2 1/2 hours of daylight would have been followed by only two or so hours of darkness. There just would have been a buttload of days in a year, not that T-Rex cared about years, or seasons, or much of anything else.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  17. Interesting. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is interesting the Quake speeds up the earths rotation. Because there are factors like the moon that actually slow down the earths rotation. I don't know the rates of average earthquake will speed up the earths rotation vs. the rate the gravitional effect of the moon slows the rotation. So I guess in some ways earth quakes are a good thing in the long term. Because the earth having a 672 hour day would probably be more desasterious to life.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Interesting. by n0mad6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the case of the moon, the Earth's rotation is slowed down enough such that on average, the day is lengthened by 15 microseconds every year. At the same time, the moon gets 38 mm further from the Earth over the same period. This is a result of the two bodies being tidally locked (i.e., having synchronized rotations such that one side of the moon is always facing the Earth).

    2. Re:Interesting. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Thanks I didn't have the actual numbers on hand. So I guess we are doomed after all and the earthquake just caused more suffering in our path to doom.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Interesting. by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      With the case of the moon, the Earth's rotation is slowed down enough such that on average, the day is lengthened by 15 microseconds every year. At the same time, the moon gets 38 mm further from the Earth over the same period. This is a result of the two bodies being tidally locked (i.e., having synchronized rotations such that one side of the moon is always facing the Earth).

      Where did these numbers come from? They are such small amounts at this scale that it's a little hard for me to believe there is empirical evidence for this. Is there or is this just theory?

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    4. Re:Interesting. by n0mad6 · · Score: 1

      Both, really. Some basic equations of angular momentum conservation are all you need to measure what you'd expect this effect to amount to. As for measurement, it is possible to measure both the Earth's rotation and the distance to the moon to an extremely precise degree (these measurements agree with what you'd expect from theory rather well). In the United States, the US Naval Observatory maintains a precise measurement of the Earth's rotation. This regular slow-down of the Earth's rotation is what is mostly responsible for the need for leap seconds.

    5. Re:Interesting. by Morgon · · Score: 1

      But good lord - all the incredible things that could be done in one day, in that case!

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    6. Re:Interesting. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Where did these numbers come from? They are such small amounts at this scale that it's a little hard for me to believe there is empirical evidence for this. Is there or is this just theory?

      Corner cube laser reflectors left by the Apollo missions can (and are) used to measure the moon's distance from the Earth with the required accuracy.

      See also http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030425. htm.

    7. Re:Interesting. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the day getting longer is going to spell our doom. In fact, as the Earth's rotation slows, it seems likely to me that geological catastrophes would probably decrease as well. There seems good evidence that when the Earth was younger, and the day was only 18 hours, that there was a good deal more seismic activity.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  18. UTC by espo812 · · Score: 1
    compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds
    Don't forget to adjust your clocks.
    --

    espo
    1. Re:UTC by GrAfFiT · · Score: 1

      In fact, UTC time doesn't exactly reflect the earth's rotation. Its seconds are real SI seconds (cesium stuff you know) but it is adjusted to follow earth rotation one second at a time and very rarely.

      For more information read this and this.

      No, your wristwatch doesn't need to be readjusted immediately.

    2. Re:UTC by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > No, your wristwatch doesn't need to be readjusted immediately.

      What if my watch has a "microsecond" hand?

  19. Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by LegendOfLink · · Score: 1

    OK, let me rephrase that question, largest natural disaster to affect mankind?

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it is.

    1. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by bje2 · · Score: 1

      this article says "in recent history"...

      too bad you said "mankind", otherwise it could've been the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs..

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was larger earthquake in China like 100 years iirc. It caused over 350 000 deaths.

    3. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not on a percentage basis. Without taking into account after-effects (disease, famine, whatever), the current death toll is approximately 0.001% of the earth's population.

      Still very tragic from a compassionate perspective, however.

    4. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      The Spanish flu of 1918, which killed between 20 and 40 _million_ people across the world? For more details see here...

    5. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      The explosion of the Volcano Krakatoa in 1883:
      • The explosion was heard over 1/13th of the Earth's surface, from points as far as 4600km away.
      • Resulting Tsunamis Killed 36,000+ people, and hurling blocks of coral weighing 600 tonns.
      • Ash fell on ships 6000km away
      • Global temperatures dropped 1.2C for a year after the explosion.
      • Every barometer in the world measured the blast wave, that circled the Earth for 5 days.
      • The ash spread so far and so high, people were reporting "fires" at sunset in Poughkeepsie, NY. The sun was colored blue or green around the equator.
      • Floating rafts of Pumice big enough to carry men,

      If you are going for body count, sure Krakatoa was peanuts. But altering climate, and sheer power, I think this one wins.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    6. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by thisgooroo · · Score: 1
      not very likely.

      the santorin explosion (aegean a couple of centuries BC) affected a smaller area, but wiped out at least one (minoan) civilization

      some catastrophy 200 - 300 million years ago (apparently also involving a tsunami) wiped out about 80% of all species. granted, mankind wasn't around then, but who knows how we would have been effected when all these species had been around

      same with the dinosaurs (65 million years ago)

    7. Re:Largest Natural Disaster Ever? by Atrax · · Score: 1

      You're referring to the K-T Boundary event between the Cretaceous and Tertiary, which indeed was the 'Dinosaur' event, and more likely a large meteorite than a comet

      However, the Permian Mass Extinction was bigger by far.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
  20. Nuclear power station affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a nuclear power station in Kalpakkam, India on the coastline that got hit by the Tsunami. The reactor was shutdown automatically. There was some flooding in the unit. The authorites claim it is safe. I wonder if these nuclear power station has any safegaurds for earthquacks.

    1. Re:Nuclear power station affected by clevelandguru · · Score: 1

      I think every nuclear plant is designed to withstand earthquake. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UT F-8&q=kalpakkam+nuclear&btnG=Search+News

    2. Re:Nuclear power station affected by will_die · · Score: 1

      here is some general info

    3. Re:Nuclear power station affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon it is a quake and not a quack :P.

      Quack \Quack\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. {Qvacked}; p. pr. & vb. n.
      {Quacking}.] [Of imitative origin; cf. D. kwaken, G. quacken,
      quaken, Icel. kvaka to twitter.]
      1. To utter a sound like the cry of a duck.

    4. Re:Nuclear power station affected by BJH · · Score: 1

      Mgrennan? Is that you?!

  21. Rotation != Orbital Trajectory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THe rotation can be effected, exactly how you describe. But that cannot affect the orbit of the Earth.

  22. an extra second per 1000 years? by Emrikol · · Score: 1, Informative

    0.000003 seconds * 365 days = 0.001095 seconds per year
    0.001095 sec/yr * 1000 years = 1.095 seconds

    --
    You're all bastards!
    1. Re:an extra second per 1000 years? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      It's not like we have a magnitude 9 quake every year. This one was the fourth largest in the past 100 years, so we can approximate one this size every 25 years or so. Couple this with the slowing rotation of the Earth and we have a nice system that keeps itself somewhat in balance. Of course, this is all pure speculation that I'm pulling straight out of my ass...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:an extra second per 1000 years? by Emrikol · · Score: 1

      You made some really good points. I guess then that no matter what happens, everything will always even itself out. awww...
      <happy ending>*CUTE PUPPIES*</happy ending>

      Really though, I wonder over the course of many millions of years how much the rotation has changed from things like this/the moon/asteroids/etc. I guess it's time to go hit the old google

      --
      You're all bastards!
    3. Re:an extra second per 1000 years? by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

      So we need an extra leap second every 913 years, unless the year is divisible by 3652 (to account for the .25).

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  23. More information about earthquakes by Manan+Shah · · Score: 3, Informative

    A 10.0 earthquake has energy equivilant 1,000,000,000,000 tons of TNT. It would create a fault that circles the earth. A 12.0 on the other hand, with 160,000,000,000,000 tons of tnt energy, would break the hearth in half. Comparatively, the Northridge, CA quake of 1994 was "only" equal to 5,000,000 tons of emergy.

    1. Re:More information about earthquakes by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Of course, since the Richter scale is exponential, those numbers are only so useful. For the average human being, knowing the power of a 12.0 or 10.0 earthquake tells us nothing (other than general orders of magnitude) about the power of a 9.0 earthquake.

    2. Re:More information about earthquakes by Hynee · · Score: 1

      A 12.0 on the other hand, with 160,000,000,000,000 tons of tnt energy, would break the hearth in half.

      And finally the southern hemisphere could become a planet in its own right!

      --
      Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
    3. Re:More information about earthquakes by p4k · · Score: 1

      Who on earth modded up this dribble?

  24. Just the SCOPE by Badgerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's still hard to wrap my mind around the extent of the disaster.

    It also is amazing just how much information we have at our fingertips from cell phones, cameras, the internet, and more. Had this happened twenty years ago, the sense of it would be different.

    It's amazing seeing the global impact, and being aware of the global impact. The world is much smaller these days.

    I am also heartened to see how the internet has given people information on how to help out. That, too, is different than what we would have faced twenty years ago. Let's hope it makes a difference.

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  25. Historical impact of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    While it is important to have a warning system, if you look at the historical impact of tsunamis you will see that they don't happen that often. Aid money could be used for better things at this point in time.

    For those interested in historical data, check out the em-dat database

    http://www.em-dat.net/disasters/profiles.php
    (w ave/surge)

    1. Re:Historical impact of by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      I was quite suprised when I started reading about this on
      Sunday. I was like 'but they said there was no tidal wave'.
      The reason I thought this was I read on the 24th of a very
      large quake off of Australia. Being American, I didn't
      bother to follow up on *where* off the coast it was, just
      noted it said 'no tidal wave'.

      Ends up that quake was 8.2 and off the south east coast.
      You would think knowing of that large quake, and the report
      of the 9 on the 26th, the respective governments would have
      taken some precautions - posting of alerts, asking for info
      from other governments/NGO's who would have wave alerts,
      etc. But it sounds like they basically did zilch.

      I mean really - is it that hard to have an alert system
      as soon as a large quake is detected? The freaking USGS
      has EMAIL NOTIFICATION of quakes over 5. I'm not saying
      this would have saved everyone, clearly it would not. But
      many thousands could have been saved vs the small and short
      inconvience of a false alarm.

  26. 3 microseconds less? by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Funny

    As if there wasn't too little time in the day already.

    1. Re:3 microseconds less? by archen · · Score: 1

      look at the bright side. If you live for another 40 or 50 years, you'll almost live an extra half second.

    2. Re:3 microseconds less? by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

      look at the bright side. If you live for another 40 or 50 years, you'll almost live an extra half second.

      Oh no you don't. You're not getting away with faulty math on /.

      0.000003s * 365 * 50 = 0.05475s

      You're off by an order of magnitude! Shame on you!

    3. Re:3 microseconds less? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If you live for another 40 or 50 years, you'll almost live an extra half second.

      And if you say the words "half second" aloud, you've just used it up. Heck, by posting this right now, I have wasted MORE than your precious half-second. Muwahahaha, how's THAT for evil? You gain something and I take it away tenfold.

  27. wow! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    Think of all the electric I will save when I use them 3 microseconds of extra sunlight in the evening! I could save a whole seconds worth of power before I die! I don't even feel guilty for running 2 PCs all day long now!

    --
    I like muppets.
  28. But, But, But.... by 10101001011 · · Score: 1

    How could the Earth shift it's rotation?

    It always revolved around me before...

    1. Re:But, But, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many 10101001011 does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      One; He grips it firmly and lets the world revolve around him.

    2. Re:But, But, But.... by Reignking · · Score: 1

      The Earth revolves around you? Wow, don't you have a giant ego!!!

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    3. Re:But, But, But.... by trongey · · Score: 1

      Big deal. The whole universe revolves around me.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  29. Another donation spot by JLSigman · · Score: 1

    Amazon.com's front page has a 1-click donation link available. The money goes to the Red Cross.

    --
    -jls
    Techno-pagan
    1. Re:Another donation spot by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      A *patented* 1-click donation link, to boot!

      Give money straight to the red cross.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  30. 24 hours on FOX by phrostie · · Score: 1

    will this force Fox to rename threir show previously known as 24 Hours

    1. Re:24 hours on FOX by bje2 · · Score: 1

      yes, instead of being known as "24", it'll now be known as "23.999997"...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:24 hours on FOX by bje2 · · Score: 1

      ah, crap...before someone corrects me, i realize i didn't do that math correct on that...too early for math yet...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    3. Re:24 hours on FOX by Timo_UK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rename it to "24hrs + 3ms of junk propaganda" maybe?

      --
      Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
    4. Re:24 hours on FOX by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      No; Fox doesn't care about accuracy. They know that if they say it's 24 Hours, their audience will believe it's 24 Hours.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    5. Re:24 hours on FOX by DangerSteel · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are mistaking Fox for Dan Rather..

    6. Re:24 hours on FOX by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      You're right, my apologies.

      Fox will report that the show is 24 Hours, and the viewers will decide that it is 24 Hours.

      Better?

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  31. Donate some money! by immerrath · · Score: 5, Informative
    I submitted a story with a link to a CNN page that lists organizations accepting aid for the Tsunami/Quake hit people, but it got rejected.

    I myself donated $500 to AmeriCares which seems to be a fairly reputable charity, and I'm only a poor graduate student.

    Those of you who are well off enough, please, donate as much as you can to your favorite charity.

    I quote John Donne:

    "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

    1. Re:Donate some money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $495 in administrative fees, $5 to the needy. Ameri cares.

    2. Re:Donate some money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I donated 100.

      Friend of mine was in Thailand and saw everything destroyed around them. Many of these people had little to begin with and now survivors are in danger from disease.

      Lets all pull together and help out.

    3. Re:Donate some money! by dmccarty · · Score: 4, Funny
      No man is an island [...]

      But if one were, he'd be about 100 feet farther away now.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    4. Re:Donate some money! by romcabrera · · Score: 1
      Let's act!

      UNICEF (www.unicef.org) Donation page:

      Doctors Without Borders (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/index.shtml) Donation page:

      International Federation, Red Cross and Red Crescent (http://www.ifrc.org) Donation page:

    5. Re:Donate some money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a clod be washed away by the sea,...

      There will be one less insensitive clod to insult us.

    6. Re:Donate some money! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Umm, as far as I read, Americares claims a 2% administrative overhead. This is very good compared to Red Cross, which claims 9%, and is light years beyond United Way, for which I can find numbers varying from 0 (meaning someone else is paying the cost of administration), to over 20%, which is just insane.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:Donate some money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like Tuvalu, under water. Has this happened yet or was it all a scam to sell .tv domains?

  32. It's all about angular momentum by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 4, Informative
    Angular momentum is conserved and is calculated by L = Iw where I is the rotational inertia, w is the angular velocity and L is the constant product. So if I goes up (and I will show in a minute how that happens), w must go down.

    I, the rotational inertia, is calculated different ways for different geometries. A long stick held by the end has a larger I than the same stick held by the center, for instance. Another example is a sphere, like the Earth, rotating on an axis. If it suddenly puts out a long arm, that's going to increase its rotation inertia considerably, decreasing its angular velocity. Lifting up a whole region by a few inches could easily do that.

    1. Re:It's all about angular momentum by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      So if one were to construct MANY tall skyscrapers over a large area, say New York, would the Earth's rotation slow down? Can one then assume that human activity over the past few hundred years has had an impact on Earth's rotation, even if by a very little amount?

    2. Re:It's all about angular momentum by Naikrovek · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes. but relative to a big chunk of land, new york weighs little, and while it would slow the earth down, it is probably an immeasureable amount.

      still, i'm going to lose some weight, so i can help the earth pick back up some spin.

    3. Re:It's all about angular momentum by Leibherk · · Score: 1

      Unless you made them extremely massive and several miles tall it would be too small of a change to notice.

      --
      "Maggie call Aquaman!!!"
    4. Re:It's all about angular momentum by mforbes · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was a Q&A in the LastWord section of New Scientist magazine about this a few months ago. The gist of the answer was that, for each tall building me construct, we also remove just as much matter from beneath the surface (mining activities, etc)... so the net result is zero, or close enough to zero that it's discountable.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    5. Re:It's all about angular momentum by vandoravp · · Score: 0

      Posters: using correct spelling and punctuation greatly increases your odds of being modded up.

      Oh really...

      There was a Q&A in the LastWord section of New Scientist magazine about this a few months ago. The gist of the answer was that, for each tall building me construct, we also remove just as much matter from beneath the surface (mining activities, etc)... so the net result is zero, or close enough to zero that it's discountable.

      Guess there'll be no modding up of you today.

    6. Re:It's all about angular momentum by jiminim · · Score: 1

      There is a theory going around that the weight of all of the reservoirs in the northern hemisphere have unnaturally made the Earth "top heavy" and are affecting the spin rate.

      Lake Mead vs New York:

      Mead has about 9.3E11 gal of water at 8.3 lbs weighs 7.7E12 lbs total.

      The Empire State Building weighs a mere 7.3E8 lbs.

      So Lake Mead weighs 10,548 Empire State Buildings!
      At this rate a couple reservoirs would weigh more than all of the rest of all human construction ever.

      I got numbers from http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/faq.html and http://www.esbnyc.com/kids/kids_faq.cfm

    7. Re:It's all about angular momentum by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      But thats the point, taking mass and putting it to a higher position decreases rotational speed. Either way these skyscrapers have nothing in weight when compared with mountains that are being pushed up.

    8. Re:It's all about angular momentum by mforbes · · Score: 0

      heh, good catch... guess my chances of being modded up on that post went down a little ;)

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    9. Re:It's all about angular momentum by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      Well, considering a few inches of a very large area can make a difference, it seems only logical to me that a few hundred over a small area would have an equal effect.

    10. Re:It's all about angular momentum by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1
      still, i'm going to lose some weight, so i can help the earth pick back up some spin.

      Wouldn't it be more helpful to lose mass, instead? ;-)

    11. Re:It's all about angular momentum by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 0
      <physics geek>
      Since I doubt the GP is going to be going to the moon anytime soon, traveling close to the speed of light, or otherwise warping the curvature of spacetime in a manner sufficient to alter the gravitational attraction between him and the Earth, the only way to lose weight would be to decrease your mass.

      So no, it wouldn't be more helpful to lose mass instead of weight because to do one implies you are also doing the other. ;)

      </physics geek>
      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    12. Re:It's all about angular momentum by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or close enough to zero that it's discountable.

      Yes, it is neglectable. AFAIK one of the few works of man that have changed the angular momentum to some degree are the great dams, e.g. the Hoover dam. Keeping all that water at an higher altitude matters a lot more than a few skyscrapers.

      Of course, that too pales in comparison to an earthquake, which moves the tectonic plates themselves. Falling or raising plates moves thousands of meters of rock up and down, creating mountains and oceans. Anything man has built is neglectable compared to that.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:It's all about angular momentum by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      Some simple examples.

      Watch an ice skater spinning. Note the changes in rate of spin as arms and legs are moved to and from the body.

      Go to the park, better with some friends. Get on the carosel and spin it. All of you move to the center. Then all move to the outer edge. You'll see it speed up and slow down.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    14. Re:It's all about angular momentum by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      I know, I'm a phys. major. I was just being pedantic, because "losing weight" via the other method is just too appealing! ;)

    15. Re:It's all about angular momentum by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      See my other post. Apparently it was a 600 mile long by 100 mile long chunk of crust that fell 30 feet closer to the center. The Island of Sumatra was moved 100 feet to the West (one tip anyway). We are talking of huge numbers and a measurable change in the earths rotation.

    16. Re:It's all about angular momentum by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The result is negligable, but not for the reason you gave. In fact, it's just the opposite. It's negligable *despite* the reason you gave. If you move mass further away from the center of the earth, that is precisely what *WOULD* slow the earth down. What makes it negligable is that (A) it's not enough mass to matter much, and not enough distance to matter much, and (B) New York is on the coast, right at sea level, whereas the material being mined for metal and concrete typically is coming out of higher ground, from hillsides. So it really isn't coming from a point closer to the earth than the skyscraper. It's more or less moving laterally - material from a mine somewhere upstate that is 600 feet above sea level getting moved to a building that is 600 feet off the sea-level ground of Manhattan.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    17. Re:It's all about angular momentum by Diag · · Score: 1

      The fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete while on the planet is surgically removed from you body weight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory there it is vitally important to get a receipt.

      RIP Douglas Adams.

      --
      Serving Suggestion: Defrost
    18. Re:It's all about angular momentum by mpe · · Score: 1

      So if one were to construct MANY tall skyscrapers over a large area, say New York, would the Earth's rotation slow down?

      New York isn't that large an area also they probably don't mass that much in comparison with the Island of Manhatten.

      Can one then assume that human activity over the past few hundred years has had an impact on Earth's rotation, even if by a very little amount?

      More likely activities such as open cast mining and land reclaimation that construction of buildings.

  33. The more important thing... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

    ...would be the effects of the one inch tilt of the Earth's axis...

    What kind of global climate changes could be experienced due to the alteration of the Earth's axis by one inch?

    Will that cause more or less light to strike particular areas heating/cooling the air, thusly altering the jet stream enough to manipulate the weather in a good/bad for us fasion?

    BTW, the speed up of the Earth's spin is referring to the 24 hour cycle of days on Earth.

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:The more important thing... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > What kind of global climate changes could be experienced due to the alteration of the Earth's axis by one inch?

      "Have you any idea how much damage that 6000-mile-wide bulldozer would suffer if I just let it run straight over you, Mister Dent?"

      "No, how much?"

      "None at all."

      By a strange coincidence, "None at all" is exactly the amount of global climate changes that would be experienced due to the alteration of the Earth's axis by one inch.

  34. Wobble by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

    Network TV news keeps saying it caused Earth to "wobble on its axis." It already does that, which is where climatic seasons come from. If it did wobble more/differently, how might the seasons be impacted, if at all?

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    1. Re:Wobble by arkanes · · Score: 1

      It's not the same wobble that causes seasons, but yes it does wobble. The earthquake, according to TFA, caused about an inch of wobble but the normal variation is in the range of 33 feet so it's well within normal parameters.

    2. Re:Wobble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      caused about an inch of wobble but the normal variation is in the range of 33 feet so it's well within normal parameters

      That's what Geordi said just before the Enterprise explodes in Episode 118: "Cause and Effect".
    3. Re:Wobble by JWW · · Score: 1

      Um, the Earth's axis tilts, which causes the seasons. It does wobble too, but the tilt is what causes the seasons. The tilt is only affecte by the wobbling over long periods of time. They should have taught you all of this in Junior High science class.

    4. Re:Wobble by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      Okay, so what causes the seasons to change?

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    5. Re:Wobble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your sig, by any chance, refer to yourself?

    6. Re:Wobble by brunson · · Score: 1
      As the parent said in the first line:
      Um, the Earth's axis tilts, which causes the seasons.

      DA
      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    7. Re:Wobble by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Okay, so what causes the seasons to change?

      The tilt. As the Earth goes around the sun, the tilt means that the sun's light is coming in at a different angle in November than it is in May. When your part of the world is tilted away you're getting less of a direct hit, so it's colder.

      If the axis were tilted more you'd have parts of the world where it'd get really really cold, and is dark all winter, and then really really hot with 24 hours of strong daylight. This already happens somewhat at the tips, but the greater the tilt, the more extreme it would be.

    8. Re:Wobble by oojah · · Score: 2, Informative

      The earth orbits the sun. Imagine there is an axis through the centre of the sun around which the earth is orbiting the sun.

      The earth also rotates. The axis of rotation of the earth does not point in the same direction as the axis of the orbit. This is why we say that the earth is tilted.

      The tilt keeps pointing in the same direction throughout the year, ignoring the fact that it wobbles.

      This means that in summer, the axis in your hemisphere will be pointing towards the sun. The sun will be high in the sky and the energy from the sun will fall directly onto the land so there is more energy per unit area and is hotter.

      In winter, the axis in your hemisphere will be pointing away from the sun. The sun will be low in the sky and the rays will strike the earth at an angle and so have less energy per unit area and is so colder.

      The seasons vary between these extremes.

      It also explains why Australia has summer when the UK has winter as they are on opposite sides of the globe.

      As an example of how the angle of the rays striking the earth varies the energy, shine a torch at a piece of paper from straight on. The torch gives out a particular amount of light and energy. Now tilt the paper - the circle of light will elongate into an oval of greater area than the original circle. The torch is still giving out the same amount of energy, it is just spread over a greater area. This means that each particle of the paper must be getting less energy.

      I hope that all makes sense!

      Now, on top of the tilt, there is a wobble. This is just a change to the tilt. If the tilt increases due to the wobble, the seasons will become more extreme (that is, the difference between summer and winter will increase). If the tilt decreases then the difference between winter and summer will also decrease. If there was no tilt, we would have no seasons.

      Cheers,

      Roger

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
    9. Re:Wobble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok, I got it.

    10. Re:Wobble by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      They should have taught you all of this in Junior High science class.

      What makes you think the parent is old enough to have been in Junior High yet????

      ok... sorry couldn't help it

    11. Re:Wobble by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Dunno about the rest of the seasons, but the earth's tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun causes winter. We're not in a perfect, circular orbit. I guess sometime in this planet's past, something hit us (drawn towards the sun from somewhere) and screwed up our orbit. Hence we have an orbit where, for a few months, we're further from the sun and months where we're closer.

      North America and other northern continents feel the effects of this tilt/orbit thing quite a bit more than equatorial countries do. The amount and duration of sunlight is greatly decreased during the far side of the elliptical orbit, making it colder and nastier.

      My grandfather told me he believed that tides were caused by the earth sloshing although most of us know it's caused by the moon pulling on us. Don't feel dumb if you didn't understand this, he had a lifetime to figure that one out. :)

    12. Re:Wobble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you don't honestly believe that, because that is the dumbest explanation temperature around.

    13. Re:Wobble by jmiers · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seasons have nothing to do with the earth's elliptical orbit and everything to do with the tilt of the axis. The perihelion (the nearest the earth gets to the sun) of the earth's orbit occurs in January, in the middle of the northern hemisphere winter.

      From the perspective of the northern hemisphere, winter occurs when the earth is nearest the sun and summer when it is furthest. This is obviously reversed in the southern hemisphere.

    14. Re:Wobble by Diag · · Score: 1

      I think my brain just wobbled.

      --
      Serving Suggestion: Defrost
    15. Re:Wobble by mpe · · Score: 1

      Dunno about the rest of the seasons, but the earth's tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun causes winter. We're not in a perfect, circular orbit. I guess sometime in this planet's past, something hit us (drawn towards the sun from somewhere) and screwed up our orbit. Hence we have an orbit where, for a few months, we're further from the sun and months where we're closer.

      The axial tilt makes the biggest difference. Eliptical orbits are the norm anyway. The Earth actually reaches perihelion (its closest approach to the sun) when it is winter in the Northern hemisphere. Even though you might expect this go give the Southern hemisphere a hotter summer the coldest place on the planet is Antartica.

    16. Re:Wobble by mpe · · Score: 1

      The tilt. As the Earth goes around the sun, the tilt means that the sun's light is coming in at a different angle in November than it is in May. When your part of the world is tilted away you're getting less of a direct hit, so it's colder.

      Not only does the sunlight come at a different angle the ratio of day to night differs.

    17. Re:Wobble by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      The wobble isn't just in the direction of the tilt, it's at a right angle to that direction also. And I'm at a near complete loss as how to describe that direction.

      I think of it more as the axis moving in random directions.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    18. Re:Wobble by oojah · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is a good point that I didn't address.

      It seems to me that if the wobble moves in a direction at a right angle to the tilt it will effectively change the direction of the tilt.

      So imagine viewing the earth and the sun with the axis of rotation of the earth pointing left-right, or 90 degrees for the observer. The right angle wobble will move the axis of rotation so that it is say 85 degrees or 95 degrees.

      It might also be changing the tilt angle as well, I'm not sure.

      If this is right, I think it would be changing when the seasons occur.

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
  35. 500,000 in 1970 recent enough for you? or 1976? by magicianuk · · Score: 2, Informative

    this article at BBC News
    states that a cyclone in 1970 killed up to 500,000 people in Bangladesh.

    Also China suffered similar losses when an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.3 almost obliterated the north-eastern city of Tangshan in 1976. The official number of people killed was put at around 250,000, although some said the figure was more like 750,000.

    And not much over 100 years ago In 1887, about 900,000 people died when [China's] Yellow River burst its banks in the worst-ever recorded flooding

    Or, in terms of real catastrophe that *might* be human-created/contributed
    The droughts that swept across sub-Saharan African in the 1980s led to the starvation of an estimated one million people. They are threatening to do the same again

  36. Re:Darwin is everywhere! by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I suppose, to a smaller extent, it would help lower crime rates if this was also done at all NBA games.

  37. How many separate waves were there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I keep hearing reports that there were actually two or three tsunami waves hitting the affected areas? Is this normal or does this indicate multiple earthquakes?
    As a general rule, if you evacuate an area due to a tsunami, should you expect several waves several hours apart?

    1. Re:How many separate waves were there? by cyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think about it, two to three tsunamis in quick succession (in lessening degrees for each one) might not be out of the question... When the first tsunami is created, it leaves a vacuum behind it. The water being pushed out leaves a "hole" behind it, that needs to be filled... And would likely cause a backsplash effect. The second (and/or third) wouldn't be as drastic as the first, but could still do some hefty damage.

      Ripples in a pond. Big ripple, big pond.

    2. Re:How many separate waves were there? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 2, Informative

      The separate waves likely resulted from the aftershocks produced from the initial earthquake. I believe they are called P and S waves, for Primary and Secondary.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    3. Re:How many separate waves were there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, with tsunamis the second wave is supposed to be bigger than the first, so imagine the first wave floods the area and weakens structures and the second wave roars in and churns up the cars, boats, roads, buildings, etc.

    4. Re:How many separate waves were there? by J.+Random+Luser · · Score: 1

      http://www.asc-india.org/ appears to be now back on line with excellent gifs showing the spread of aftershocks. Most significant for distant waves would probably be a M7.3, 400 km north-west, 2h.23m after the main shock, just when people would be down by the shore starting to cleanup...

  38. Why the earth spins faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're wondering why the earth is spinning faster now, consider this. When an ice skater spins around, they start by spinning slowly with their arms outstretched. As they pull their arms in, they spin faster and faster. What happened to the earth was similar. One tectonic plate was shoved underground, making the earth spin faster. The same thing happens to stars when they go nova. All of the mass of the star is condenced into a small area, so it spins very fast. The result is a pulsar.

  39. Re:Darwin is everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about serving bad beer?

  40. How? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    TFA is sketchy.

    No mass was added or taken away from the planet, so how exactly could its rotational speed have changed?

    Is it analogous to a figure skater spinning with arms extended, then pulling them in, making them spin faster?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:How? by Soft · · Score: 1
      Is it analogous to a figure skater spinning with arms extended, then pulling them in, making them spin faster?

      You seem to have answered your own question: yes, the angular momentum (= angular velocity times moment of inertia) has to be unchanged short of external action; the moment of inertia has been reduced (same mass but rearranged to be closer to the spin axis); therefore the angular velocity (i.e. rotation speed) has increased.

    2. Re:How? by will_die · · Score: 1

      The skater with the arms is the correct one.
      A whole lot of rock falling in on itself. It will be interesting to see pictures of the area and see the dent where it happened, but the earthquake itself took place about 5 miles under that so I don't know if anything will be visible.

    3. Re:How? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      I didn't elaborate though.

      TFA suggests that land was raised, not sunk. So it would be like the earth sticking it's arms out, so it should slow down, right?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:How? by Soft · · Score: 1
      TFA suggests that land was raised, not sunk. So it would be like the earth sticking it's arms out, so it should slow down, right?

      That would be right, but I did read "compacted the Earth" and "a shift of mass toward the Earth's center"...

      Now, it is quite possible that the land was raised in one place, sunk in others, and that the net result was a reduction in the moment of inertia.

  41. Tsunami warning system, courtesy of whom? by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    First comes the well-meaning-but-naive assertion that "there needs to be" this system, then comes the subtle hint that wealthier nations should pay for it, since theirs is the privilege of strength, while others have the right of weakness. All of this culminates in the UN declaring the civilized world to be "stingy", and some knee-jerk reaction by the USian Con-gress to fund it, and 173 miscellaneous pork-barrel projects for midwestern states, all rationalized because its "for the poor".

    I, for one, do not welcome our new socialist overlords.

    -1, Troll, -1, Flamebait, whatever, its true.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  42. Another Scenario by ashwinds · · Score: 1

    There is now a lot of speculation on other scenarios as well. One that I heard today which seemed entirely feasible is if the plates keep shifting and move down too much they just might punch a hole and let lava burst out causing under-sea volcanic eruption which could trigger off tidal waves. Andaman is having so many earthquakes now that it doesnt seem like the plates have found stability yet. Also reg. the wobble - are they sure its not due to the 8 something in Antartica - being at the pole it really should shake things up.

  43. its time..?! by Deanalator · · Score: 1

    Loathsome Cthulhu rose then from the deeps and raged with exceeding great fury against the Earth Guardians. And They bound his venomous claws with potent spells and sealed him up within the City of R'lyeh wherein beneath the waves he shall sleep death's dream until the end of the Aeon.

    1. Re:its time..?! by will_die · · Score: 1

      So we have Mu in the pacific ocean.
      Atlantis in the atlantic or mediteranium.
      And poor old R'lyeh gets stuck in the Indian Ocean?

  44. Micro gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Earth is modeled in Physics classes as if the density is consistent throughout, so that they use a simplistic geocentric model as if all of the mass were at the center. This is not how The Earth is actually configured. For doing satelites one must models The Earth with micro-gravity elements, where masses are charted and denser areas have different effects based upon their sizes and locations. It is well known, for example, that under the South Atlantic Ocean there is a larger force of gravity.


    And so if there were a shift in some dense part of the mantle or the core where it went farther into The Earth (or farther away) it would change the rotational speed because of the conservation of angular momentum. Think of a child spinning on a swing. When the child pulls in his arms, the child spins faster. When the child puts her arms out, she spins slower. Same with The Earth.
    1. Re:Micro gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      When the child pulls in his arms, the child spins faster. When the child puts her arms out, she spins slower.
      And at what point does the child undergo a sex change operation?
  45. Insolation by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what effect this has had on insolation from the sun? Given that a lot of people use past insolation as an explanation for ice ages and such, I wonder if larger events than this have had effects in the past.

  46. Logarithms used to piss me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Logarithms really used to piss me off on high school.

    Goddamn useless crap. It'd be much more informative to speak of a 1E10 or 1E9 magnitude quakes.

    1. Re:Logarithms used to piss me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shat's the same exact thing!! There's no real difference between 9.0/10.0 and 1e9/1e10 :(

  47. Watching waves by thewiz · · Score: 1

    Lastly, an interesting article from the Australian Spaceguard Survey about the need for a Tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean. The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    Should we nominate those that do this for a mass Darwin award?

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:Watching waves by cloudspot · · Score: 1

      Sounds perfect to me.
      Warn people and natural selection will sort things out.....

      --
      Need professional pictures taken in the Puget Sound? Hire me!
    2. Re:Watching waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, don't send any fucking humanitarian aid over to those countries, and let natural selection take place in those countries, so what if the fucking death toll reaches 1 Million, Thats a lot less people in the gene pool and a lot less mouths to feed. That's the real reason why the USians are poor, because they don't go the true way, the Libertarian way, they feel they have to give to the worthless and they end up with nothing and whine and cry that they don't have anything. Actually, maybe the USians should go over there and let natural selection occur to them, then there would be only Libertarians in the US.

  48. In case anyone was wondering by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 0

    That's approximately 0.0001% of the Earth's population dead.

    It's frightening how insignificant it seems compared to the whole, but yet how devastating it is up close.

  49. tsunami videos also on edonkey by tosspot1 · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:tsunami videos also on edonkey by ogewo · · Score: 1

      any torrents available?

  50. Egads! by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

    I was amazed that the NASA scientists name wasn't mentioned in the /. blurb, but then I started reading the article and realized why it wasn't. It's just Gross.

    I wonder if anyone ever called him by his last name, then first in school.

  51. 3 microseconds = 3/(1,000,000) of a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your statement was off by a power of 10^5. That is a very large error.

  52. mass hysteria setting in... by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Funny

    because now i have to reset my watch to account for the correct time. DAMN YOU!!! DAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:mass hysteria setting in... by robyannetta · · Score: 1

      No, get it right. It's 'KHAN!'

      --
      - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
    2. Re:mass hysteria setting in... by sehryan · · Score: 1

      Dogs and cats are living together?

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
  53. No More Leap Year? by Pup5 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean leap years are gonna go away?

  54. Good job id by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

    Everytime I see "Quake" on /. I think of the game.

  55. You are wrong, please give aid money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could be better than preventing a plauge by providing fresh water?

    How easy it would be to provide aid.

    What else would you spend the money on?

    1. Re:You are wrong, please give aid money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant that AID money could be better spent on things like fresh water, rather than spending money on an early warning system.

  56. Yes and no by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 1

    Skyscrapers, all else being equal, yes. But human activity hasn't just been increasing Earth's moment of inertia, it has also been decreasing it. Cutting down millions of trees, for instance.

    1. Re:Yes and no by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Skyscrapers, all else being equal, yes. But human activity hasn't just been increasing Earth's moment of inertia, it has also been decreasing it. Cutting down millions of trees, for instance.

      And increasing it. Global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere.

  57. effectiveness of tsunami warnings by pomakis · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    That may have been true in the past, but you can bet that after this event, for years to come every time someone on a tropical beach hears the word tsunami, they're going to b-line their way as far away from the water as they can!

  58. Donations by supersmike · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I'll donate this evening

    The U.S. will donate $35 million. Let's see...

    $35000000 - amount committed to help victims
    100000 - conservative death toll
    = $350 - spent to aid each victim

    $147000000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
    17000 - rough number of Iraqis killed
    = $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi

    I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.

    1. Re:Donations by XMyth · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's not our fault those Iraqis were on our land before we got there.

    2. Re:Donations by Reignking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Days since disaster hit: 3
      Days since Iraq war began: 653

      Don't let those facts get in the way, either.

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    3. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, people often overlook the cost of the iraq war is in addition to normal military operating budgets, which are extensive.

    4. Re:Donations by saider · · Score: 1, Insightful


      The U.S. will donate $35 million. Let's see...

      $35000000 - amount committed to help victims
      100000 - conservative death toll
      = $350 - spent to aid each victim

      $147000000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
      17000 - rough number of Iraqis killed
      = $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi

      I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.


      $147,000,000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
      25,000,000 - number of people freed from dictator
      = $5880 - spent to free an individual

      I'm proud to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but at least I know my country _did_ something.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    5. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, really... Do you have to play politics in such a catastrophic event? If you're so ashamed go over there and help them.

    6. Re:Donations by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm ashamed to be an American.
      As you should be, you are clearly distorting the facts, and misusing a tradegy for you own purposes in a manner that is worthy of a Bush staffer. $35 million dollars is just in discressionary funds, Congress will meet shorty to approve more money from our Federal government, and of course this doesn't include private charity.

      I dislike bush more than most, but you 'sir' are living proof that being 'left' doesn't make you 'right'.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    7. Re:Donations by JInterest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.

      I'm ashamed that you are an American too. Stop your pointless off-topic trolling. It is truly sickening.

    8. Re:Donations by Rathian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you're leaving out is the detail:
      The U.S. GOVERNMENT will donate $35 million.

      It's very likely more will be donated as time goes on. Already they have increased this from the initial $15M pledged on the day of the disaster. The size and scope of this is still coming in. One of the things the U.S. Government has already done was to send three P3 Orions to better survey and asses the damage so we'll know what is needed and how much.

      Also, that is completely ignoring/not counting donations from the private sector (i.e. You, me, companies) and food donations. I would guess that also doesn't count costs to the U.S. Government for the costs of the manpower we are sending to that area to aid relief efforts.

      Me, I'm proud to be an American. In spite of what others may say, our nation is full of compassionate and caring people.

    9. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, clearly it's just more expensive to kill than it is to save... Or maybe your comparison is both incomplete (about one tenth of our aid is generally given up front) and irrelevant. Try comparing the cost of a few thermonuclear bombs blasted over iraq to the cost of this war; the monetary expense difference divided by the difference in death toll will give you how much we spent to "save" civilian lives in this pointless war.

    10. Re:Donations by microTodd · · Score: 1

      How about...

      $147,000,000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
      22,000,000 - population of Iraq
      = $6,681.82 - spent per Iraqi for a democratic election

      That's more than my federal government spends on me. In fact, I give them almost three times that much in income tax each year.

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    11. Re:Donations by Ubergrendle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would suggest that many Americans would benefit from a more thorough study of history. Napoleon offers a good example -- you can't free people who don't want to be free, or who don't consider themselves captive to begin with.

      It will take a decade to determine whether Iraqis were better off with Saddam vs the US 'liberation' effort. I'm cynically guesing the result will be a wash...

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    12. Re:Donations by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

      this will end up as
      50% troll 50% insightful
      why does america have to be so split regarding politics.
      Anyways i too am ashamed to be an american.

    13. Re:Donations by nwbvt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are not very good with numbers, are you?

      "$35000000 - amount committed to help victims
      100000 - conservative death toll
      = $350 - spent to aid each victim"

      So all the money is going to aide the dead victims?

      " $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi"

      You do realize the purpose of war is not to kill as many people as we can.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    14. Re:Donations by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why don't you donate more money, then and bump up the aid spent on each victim.
      Anyway, $350 a person goes pretty far in some parts of the world.
      Also, I don't believe that they will spend the money on the people who are already dead. I believe this money is for those who are now lacking basic needs. Which is probably even more than 100,000.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Donations by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Good one.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    16. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or:
      $5880 - spent to put an Iraqi through even more pain and suffering than he/she had already been through.

      Well done.

    17. Re:Donations by dschoettlin · · Score: 0
      $35,000,000 - amount committed to help victims
      $147,000,000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
      I'm proud to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but at least I know my country _did_ something.

      While I am also proud to be an American and am glad we are taking action in opressed areas of the world. I feel a little insulted that we spent .02% of what we spent on the war in Iraq in aid for a natural disaster that has killed 70,000 (current number I'm reading). I'm not saying the money wasn't well spent, but we definitly could have donated more money as a nation.

    18. Re:Donations by JJahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freed from a dictator, and thrown into a brutal warzone with no safety, no infrastructure (water, sewer, power) worth speaking of, etc. We did more to destroy Iraq than to help it. Perhaps with a thorough plan, and some more international help, we could have removed Saddam without decimating the country.

    19. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that number is more like 100,000:

      "Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year."

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.d ea ths/

      Also this figure was in October. I'm sure it's gone up since then.

    20. Re:Donations by saider · · Score: 1

      I agree on this. I believe the way the war was waged was not appropriate for liberating the country. I like the Afghanistan model of providing the heavy metal, but letting the indigenous people do most of the fighting. But I also realize that fighting a semi-organized mob and a well organized and armed military are two different projects. Still, the Iraqi people should have been more involved in their liberation.

      Also, the Iraqi people have tried to shake Saddam off (after Gulf War 1), but they put down and killed. This was the best opportunity we had to go in and free them. They were ready for it and willing to fight. Unfortuneately, Bush Sr. made the wrong call here by not getting involved then. I believe he was faced with a tough situation and did not want to get involved in something like what we have now.

      The road to true democracy and freedom is a long one. Think for a moment about how long it took for us (Americans) to recognize that _all_ people are equal (around 150 years). Think about how far we still have to go. This war is just the beginning, but without a beginning, there will be no end.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    21. Re:Donations by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you took a flight out to Baghdad and walk off the plane, plenty of Iraqis will come to greet you in thanks.

      The war in Iraq isn't anything like liberating Europe from the Nazis in WWII.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    22. Re:Donations by saider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember that .02% of GDP is what the government provides. This does not include all the money that individuals and private organizations will contribute.

      Why does everyone expect the government to do everything? They are very inefficient, especially when it comes to distributing money. If you don't like how much money your government is giving, then start your own fundraising campaing. I have - I tell everyone I talk to about it to give to the Red Cross. It takes about 5 minutes and if only 1 in 10 people in this country gave $10, you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

      Spread the word and _do_ something. Don't just sit there and complain.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    23. Re:Donations by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      There was the fact that the amount of money spent in Bush's Brother's state of Florida to clean up after the hurricanes was in the billions. Billions for much less damange, much less loss of life. And the first offer by the presient was $15 million until he was chided for being stingy. Don't let the facts get in your way. This is obviously tokenism and lets get by with as little as we can, its not our problem, problem.

    24. Re:Donations by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      And exactly how many of those 25,000,000 WANTED to be "Freed"? We cannot impose our system of government on others, especially if they do not want it! Iraqis don't "Hate Freedom" like Bush would have you believe; they LOVE freedom - their own freedom from US intervention in the middle east.

    25. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of aid is not spent on the dead, it is spent on the living.

      You call yourself a troll, I call you an idiot.

    26. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is spending money on people who have alrady died? That death toll should be replaced with numbers wounded...

    27. Re:Donations by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      Your Numbers are wrong. That money is spent to protect our troops and rebuild a country as well as kill insurgent forces and iraqis who attack us.

      First off, your logic. You cant aid a victim. They are dead. You can help the family of the victim though. Also, we could just use high yield expolsives and kill everyone in these terrorist hot bed cities, that would reduce costs and bring up the death toll. We might even bring the total to 350 dollars to kill an iraqi. Dont you get it, spending alot for each kill means we are spending more to make sure we avoid high death tolls. Wanna be more cost effective? We could be like saddam and bill the families of those we kill for the bullets we used to take him out. We could use inexpensive chemicals and wipe out entire villages.

      Like doing math? Why dont you figure these stats out? Divide money Saddam and his cohorts bilked from the oil for food program, by number of iraqis who died of starvation in the 90's. That figure would be a sum of people dead who never raised a gun at an american soldier. Divide money wasted on the pre-war UN debaucle, by the amount of lives lost due to the iraqis having more time to plan an insurgency.

      I guess we do have one thing in common, im ashamed that you are an american too.

    28. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Free"? You don't care about the brown people anymore than Bush does. You just care about the black oil. Stop pretending otherwise you are just embarassing yourself.

    29. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm ashamed to be an American.

      I suggest you move to another country, where you'll be less ashamed. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    30. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Describe "free".

    31. Re:Donations by bluGill · · Score: 1

      When did this disaster happen? Seems to me it was less than a week ago. With no warning what so ever, we have already managed to find $35,000,000, and that is not counting private donations. Did I mention it is over the Christmas Holidays, most offices have less than half the normal staff around to make decisions!

      One other point, at this point we don't even know what is needed. There is the obvious (blankets). There is a lot that is not obvious though. Clean water is required, but what does it take to get their current water supplies clean? I'm not sure, and until someone who knows water systems investigates each one we can't know. Then there is all the re-building, again, in a general sense we know that they need to re-build, but I would hope they don't just put up a bunch of quick cheap buildings and call it good. (though quick cheap temporary buildsings are required) It takes time to plan.

      It will be years before this area is back to "normal". Don't start complaining yet, we haven't even seen what is needed in the long run.

    32. Re:Donations by D0+J00+W4n7+K4r473 · · Score: 0
      Troll.

      First of all I'd like to point out that (and I'm just taking a swag here) the vast majority of those Iraqis killed had and even used weapons meant to kill our troops.

      Now, to get back on topic, U.S. gov't officials have said that the amount of aid will almost certainly increase. That's how we always do it. We have a small amount of immediate funds we can use, and then we wait until Congress gets back in session for crying out loud and allocate more.

      Finally, (I could be making this up, but) I believe I heard last night that the President will send the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force to help with whatever.

      --
      Your Ad Here! $2.00 Per Day!
    33. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a moron... an example of the uneducated masses that allowed an uneducated, evil dictator to seize power not once, but twice in your own country.

      The war in Iraq was the end result of a carefully perpetrated propaganda campaign against the american people by the american government. How can you just close your eyes to the FACTS of the matter:

      - NO Iraqi connection to the counter-attacks of 9/11. PROVEN

      - NO intent to threaten the USA from Iraq. PROVEN

      - NO ability to threaten the USA from Iraq. PROVEN

      - LIES from Baby Bush about the weapons held by Iraq. PROVEN

      - Genocide against the Iraqi people by the USA. PROVEN

      - People in the USA being hauled off the street by the FBI for speaking out against Bush. PROVEN

      - War-crimes committed against civilians being held against by the USA in contravention of all established international protocols. PROVEN

      - The continued genocide of Iraqi civilians. PROVEN

      Are you REALLY so stupid that you honestly believe that the United Police States of America attacked Iraq to free its people??? Get real... Iraq was attacked because it was a source of embarrassment from 1991 when the UPSA failed to meet its objectives and because a little-dicked, little-brained dictator named Baby Bush needed a way to bolster the economy he'd so successfully demolished in a little over two years. The only way to do that was to create a situation where american companies could benefit from large rebuilding contracts.

      PROUD of your country? PROUD? How can you be proud of a country that represents corruption and evil in its most heinous forms? How can you be PROUD of a country that flaunts international law to attack other countries because it claims those countries are flaunting international law... who the HELL are you to say, "Do as I say not as I do" ????

      The most contemptible part is that not only have you been spoon-fed propaganda and eaten it but you returned for more. You need to get out of the states and see the world as it really is. There is significantly more civilisation outside of the US than inside it and the actions of your country have made you the most hated nation on earth.

      Two countries have been totally decimated by Bush, a man who has run every company he ever managed into the ground... now he's doing the same to your country. Impeach the man, for god's sakes! If Clinton can be impeached for a blow-job, what's the suitable punishment for Bush destroying the economy of his own country, decimating two other countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), threatening a handful of others (Libya will be next, followed by Iran) and falsifying information to justify these actions?

    34. Re:Donations by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      $147,000,000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
      25,000,000 - number of people freed from dictator
      = $5880 - spent to free an individual
      brainwashing a country by making them believe that "freeing the Iraqi people" was their first motive to invade : priceless

    35. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you bothered to take into consideration the difference in buying power between the United States and these countries? $1 can buy restaurant food for an entire day in some of these places. $50 can rent an apartment for a month.

    36. Re:Donations by Hynee · · Score: 1

      The U.S. will donate $35 million. Let's see...

      [ edit ]

      = $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi

      According to your government, Operation Iraqi Freedom was to bring greater democracy to the world, not kill Iraqis, although some deaths on both sides were acceptable (otherwise they wouldn't have gone to war).

      You may not be a troll, but you just made George W Bush look smarter.

      --
      Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
    37. Re:Donations by The+Phantom+Buffalo · · Score: 1
      Your little math example is plain stupid. The dollar amount per victim is irrelavant. The money is to help the survivors, not the dead. 35 million dollars will buy a lot of food and supplies.

      If 35 million dollars is considered stingy, any amount that I could come up with would be insulting. So, I'll just keep my money.

      Also, congratulations on getting your troll modded so high.

    38. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Freed for what?

      Iraq is very likely to tear itself apart because it's not a real country but a colonial creation. The best solution is to split the country up, but that won't happen because the oil complicates things.

      Think of Yugoslavia after Tito died. That's Iraq in a few years.

    39. Re:Donations by zev1983 · · Score: 1

      17000 is the rough number of Iraqi CIVILIANS killed, that does not count those in the Iraqi military killed in the initial invasion, who by the way didn't really fight back.

    40. Re:Donations by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      Even if you don't speak French, the headline is pretty easy to grasp. Now, as for the reason why you deemed necessary to leap into frog-bashing mode, I can only wonder.

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    41. Re:Donations by RSwan · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Iraqi people didn't want to be free or considered themselves captive? The opinion polls I have seen indicate the Iraqi people are glad Saddam no longer rules them and they want democracy. They also belive the Americans are occupiers.

      While I am not as cynical as you, I agree it will take a decade before we can really hazard a good guess as to whether the liberation was a good idea or not. Too many people, in America and the rest of the world, expect instant results and if they don't get them assume things are going badly.

    42. Re:Donations by cerebralsugar · · Score: 0

      Reward for Columbian Drug Lord ... $5 million dollars

      Aid to friends in Asia in time of need... $35 million dollars.

      Ocuppying a broke harmless country and robbing it of its national resources to benefit your home economy that would otherwise be stagnant due to lack of real innovation in any major industry sector as its currency tumbles aided by the biggest federal budget deficit in history... PRICELESS

      There's some things money can't buy, for everything else there's no money anyway, so do what i say or my army will hunt you... (tm)

      --
      Easy guys, I put my pants on one leg at a time. The difference is after I put on my pants I make gold records!
    43. Re:Donations by neurojab · · Score: 1


      This is quite stupid.

      For one, you don't aid the dead, so comparing aid figures based on death count is rather dumb. We should base the aid on the living people that need aid.

      Secondly, the $35 million is out of the federal government's budget. This does not count private charities, which will account for the bulk of the aid for the U.S.

      Thirdly, yes, we did spend a lot of money on a war in Iraq. Many people thought the war was unnecessary and now think badly of the US for it, but that has nothing to do with this. The fact is WE ARE HELPING in the region affected by this Tsunami. There is an outpouring of support from the United States on this. Stop badmouthing your country when they're doing something good. Move to Canada if you hate the United States so much.

    44. Re:Donations by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      $35000000 - amount committed to help victims
      100000 - conservative death toll
      = $350 - spent to aid each victim


      You don't give aid to dead people, you moron. The aid is for the survivors. $35 million purchases a lot of food and clean drinking water.

      Your other set of numbers is likewise flawed due to the fact that the purpose of the mission in Iraq is not to kill Iraqis. Another poster has calculated better numbers.

      I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.

      Last I heard, the total that all countries had so far pledged was about $100 million. Of that, our government is contributing over a third.

      You will also find that your fellow Americans will donate to private relief efforts quite generously, which is how it should be (rather than tax dollars). Have you donated your $10 yet? If you haven't and you aren't pitifully poor, then I am ashamed you even call yourself an American.

      As far as you being ashamed of being an American, do me a favor and move to Canada. This will solve your problem with America, and my problem with you.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    45. Re:Donations by Nspace13 · · Score: 1

      about the french: that 100,000 euros was specifically for thailand, they will be contributing 15 million euros to the whole disaster, which is what? equivolent to about 20 million US dollars. and just wondering how does that compare to GDP for France? I bet its a much higher percentage of their GDP than 35 million is of our (USA). I'm not ashamed of being an American. I'm not too proud of it either. I just live here. I don't understand why people get all proud of something like a country, but maybe I would if I lived in a different one. I doubt it though, but I don't have a lot of faith in people in general... much less in their ability to form a whole country that bases its premises on love and understanding... too many assholes everywhere... think i'm gonna go lay down now, i've worked myself into a bit of a tizzy

      --
      steal this sig
    46. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you make $100k in taxable income (or about $90 if "married filing seperate")? After social security, 401k, mortgage deductions, dependent deductions, charitable deductions, and all the rest? I'm glad the economy is stil humming along for some of us!!

    47. Re:Donations by nathanh · · Score: 1
      $35000000 - amount committed to help victims
      100000 - conservative death toll
      = $350 - spent to aid each victim

      It's even more shameful looked at this way.

      $35,000,000 - amount committed to help victims
      350,000,000 - rough estimate of US population
      = 10c spent per US citizen on the relief effort

      10c. 10 lousy fucking cents.

      Not that I'm any less ashamed to be Australian. Our government's contribution was 50c per person. Yet our government just spent a couple of billion on a war-submarine that doesn't work.

    48. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be happy to pitch in $20 for birth control pills. That should help keep future death tolls down.

    49. Re:Donations by Severious · · Score: 1

      The American Red Cross spent about 1 billion on relief for 911. 4000 people dead, but very few people displaced. Lets see if we treat the rest of the world as well. Over 70,000 dead and over 1.5 million people displaced. If the US does not put in at least a 1 billion (including private donations) I will be very dissapinted (not that I have much faith left), but since the scale here is so much different it really should be 10 billion+.

      Lets see the christian fundamentalists put their money were their mouths are, love thy neighbor. I am an athiest who makes only 30k and I gave 100$.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    50. Re:Donations by JW+Troll · · Score: 0

      sorry, you said misusing a tragery???
      Take a look around you buddy. The Texas oil-guy's war on Iraq had nothing to do with those terrorist attacks on the Trade Center; everybody knows that now, even the moron himself.

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
    51. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "$8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi"

      That's terrible!!!!

      I thought bullets where much cheaper than that.

    52. Re:Donations by cloveygrl · · Score: 1

      perhaps a bad comparison but there is something to be ashamed of when we can find money for certain things...but not others..

      "The U.S. contributes the least foreign aid of any of the 22 nations tracked by Oxfam. Its budget is about 0.14 percent of gross domestic product, followed by Italy at 0.17 percent and Japan and Austria at 0.20 percent.

      France is the most generous donor in the G-8, contributing 0.42 percent of national income, followed by Britain at 0.34 percent, Germany at 0.28 percent and Canada at 0.26 percent. France has said it will meet the 0.7 percent goal by 2012 and the U.K. by 2013."

      from different article..

      "Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent."

    53. Re:Donations by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Except most Iraqis did consider themselves captive and did want to be free. Yes, some benefited from Saddam's rule (just as some Germans benefited from Nazi rule) and now they are pissed (just as many Germans were pissed when they were 'liberated'). That doesn't mean the country as a whole was better off.

      I would suggest many (whatever nationality you are) would benefit from a more thorough study of current events.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    54. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what of the 10 billion we gave this year so far to foriegn aid?
      And what of the 30 billlon private citizens and orgainizations gave this year to foriegn aid?

      We aren't here to pick up the bill for every country that has a disater, especially when we warned them and nothing happened.

      Just get the angst out of your system and move on.

    55. Re:Donations by PW2 · · Score: 1

      If the parents there would teach their children to stop blowing up new infrastructure, they would have a chance at resuming a normal life.

    56. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The order of magnitude calculation is certainly correct. What's the point of bringing up private charity? Certainly the grandparent post means to say he's ashamed to be an American because of the actions of the American government. Do you think the actual amount of money spent by the US government on aid compared to the actual amount of money spent by the US government to kill Iraqis will be much different than he suggests? I think it's pretty striking that the American government will spend many orders of magnitude more money per person to hunt down muslims than it will to help people recovering from a natural disaster. Not unexpected or unusual, but striking.

    57. Re:Donations by droptone · · Score: 1

      Victims do not have to be dead, try that for logic ;)

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    58. Re:Donations by Zathras11 · · Score: 1

      Actually, about 291 million (figure released two
      days ago). When accounting for births and newly
      immigrated citizens - deaths, we add 1 person
      per every 26 seconds (more than 2 per minute)
      here in the good 'ole USA. So thats about 11 cents
      each, and that is JUST FOR THIS ONE THING. We
      give to every disaster, and we give when there
      is no disaster too (foreign aid). So back off!
      We give and give, and you take and take. We
      handled 911 by ourselves. Didn't ask for a dime!

      Oh, sorry to hear about your submarine...

    59. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An athiest donating to the Red Cross... WOW!
      "faith left"? What faith would that be? You
      said you were an athiest!

      On the 1 billion, get ready to be disappointed.
      Just a guess. By the way, how much aid did we
      get on 911 from outside the USA? ZERO!

    60. Re:Donations by ryen · · Score: 1

      its times like these where the true idiots, like yourself, find the need to politicize a tragedy.
      you wasted no time in reiterating what you heard the liberal talking-heads say on tv lastnight.
      Your numbers dont make sense either, much of the iraq money was spent on reconstruction, for destruction caused by the war and caused by saddam: schools, police training, formation of a democratic government, etc..etc..
      nice going, asshat.

    61. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American Red Cross gave that money from American donations. I am sure there were plenty of people outside the U.S. who donated too, but the majority of the AMERICAN Red Cross donations were funded by the U.S. people.

      I don't know if any other country donated more than an "our condolences" letter/call.

    62. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AMOUNT is more important than the % of GDP.
      Of course the USA has a VERY high GDP. Jealous?

    63. Re:Donations by rednip · · Score: 1
      RMPYFM (Read My Post You !@#$@#$@# Moron) I clearly said "misusing a tradegy for you own purposes in a manner that is worthy of a Bush staffer". Apparently, you are yet another stupid jerk clearly reading what you want to read in order to post your otherwise off topic comment. Perhaps you should apply for one of the openings in the Bush Whitehouse, you might have idealogical differences, but you sure do have the ability to read into a situation exactly what you want.

      You might also hold some of the hate that I have for the Bush administration (of course your probably just a regular Troll as your name implies), but your comment serves 'our' cause no good. Comparing bush to a chimp (as your link does) may be funny the first couple of times you see it, but it doesn't support any argument.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    64. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most interesting part of this, is that Tim Blair wrongly accuses the french Governement on his blog, and when someone stands him corrected, he doesn't even apologize for his misconduct.
      I suppose that people like him don't understand the concept when it's up to them to apply it.

    65. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are French. They always need a good bashing!
      They still think Napoleon is around and they run
      things. Helps keep them in line.

      And to my French "friends", I only wish you had
      war dead buried here whose graves I could desecrate
      the way you did the graves of the brave Americans
      who helped free your land from the Nazis! Of
      course if there were such graves, I wouldn't do
      anything because unlike you fuckers I have class.

    66. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no doubt, those damn iraqies should be easier to kill!

      -Coward

    67. Re:Donations by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is ... we're not killing Iraqis efficiently enough?

      It's probably better to just cite the dollar figures.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    68. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current events:

      Iraq is a mish-mash of cultural groups, and the concept of the nation-state is relatively new to them. Imperialism wasn't very far in the past, relatively speaking. As a result, the most loyalty felt is between cultural groups, not states as a whole.

      Now, add up these cultural groups:

      We have Sunnis, Shiites & Kurds. The side that really, really, really wants to see elections happen is the one with the majority of people in the country. This is the same cultural group that happens to currently control Iran, and there is a *lot* of cultural 'loyalty' to speak of. The other sides (or at least factions within them) realize that Iraq is closer to a 'democratic' theocracy than ever before.

      Just to keep it interesting: The Kurds are a force that Turkey is damn scared of (they've spent a fair amount of time trying to wipe out the Kurdish cultural identity). Now, there might be a foothold of Kurdish power in the region (assuming the new 'democratic' regieme in post-election Iraq doesn't turn into a theocracy). Will Kurds go from Turkey to Iraq to try to establish a Kurdish nation (something the US hinted towards supporting during Saddam's rein)?

      Really, do you have any understanding of the past 100 years in that region? I have a very *limited* understanding, and nothing I know helps me believe that Iraq is going to become a stable bastion of freedom and democracy. Just look at Iran and how it flirted with democracy, only to become part of the so-called 'Axis of Evil'. Remember that until WW2, most of the nations were under various forms of European Imperial rule. Before that was the Ottoman Empire.

      A thorough study of current, and recently past events, are what makes so many of us pessimists about Iraq. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator, etc etc. That doesn't mean we're making progress.

    69. Re:Donations by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > The war in Iraq isn't anything like liberating Europe from the Nazis in WWII.

      One major difference is that we marched the whole damn army into Germany, preventing a catastrophic breakdown of order (that, and if we didn't, Stalin sure would have). The field commanders in Iraq knew we needed a massive occupying presence in Iraq to keep order, demanded more troops in order to do this, and Rumsfeld deliberately ignored them. Then Bremer simply disbanded the old army by fiat -- people with weapons who now have no money or jobs. Now we and they are both paying for this arrogance. It was also our duty to keep order according to the Geneva convention, but that convention is pretty well dead now anyway.

      Really, I give the fuck up. A majority of this idiotic country voted for this shit. All I can do is hope to help where I can and hope the next asteroid puts us all the fuck out of each other's misery.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    70. Re:Donations by snorklewacker · · Score: 2

      > An athiest donating to the Red Cross... WOW!

      The Red Cross has never been a religious organization. The emblem is a color-inverted swiss flag. The Red Crescent and Red Shield exist because the cross may have extra unwanted connotations in especially religious countries. Moron.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    71. Re:Donations by JW+Troll · · Score: 0

      bushorchimp makes no argument; the humour is in the accurate reflection of your precious president as a rather simple simian :) Ook ook!!

      Also, I like the clever way you misspelled 'tragedy' after my own clever misspelling. Maybe we should be friends instead of all this fighting :D I shall add you to my 'friends' list forthwith! Let all this bitterness be behind us, brother, as we fight the good fight together and WIN!
      PS Please vote for me in the next election.. I have a good feeling about all this hate.

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
    72. Re:Donations by rednip · · Score: 1
      That's a nice thing about the Internet, you can post links to support your arguement or add additional information.

      Just to be complete was this your article, I think that you will find the complete publication more informative than the story based on the Press Release. I did a quick read of the material, and while the publication is really slick they don't do any footnoting, nor do they seem to tell you specificly where they got the figures or what those figures include and exclude (I might have missed it, I'll read the rest later). I wonder if it includes personal giving, or is some kind of 'net' figure (elimating say the amount payed to US farmers for grain). In fairness there is a list of unqualified references at the bottom of the report, which makes fact checking only marginally easier. Also, I find it interesting that they harp on the percentages, in the middle of the paper they say that the best way to improve the encomomy is an increase of the exports from the country (but that doesn't show up in the press report or the executive summary. Kinda like the old saying "give a man a fish...teach him to fish...". In that case you can consider our trade deficit as part of the aid!

      All the whining aside, those poor people need our help today. Since you seem to be keeping track, right now, we (the U.S.) lead Japan by 5 million, Germany by more than $32 million, and that is jut what the Feds are putting up.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    73. Re:Donations by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      How much did Australia, France, Spain, England, and the UN send to Florida?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    74. Re:Donations by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      I'd be more ashamed to be French:
      So far the United States has provided $35 million in aid, a number expected to rise, President Bush said Wednesday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Japan has contributed $30 million, Australia $27 million. Other nations that have contributed relief are the United Kingdom with $29 million, Germany with $42.7 million, Saudi Arabia with $10 million, China with $2.6 million and France with $136,000.
      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    75. Re:Donations by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you point is. Obviously we had plenty of money and we were able to handle it ourselves, richly. These other countries are dirt poor and devastated. It is a comment our our government's take on our global vs domestic humanitarian responsibilities. The Floridians themselves had much more ability to recover on their own, many insured. Not so with these countries. Where is that "Compasionate Conservatism" we heard so much about. I guess after getting elected it is no longer needed.

      They are sending some of the military fleet though. I guess that is appropriate as we have been pooring billions into them recently. I good alternative use to war and I am sure that sending part of the fleet will cost almost as much as the 35 Million offered as aid so far.

    76. Re:Donations by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      The *point* is that we don't get international aid. Thus we must take care of our own expenses in this regard.

      Also, as many others have pointed out, the US federal government is only part of the money given from the US. Private citizens are collecting and donating money as well. We're not like Europe. We believe much more firmly in the private sector. The "feds" don't do everything for us.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    77. Re:Donations by the_partisan · · Score: 0
      these numbers are sickening.

      I agree.

      I'm sick and tired of my money being stolen (taxes) to give to the Turd World. They can't help themselves because their governments have chosen to suppress the economic activities that would bring their nations closer to First World standards.

      Let the waves flush out those toilets. Make the next earthquake a 9.5.

      And those who steal from me (taxes) to hand out in "aid" all need to be killed.

    78. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $8,647,058 - spent to miss Iraqis around each fascist killed.

    79. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private citizens here in Britain are donating money also. Human compassion doesn't have anything to do with whether you believe in the private sector or public sector.

    80. Re:Donations by Vile+Slime · · Score: 0

      I will not tolerate this bullshit.

      > NO Iraqi connection to the counter-attacks of 9/11. PROVEN

      Not proven, merely someone's word versus someone elses!

      > NO intent to threaten the USA from Iraq. PROVEN

      Idiot, I saw Saddam on CNN plenty of times describing how he would 'take care' of the USA.

      > NO ability to threaten the USA from Iraq. PROVEN

      Excuse me, 19 men from places just like Iraq killed almost 3,000 US citizens. No ability, bullshit!

      > LIES from Baby Bush about the weapons held by Iraq. PROVEN

      I don't care if they only had box-cutters like the 19 Islamic fascists had, they had weapons that could kill innocents.

      > Genocide against the Iraqi people by the USA. PROVEN

      Proven since when? We have used every means possible to limit death. What do you call precision weapons.

      Saddam gassed his own countrymen.

      > People in the USA being hauled off the street by the FBI for speaking out against Bush. PROVEN

      Funny, I haven't noticed a whole lot of people missing in my neighborhood. Who is missing in yours?

      > War-crimes committed against civilians being held against by the USA in contravention of all established international protocols. PROVEN

      Once again, there is no evidence of this type of accusation. You lie to suit your own needs, as sick as they must be.

      > The continued genocide of Iraqi civilians. PROVEN

      I'm sure that if the US wanted to kill Iraqi citizens then we could do a much better job than what you claim is being done at the moment.

      > flaunts international law to attack other countries because it claims those countries are flaunting international law

      To hell with international law. The only 'law' that counts is at the business end of the F-16 that is getting rid of despotes around the world and you know it.

      If you think I will let France choose if my children are to live or die you are seriously screwed up.

      > the actions of your country have made you the most hated nation on earth

      I doubt it, I'm sure you are a Jew hater as well, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that the US is more hated than Israel.

      --
      ---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
    81. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm ashamed to be an American.


      That's ok. As an American, I'm ashamed you're an American, too.

    82. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew this was Bush's fault

    83. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm ashamed to be an American.

      My first reaction, on hearing these news reports, was that amount the US was kicking in was awfully small.

      My second reaction was to realize that, so far, I had kicked in $0, so that night sent $1000 to an international relief fund (CRS) and $100 to Doctors Without Borders.

      Being ashamed doesn't help. You can take more direct action. Put up or shut up.

    84. Re:Donations by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      The opinion polls I have seen indicate the Iraqi people are glad Saddam no longer rules them and they want democracy. They also belive the Americans are occupiers.

      I've seen those polls too, but I'm not sure I trust them. That isn't to say they are wrong, just that I don't know.

      The problem is that polls can be very skewed. If you ask the people who are in relatively "safe" parts of Iraq, you are going to get vastly different answers than if you go until the "unsafe" parts. If you ask people who have been benefitting directly from getting rid of Saddam, vs people who were part of Saddam's power base, you will get different answers. If you ask people who have been receving aid from the US that they can see and hold and eat, they'll be very positive - but that doesn't mean that everyone in the country is positive.

      I doubt the poll takers are going into the areas that are still strongly anti-american, the places where the military hasn't already gotten under at least some kind of control. Baghdad still isn't safe, but I bet it's one of the easiest and safest places to take a poll.

      And that all assumes that the answers given to the poll taker are honest. If the poll taker is anywhere where he might be protected by the military, then the Iraqi's may not be willing to say "Fuck the US, we'll kill them all, those bastards" even if that's what they feel. In the past, saying something like that about Saddam and crew would lead to repercussions. They aren't likely to want to take that chance.

      I consider trusting the polls foolish, because polls can be too easily done in ways that give a predetermined result, and are very hard to do in a balanced way in that kind of situation.

    85. Re:Donations by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Yes, you are a troll.

      First, your math makes no sense. The dead are dead, and money won't fix that. So dividing the money by the number that died doesn't mean anything. The money is going to help those that survived the initial damage.

      Third, the US government already donates more aid to other countries than any other country, and has for a long time.

      Forth, individuals from the US will also donate.

      Fifth, if our goal in Iraq was simply to kill as many Iraqi's as possible, we would have killed a lot more, and the cost per death would be much lower. Bullets are cheap, bombs are cheap, and we haven't carpetbombed a single town. (That's how I'd have handled Faluja - crumble the whole place and rebuild it later.)

      I'm ashamed that you are an American, too. I think you should move to Mexico and bitch about how much money they give to foreign aid. Or Cuba, or Iran, or hell, anywhwere, as long as you leave.

    86. Re:Donations by D0+J00+W4n7+K4r473 · · Score: 0

      It's the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Unit, my bad. Also the USS Abraham Lincoln, and a couple destroyers I think.

      --
      Your Ad Here! $2.00 Per Day!
    87. Re:Donations by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      The point is given our place in the world, being one of the largest richest economies, one that (previously) has fostered the cause of human rights and come strongly to the aid of other countries in need, and our government is the voice of the people (correct me if I am wrong here) and set up to deliver aid. An initial offer of $15M for relief was not only laughable but exposes the face of "compasionte conservatism" for what it really is, just filled with selective self interest, more interested in protection oil and our corporate profits than caring for our collective humanity. Shame on them. As one Senator or some offical said in the news. We spend that much before breakfast in Iraq. Our priorities are very wrong, and I feel the current government does not reflect the will of the people nor acts as our voice abroad.

    88. Re:Donations by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Actions speak louder than words:
      http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/tsunami.formerpre sidents.ap/index.html

      Initial offer of $15,000,000. That's immediately with no questions asked. Little information about what is needed, and without going to congress.

      But why do I bother. It's GWBush! You'll just hate him no matter what he does. I'm sure I won't hear any praise now no matter what the US government does.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    89. Re:Donations by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      This is good of course, and the Government with its current record deficits and the extreme cost of the war and the extreme cost of the "tax cuts" during a war, has little ability to fund such an effort without going further in debt.

      Bush and co. do state that they want smaller less intrusive government and it is clear the tactic that they are using is to bankrupt the government so it can not do anything, or can only do it with great pain. It is a cynical approach and mean spirited. It lets them do what they want now (take the money and run) at the cost of our children and our childrens children, assuming we can survive him and this strategy and we dont have to declare international bankrupcy.

      Your right why bother, it is GWBush and I have yet to see any redeeming qualities. I don't hate him. It is his actions and the difference between his sales pitch and the reality that has me very concerned for our country and our people and the people of the world. Its not GW its his effect that is of concern. Don't you think that is a better measurement to make?

  59. weather changes rotation 1000 times more by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The length of a day fluctuates two milliseconds, or a thousand times more, over the course of a year. Most of this attributed to the annual pattern of ocean storms.

    1. Re:weather changes rotation 1000 times more by wass · · Score: 1
      The length of a day fluctuates two milliseconds, or a thousand times more, over the course of a year. Most of this attributed to the annual pattern of ocean storms.

      Most of the annual effects and zonal tidal effects are actually quite regular, which can be seen in the graphs. But over long time scales they'll average out, which implies this one event may actually be somewhat significant on top of that.

      But on the other hand, it might not be significant, as the top graph shows the much slower variation due to Earth liquid core. Those effects don't seem to have regularity (they might over thousand-year timescale), and compared to them 3us is pretty small.

      However, what makes the quake's impact different from the seasonal/zonal variations is that it's one incident that caused such a change. They also mention 1983 El Niño as another significant even too.

      --

      make world, not war

  60. Satellite Image form DigitalGlobe by yopie · · Score: 1

    DigitalGlobe have the satellite image before and after the tsunami in Sri Lanka.

    1. Re:Satellite Image form DigitalGlobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analysis of the photos can also be found below:

      http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/tsunami/Sri_L an ka_Tsunami_Damage.pdf

    2. Re:Satellite Image form DigitalGlobe by savaget · · Score: 1

      Analysis of the photos can also be found below:

      http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/tsunami/Sri_L an ka_Tsunami_Damage.pdf

    3. Re:Satellite Image form DigitalGlobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats so freaky scary that they would pick this hotel - I was there in the summer on holiday.

      Oh fuck :-( I hope the area is not too badly affected and not too many people died :-(

    4. Re:Satellite Image form DigitalGlobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here some of my images from Sri Lanka from this summer (the latter are exactly from the spot they posted satelitte images):

      Yala

      Kalutara

      Best wishes,

      Tels

  61. Yeah by wertarbyte · · Score: 1, Funny

    If quake changed the earth's rotation, what will Doom do? Throw us out of the solar system?

    --
    Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    1. Re:Yeah by aurb · · Score: 1

      I don't know what games will they play on the second disaster of this kind, but I know for sure, the third disaster will be caused by tic-tac-toe...

  62. Sensationalist Title by kryzx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Come on now, is it really good journalism to put the title "Quake Changes Earth's Rotation, Moves Islands" on this, because some dork theorizes that the quake may have accelerated the Earth's rotation, but the change would be too small to measure? Please.

    And speaking of poor journalism, has anyone else noticed that Fox News has the epicenter of the quake totally wrong? They put it down near the bottom of Sumatra. I saw this on the first day and discounted it as early guesswork, but then I just saw it again last night (12/28), same graphic. I guess they just don't care.

    --
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    1. Re:Sensationalist Title by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Actually see me other post, it is a measurable change and from one estimate 1/10,000 of a second a very measurable change. My other post has the workups. We are talking about a 600 mile by 100 mile chunck of crust that sank 30 feet closer to the center of the Earth. Not small.

      My other post: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134289 &threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=14&mode=thread&cid= 11209331

    2. Re:Sensationalist Title by wass · · Score: 1
      Come on now, is it really good journalism to put the title "Quake Changes Earth's Rotation, Moves Islands" on this, because some dork theorizes that the quake may have accelerated the Earth's rotation, but the change would be too small to measure? Please.

      Did you even read the article? Firstly, you call Dr. Gross some dork after complaining about journalistic integrity. But if you did even a slight amount of searching you'd find he's a fairly competent and influential geophysicist, being one of the main figures in solving the puzzle of Chandler's Wobble for instance.

      Beyond that, that article mentions two effects he predicted due to the quake, both difficult to measure. One is the speedup of the Earth's rotation, which could be measureable after a long integrating time, or maybe not due to other factors that also accumulate.

      But - the other effect he predicted is that the extra 'tilt' that may have gone into the axis of Chandler's wobble (the article doesn't explicitly say this, it might actually be nutation they're talking about but I'm not sure). Anyway, that tilt he thinks will add about an inch to the wobble 'amplitude' which is around 30 feet (how much the poles wobble).

      So while these might be too small for specific measure right now, compared to the amplitudes of the factors to begin with (and averaging out the regular seasonal variations in earth's spin), they can prove to be significant for just one geological event, which occured in the blink of an eye in geological timescales.

      But hey, thanks for complaining about shoddy journalism while providing your highly competent scientific and journalistic contribution to the story.

      --

      make world, not war

    3. Re:Sensationalist Title by potpie · · Score: 1

      because some dork theorizes

      First, a theory has been prove; a hypothesis has not. So technically, he hypothesized.

      Second, it need only be proven that the quake moved mass closer to the Earth's axis (not that difficult). If there were any change at all, it would be a violation of the laws of physics if the Earth did not change its spin. Just because the Earth is big doesn't mean it won't follow basic high school physics. All you can complain about is the degree to which this has been predicted, which nobody can be sure of yet.

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    4. Re:Sensationalist Title by Reignking · · Score: 1

      theorize v 1: to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds; "Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps" [syn: speculate, theorise, conjecture, hypothesize, hypothesise, hypothecate, suppose] 2: construct a theory about; "Galileo theorized the motion of the stars" 3: form or construct theories; "he thinks and theorizes all day"

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    5. Re:Sensationalist Title by potpie · · Score: 1

      theory

      1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

      hypothesis

      1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.


      only the lower definitions begin to mix the two

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    6. Re:Sensationalist Title by glass_window · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's even worse journalism to post a title like that on slashdot. Some computer dork probably saw it and thought they were responsible thanks to their quake-playing habits.

    7. Re:Sensationalist Title by kryzx · · Score: 1
      Did you even read the article? Firstly, you call Dr. Gross some dork after complaining about journalistic integrity.

      Yes, I read the article. And no, I am not claiming to have journalistic integrity. But Slashdot should have more journalistic integrity than they displayed here, since they are creating content for public consumption.

      This guy predicted some changes, the predictions have not been tested. The title would lead one to believe that it is a known fact that the quake changed the earth's rotation. One person predicting something is a far cry from it being a known fact, regardless of the qualifications and track record of the person. That's why I think the title was inappropriate.

      Richard Gross is a scientist, and therefore a dork just like the rest of us 'round here. If the term "dork" offends you, you can substitute "person" and preserve my meaning, with only a small loss of specificity.

      --
      "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    8. Re:Sensationalist Title by J.+Random+Luser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      News: Nicobar Islands moved out to sea an unknown distance...
      More news: Scientist postulates Earth's rotation changed...
      More predictable news: Slashdot feeding frenzy...

      Come on people. The Earth is a flexible sphere. Neither its mass nor volume were changed by this quake. There was a well observed "lurch" at the surface caused by crustal movement, but rest assured the elasticity of the crustal-core bond will make up over the next several days for any microseconds lost/gained at the instant.

    9. Re:Sensationalist Title by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      And speaking of poor journalism, has anyone else noticed that Fox News has the epicenter of the quake totally wrong? They put it down near the bottom of Sumatra.

      As far as I'm aware, the quake was near the bottom of Sumatra. Did you mean to say "near the South of Sumatra"?

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    10. Re:Sensationalist Title by wass · · Score: 1
      Richard Gross is a scientist, and therefore a dork just like the rest of us 'round here. If the term "dork" offends you, you can substitute "person" and preserve my meaning, with only a small loss of specificity.

      The way you wrote "some dork" implied (to me at least) you condescend his scientific insight and knowledge on the subject.

      Agree with you about slashdot's journalistic integrity in general, though. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) they just use the same titlet that the submitter used, which is kinda lame and lazy.

      --

      make world, not war

    11. Re:Sensationalist Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I guess they just don't care.
      And that suprises you?

    12. Re:Sensationalist Title by shish · · Score: 1
      Is it good journalism to use the word "Quake" on slashdot without further clarification?

      (Yes, despite all the news, I still think of quake as the game...)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    13. Re:Sensationalist Title by kryzx · · Score: 1

      "Bottom" of Sumatra in the graphic they showed, which was oriented with North at the top, which is a pretty standard orientation for maps (North at the "top" - assuming you are viewing the television while both you and the television are similarly oriented). You must have been holding your maps upside down all your life. Or maybe you are in the southern hemisphere, so you are upside-down, so the right-side-up maps appear upside-down to you. Or the television appears upside-down to you. Or maybe the direction the water swirls got your left and right mixed up, so you switched up and down to compensate.

      --
      "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    14. Re:Sensationalist Title by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      The bottom of Sumatra is the part that's deep, deep underground (or water). The quake happened near the bottom of Sumatra, to the West of the Northern end of the island. I just think it's funny that somebody complaining about small tidbits of journalistic accuracy is going around saying "bottom" when he means "South"

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  63. Donate This... by http101 · · Score: 0, Troll

    (100) Boxes of dinosaur sponges, (500) mops, (300) buckets, (1) roll of Brawny - The thicker, quicker, picker-upper, (1) Martha Stewart, (1) six-pack of Budweiser, (300,000) turkey franks, (320,000) hot-dog buns since 8 are in a bag for every 1 pack of 10 franks, (20,000) bottles of French's Mustard - an AMERICAN classic, and a healthy dose of ketchup.

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    1. Re:Donate This... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sick fuck.. honestly - people who read slashdot are supposed to be higher beings with superiour intellect as many are - you are just a pathetic prick. Its a shame that you werent washed out to sea.. as I am sure that plenty of people who have tragically lost their lives were far better human beings than you could ever be... you disgust me

      and no... I am not new here - so dont even bother with your stupid korea / russia / china jokes

    2. Re:Donate This... by Harry's+Dad · · Score: 1

      oh yeah - I forgot to say.. checked out your profile - looks like every comment you post is a worthless piece of shit you troll fucker - no one bothers replying apart from to tell your your a prick

  64. makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    USA has sent 20 million $ in cash total (1 F500 ceo yearly salary) for this disaster which would save lives yet it can find a cool billion $ a week to take lives ? (iraqi)

    civilised nation ?

  65. the author is right by domenic+v1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves."

    The author is essentially right. Growing up in hawaii, the tourists are our number one source of income, and our number one source of stupidity. Everytime Japan had earthquakes, especially the last one in Kobe a few years ago, the whole coastline was evacuated around the islands. Hotels, businesses, schools, residents along the beaches were forced to move inland toward higher ground. Yet, there were the few tourists, standing on the reef walls, video cameras in hand, waiting to FILM the tsunami. Although that tsunami turned out to be only a foot tall (the local geological surveyists and warning systems calculated the exact time the wave would have arrived), the tourists were still in great danger had the tsunami been 20+ feet tall. Unfortunately it takes an event on a scale such as this to make the general world realize the need for education on such natural disasters, so that maybe now an early warning system would be effective in saving lives, rather than losing the amount we have in the last week.

    1. Re:the author is right by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Hey as long as people were warned reasonably, if they insist on putting their lives at risk, maybe it'll just help breed a smarter (or luckier - if that's possible ;) ) population. Or one that's really tough (or fit)...

      Anyway, I won't be surprised if there were hard core surfers waiting to ride The Wave of a lifetime...

      --
    2. Re:the author is right by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

      Why stupidity?

      Tourists in any part of the world are not aware of all the local dangers, no matter how much you try to inform yourself.

      This speaks more about the lack of profesionalism of the authorities than about stupidity of the tourists.

      --
      IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    3. Re:the author is right by D0+J00+W4n7+K4r473 · · Score: 0

      There will always be those kind of people, regardless of whether any type of warning system may be in place. There are people who want to watch the hurricane, the tornado, the volcano. Many of them don't survive. I would even group the news crews in with those people. They are perfectly capable of reporting on the situation from a safe location, rather than in the middle of it, and I wouldn't care a bit. Darwin and I disagree about many things, but stupid people sure do have a knack for getting themselves killed.

      --
      Your Ad Here! $2.00 Per Day!
    4. Re:the author is right by domenic+v1.0 · · Score: 1

      Scenario 1) You have 24 hours notice that a bomb is about to fall on your house. You stick around and stand on your roof to film it. That's stupidity.

      Scenario 2) Hurricane warning system gives you 72 hours notice it is about to make landfall. You stand on the shoreline to film the waves and destruction throughout the whole thing, or better yet fly a helicopter to film it in the air with 100+ mph winds. That's stupidity.

      Scenario 3) Tsunami warning system give 24 hour advanced warning tsunami headed your way. You decide to grab your video recorder and stand on the shoreline directly in its path to capture the momentous occasion. That's stupidity.

      the point is not about being unaware, the point is that you are given warning, and an ample amount of time to prepare, yet you CHOOSE to do the stupid thing, therefore acting upon stupidity yourself. Darwinism at its finest. The authorities told these same tourists to leave or else...the tourists thought otherwise and the authorities got the heck out of there and to higher ground. So get real, there are stupid people in this world.

  66. The most important thing by Axel2001 · · Score: 1


    I love the American news media.

    What's most important is that they let us know that, out of the (now) 67,000 people who died in the catastrophe, hundreds of them were Americans. If 200 Americans died as a result of the quake, that accounts for about 0.2% of the total. Does that statistic really make the disaster all that more horrible?

    Second, it's important that we know that many celebrities were affected by the disaster. I was really relieved when I found out that Jet Li survived, but I felt saddened when I learned that a friend of Nate Berkus, a regular contributor on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," is unaccounted for.

    Please, give me a break.

    1. Re:The most important thing by Reignking · · Score: 1

      Every country is mentioning its own citizens. I read elmundo.es, and it is about Spanish survivors. BBC -- guess what -- British. They're doing something to attract readership -- making it relevant to their readers.

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    2. Re:The most important thing by ender- · · Score: 1

      Every country is mentioning its own citizens. I read elmundo.es, and it is about Spanish survivors. BBC -- guess what -- British. They're doing something to attract readership -- making it relevant to their readers.

      Am I the only one saddened by the fact that 200 people of your nation dying is relevant, but 70,000+ people dying who aren't from your nation, isn't relevant enough?

      Possibly up to 100,000 HUMANS died. That's equivalent to the entire population of the town I grew up in. If that isn't relevant to you, you don't deserve to live on this planet.

    3. Re:The most important thing by krinsh · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has commented on how relevant or irrelevant a certain country's natives are in the overall scheme of things. Most of the data I've seen is how many estimated dead per island or country. It is to be expected that Nationalities would be indicated in the tolls.

      I have friends that are ex-patriates; and my best friend's mother-in-law works overseas. It is very relevant for some people; but doesn't take away from the worldwide tragedy. While the America-bashing continues; I'd like to point out several of the stories about very young children and the subsequent stories where distant relatives have gotten to them so they would not be permanently abandoned.

      --
      I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
    4. Re:The most important thing by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I missed the part where the American news media said that 70,000 people dying was not relevant enough. As I recall, it merited just about 24/7 news coverage.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  67. People flocking to watch by bfwebster · · Score: 1

    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    Robert Heinlein noted that human tendency in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress--when the rebelling Lunatics drop a large rock on Earth in a relatively isolated spot (somewhere in Kansas, if I recall correctly) to demonstrate their ability to fight back, large numbers of people flock to the location to watch--and are killed. ..bruce..

    --
    Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
  68. Aw crap... by Xaroth · · Score: 1

    In a Reuters article, a NASA geophysicist theorizes that the quake compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds.

    As if the day weren't short enough as is. My work tells me that that extra 3 s are coming out of my freetime - NOT out of the company clock.

    Why couldn't it have been slowed down by, oh, say, 8 hours or so? The extra 6 hours/day I'd have to put in might even be worth the extra 2 hours I'd have off. ...though, who am I kidding? They'd just add 10 hours to the work day, and I'd be worse off than before. *sigh*

    1. Re:Aw crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and thank you Slashdot for unexpectedly filtering out the mu in 'microseconds'.

    2. Re:Aw crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what "preview" is for, dufus.

  69. Satellite Images by KrackHouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    The guys over at India's department of Space, National Remote Sensing Agency posted a link to an 8MB powerpoint slide of satellite images of the affected areas which effectively crippled their server due to the demand. Some of us readers over at Tsunamihelp.blogspot.com mananged to get some mirrors up here and here. I also created a .torrent which includes the images(in a PowerPoint presentation) as well as a bunch of footage of the tsunami that has been going around bringing down servers. Grab the .Torrent. Please grab the .torrent unless you're really lazy, the other mirrors will probably be tried first by those who really need the data. More seeders needed for that .torrent, leave your BT clients running please.

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
    1. Re:Satellite Images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anybody convert this to a more sane format? How should I open a .pps with no office on my linux box?

      grrrr putting images into a pps - mad.

    2. Re:Satellite Images by KrackHouse · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, just tested it and I was getting over 400KBytes/second down. That's the first time I've seen a download that fast, thanks for seeding everybody. I'm compiling some more footage that I'm going to put in TsunamiTorrentV2. If anybody has suggestions for content that's not already included please post a comment on my blog .

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
  70. AhhhH! by sammykrupa · · Score: 0

    Playing my favorite computer game changes the Earth's rotation! AHHHH!!

  71. Mirrors of Home Video Footage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.mikemars.com/video/tsunamiphuket.wmv
    h ttp://www.mikemars.com/video/sri_lanka_tsunami.wm v
    http://www.mikemars.com/video/patong_beach.wmv

  72. Biblical Proportions by cyranoVR · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was thinking about something the other day...

    Had this event happened ~3000 years ago, it probably would have become a major chapter in some religious text, if not the foundation for a completely new religion (ocean worship?).

    1. Re:Biblical Proportions by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      If it happened ~3,000 years ago no one would have known about it. Anyone who wasn't around to see it would never find out it happened, and people who were around would be dead. There would probably be no record of it, except maybe something we'd consider today to be a myth like Atlantis. Also there would be much less dead as there are many more people living on the planet today than ~3,000 years ago.

    2. Re:Biblical Proportions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes , thats possible I have heard of one religion
      that believes that the parting of Red Sea was the
      will of God when it was just a tsunami caused by
      the vulcanic island of Santorini erupting around 1628 BC.

    3. Re:Biblical Proportions by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yes, A tsunami so powerful that it sucked the very water out of the seabed itself allowing the Israelites to cross "as on dry land", and lasted long enough to allow thousands of Israelites to cross the entire sea before the water came rushing back.
      I'm not saying that some natural phenomenon was not responsible for aiding the crossing of the Red Sea, but the one you suggest doesn't fit the bill.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Biblical Proportions by monotheist · · Score: 1

      well, i heard about this fishing village that saved itself because of some wisdom passed down through the generations. i don't know if the wisdom was 3000 years old though. anyway, they said that when the tide goes out too fast, then it will come back with equal force. so these village people (tee hee) hightail it to some temples in the mountains before the tsunami and live happily ever after. the article was on yahoo, read by my husband a few days ago. i can't find it now or woulda linked. sorry.

  73. God's Wrath? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as most of the people affected by this quake are Muslim, I wonder if any Freepers / Boogerheads have implied that the quake was "God's Wrath" on a "corrupt culture?"

    If no one's said it yet, it will probably be only a few more days before Jerry Falwell or some other shithead blurts it out... :-\

    1. Re:God's Wrath? by Astreja · · Score: 1

      Sad to say, it's already happening on the Xian message boards.

      For every genuinely concerned individual who is praying for the welfare of the survivors, there's some idiot going "Wow, what a great opportunity to spread our message!" and some other sociopath going "Woohoo, Rapture coming!"

    2. Re:God's Wrath? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just do me a favor and don't become the ones you are critical of. Those "Xian" people who would even think that way have little to do with mainstream religeous beliefs...much like the terrorists don't speak for all Muslims.

      Slashdot is all too quick to lump people into large groups like that...it makes it easy to just dismiss people, instead of evaluating individuals for what they are. It's very small minded, IMHO.

  74. India Plans Psunami alert system by sunsrin · · Score: 1

    The article in BBC gives more details on it. The interesting thing in that article about the Pacific warning system in place...

    The Pacific system gives advance notice to coastal areas and low-lying islands that floods could be on the way, so that emergency plans can be activated.
    US seismologist Harley Benz said a basic system of seismic sensors and tide gauges could be set up within two years in the Indian Ocean but that, he warned, was only one element.
    "Putting in the sensors is the easy part," he told AP. "The difficult part here would be coordination between emergency response agencies in the region."


    Has it been used even once? When was the last time a warning came intime and people were actually rescued. It's not a burglar alarm anyway.

    1. Re:India Plans Psunami alert system by sunsrin · · Score: 1

      Spare my spelling :(

    2. Re:India Plans Psunami alert system by mcwop · · Score: 2, Informative
      From the 12/29/04 WSJ Page B1

      Bayu Pranata was sipping tea shortly after starting his 7am shift at the Meteorology and Geophysics Agency in West Sumatra, Indonesia, about 500 miles south of the quake's epicenter, when he was disturbed by a "tak, tak, tak" sound. It was so loud he thought mechanics had started working in the garage next door. Then he realized it was the pen on the seismograph. He hurriedly called the National Earthquake Center in Jakarta, but ended up spending more than an hour trying to contact Indonesian disaster officials in vain.

      The quake was detected in Japan, and Australia. Austrailian seismology officials (knowing that it would likely create a Tsunami) notified some overseas embassies , but they did not pass on the info because it might overstep diplomatic protocal.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  75. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    hear hear

    shame on you for letting your society get to that level of depravity, truly sickening and sad to read those numbers, and you call it winning hearts and minds ? i cant keep a straight face

  76. That 3us ... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

    ...is coming from my working time, not my sleeping time.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  77. You must know about Noha's ark. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a disaster like this gave birth to such legend...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:You must know about Noha's ark. by Reignking · · Score: 1

      The animals don't need an ark to survive, apparently...

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    2. Re:You must know about Noha's ark. by rcastro0 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I had read about that and thought it should not be accounted on "sixth sense" right away. I would investigate what caused peoples deaths, but I would guess:
      1) Getting thrown against fixed, hard objects (lamp posts, walls, buildings, etc.)
      2) Getting hit by hard objects (furniture, automobiles, parts of buildings, etc.)
      3) Drowning due to being trapped somewhere (e.g. inside buildings, suction of sewer mouths, under cars, etc.)

      Well, wild animals, being in the open, would be much less subject to #1, #2 and #3 above. And if they are not hit by anything and can swim (and most, including elephants, can), they will eventually reach higher ground.

      BTW another article mentioned lots of corpses of domestic animals lying around. This would reinforce this theory.

      --
      Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
    3. Re:You must know about Noha's ark. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Sixth sense? Or common sense? How far away were these animals from the beach. What percentages of human deaths occurred far from shore? How far from shore do animals normally live?
      From what I read of Yala National park, it consists of parts that are lagoon and swmpy land, which would be home to creatures used to dealing with water, and other parts that are on average 90 meters above sea level, which would be unaffected by the tidal wave.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  78. Kaboom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Krakatau?

    A series of large tsunami waves generated by the main explosion, some reaching a height of nearly 40 meters (more than 120 feet) above sea level, killed more than 36,000 people in the coastal towns and villages along the Sunda Strait on Java and Sumatra islands. Tsunami waves were recorded or observed throughout the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the American West Coast, South America, and even as far away as the English Channel.
    http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Vocano1883Krakatoa.html

  79. Amazing by durtbag · · Score: 1
    From the wikipedia article:

    and even as far away as Somalia and several other countries in Africa, 4,500 km (2,800 mi) or more west of the epicenter.

    The wikipedia article also has the estimated dead in Somalia in the hundreds. Unreal.

    --
    itadakimasu
    1. Re:Amazing by krinsh · · Score: 1

      email me at my hotmail account with the email you'd like to get the gmail invite sent to. I have a few left after getting my whole family accounts (I am the oldest of seven so you can only imagine)...

      --
      I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  80. Microsoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in all fairness, www.msn.com also has a link for donations to the victims of the tsunami.

  81. Another estimate and what that means for Satalites by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another estimate for the time change here.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-041 22 80221dec28,1,6119845.column

    (some useless registration required). I quote from the article.
    "Incredibly, the magnitude 9.0 earthquake that struck off Sumatra on Sunday morning caused a vertical displacement of so much material that the rotation period of the Earth has been permanently altered. By a tiny but measurable amount, the Earth is now rotating more quickly on its axis, and the 24-hour day is now one ten-thousandth second shorter.That's the result of calculations based on preliminary data made by Oak Park astronomer Dr. Leslie M. Golden. It's analogous to the increase in rotational speed that a twirling ice skater experiences when he or she draws in their arms. It is estimated that during the Sumatran quake, a block of material roughly 600 miles in length and 100 miles in width fell 30 feet closer to the Earth's axis of rotation. The planet has responded by rotating more rapidly, albeit ever so slightly, and our 24-hour days are now one ten-thousandth second shorter." by Tom Skilling.

    If it is one ten-thousandth of a second then it works out to have more effect.

    Doing the math for 1/10,000 of a sec/day:

    so 10,000 days = 1 second

    10000/365 = 27.39 years

    So in 27.39 years we loose a second.

    Diameter of earth 12,756 km or circumference 24,902 mi or 131,482,560 ft (appox at equator)

    One second of the day means a radial distance of

    24hr * 60 min *60 sec = 86400 seconds /day

    131,482,560 (feet / day) / 86400 (sec/day) = 1521.79 feet/sec

    at the equator (old 24 hour day)
    or is what the eath turns in one second

    or if there is change of 1521.79 feet of alignment in 27.39 years. or 55.56 feet / year.
    or:

    55.56 (feet/yr) * 12 in/foot = 666.72in/yr(bad omen here)

    or 666.72 (in/year) / 365 days (aprox) = 1.8 in /day difference.

    55.56 (feet /year) / 12 months = 4.63 (ft/month)

    This is a different estimate than Nasas but might be thought of as an upper bound until things
    can be calculated more precisely.

    Satelite's orbits will not change their period because of the change in the earths rotational speed. Geosynchronous satalites will slip out of synchronisity and need to use fuel to change their orbits, reducing their effective life as we have no way of replenishing fuel in geosynchronous orbit (around 22k miles out I think).

    This will be devistating for GPS and will require immediate upgrades/repossitioning to those systems.

    Can you imagine a year from now a precision guided missle landing 55 feet to the left. and each day
    an additional 55 feet more. Frightning. I image the military has stopped using GPS guided weapons
    until that can be corrected.

    Now if you correct those numbers for the Nasa estimate.

    3/100,000 instead of 1/10,000 then the

    or 3,000,000 days to get one second then.

    or 8219 years

    1521.79 (ft/sec) / 8319 (years/sec) =.1829 (ft/year) .1829 ft * 12 inches = 2.195 in/year

    much less of an adjustment or a threat to satelite's positions or positioning satelites.

    (check the math, who knows if I did it right)

    Just an intellectual exercise to assess the effect. Enjoy

  82. And yet America Spends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet our president is still planning on spending $40 million on his re-inauguration gala. 3 crazy days and nights. instead of actually standing out in the world community for once... he could really do some good for our global impact by cancelling the stupid pointless parties and sending that money to indonesia as well...

    but that won't happen. there is no money in it.

    1. Re:And yet America Spends by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong but I believe america sends out more foreign aid than any other country in the world.

    2. Re:And yet America Spends by klang · · Score: 1

      That depends on the way you calculate .. as a percentage of the GNP, America isn't doing that well in spending money on foreign aid..

    3. Re:And yet America Spends by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I think it would be wrong for the United States to decide which needy people to send my tax dollars to. I believe that I should be allowed to decide to whom and how much aid I should send. The government should not be involved in humanitarian issues. That is what humans are for.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:And yet America Spends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That depends on the way you calculate .. as a percentage of the GNP, America isn't doing that well in spending money on foreign aid..

      If by "foreign aid" you mean tax funds taken by force from Americans and given to other countries, the smaller the amount the better. I had to reduce my charitable contributions a lot due to tax increases.

  83. Amazon's donation page by danwarne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't Amazon take the biggest cut of any online payments processor for donations? I'd be personally hesitant to donate through Amazon after reading what shareware authors have had to say about them. Amazon should put its money where its mouth is and provide the payment processing for the tsunami relief commission-free.

    1. Re:Amazon's donation page by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm looking into that. According to Amazon, they dock 2.9% + 30 cents, which is roughly equivalent to credit-card fees that agencies would face anyway. I'm surfing for further info, and if you're right, I'll change my sig...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Amazon's donation page by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They are. "One hundred percent of your donation will go to the Red Cross."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Amazon's donation page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My merchant account cost me 1.19% and +.14. Is their fraud level that high?

    4. Re:Amazon's donation page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFM. Amazon's press release says 100% of donations will go to the fund.

  84. Earthquacks? by Bilange · · Score: 1

    I wonder if these nuclear power station has any safegaurds for earthquacks.

    Earthquacks? You probably mean ducks that can't swim, right?

    --
    "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
    1. Re:Earthquacks? by trongey · · Score: 1

      Earthquacks? You probably mean ducks that can't swim, right?

      No, I think he's referring to Greenpeace.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  85. So many posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and no has blamed Bush or Microsoft for this?

    Come on Slashdot!

    1. Re:So many posts by trongey · · Score: 1

      The first time I read this I though it said "Bash" not "Bush".

      I knew the shell was powerful, but that would be pretty impressive.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  86. The Lord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this happens the day after Christmas!
    Wheres your god now?

    1. Re:The Lord? by trongey · · Score: 1

      Cool.
      I never got troll points before!

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  87. This is a *good* thing. by salvorHardin · · Score: 1

    Since the Earth's rotation is slowing down, and will eventually reach an absolute stop, anything which keeps us spinning a little longer can only be a good thing.

    1. Re:This is a *good* thing. by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      But who wants to wake up a little earlier every morning. I feel the loss already.

  88. Duke .. by klang · · Score: 1

    Duke Nuke'em Forever will throw us out of the solar system!

    1. Re:Duke .. by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

      No problem, the sun will have died long before release, I don't mind leaving then.

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
  89. You are not only insensitive.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... but terribly uninformed (I used worst descriptions initially, but insults will not make you change...).

    A tsunami of these caracteristics has not been seen on those regions for more than 100 years, thus the local population did not necessarily have knowledge about how dangerous this could be.

    Also the waves move at speeds comparable to a commercial airliner, people may get into a false sense of security since the waves could appear far away but will get to the observer's position in no time at all (a wave 10 km away would be drawning you in areound 40 sec if they move at 900km/hour)...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:You are not only insensitive.... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Hey, if people are given reasonable warnings but ignore them AND die, while that's bad, maybe it's not so bad in the long run.

      What do you want to do? Forcibly drag them off? Maybe they've seen everything they've already wanted to in their lives, and this was the last thing they wanted. Or they wanted to surf the biggest baddest wave in their life... Or maybe they really really stupid (e.g. the sort of people who'd do something STUPID with microwave ovens/other products despite ample WARNINGS).

      As technology gives each individual more and more power, eventually very very many individuals could have the equivalent of a "Kill Everyone" option (e.g. release custom killer virus/nanotech/WMD). If the species is going to be wiped out, I'd prefer it if it weren't because somebody said "Oops! I didn't know that button would do that". In fact it would be nice if everyone wouldn't ever "push that button".

      Should help the survivors of course - since they survived they must be fit or lucky/blessed, the species as a whole needs those attributes... ;)

      p.s. The waves slow down as they get closer to shore. They get a lot taller though.

      --
    2. Re:You are not only insensitive.... by thewiz · · Score: 1

      I am neither insensitive and uninformed. I truly feel bad about all the people who were killed in this disaster. I've even donated money to the relief effort via the Red Cross.

      However, I have lived along the Gulf coast for most of my life and have seen a similar phenomenon: Hurricane parties. People go party on the beach to watch a hurricane come ashore and, invariably, someone gets washed out to sea by the storm surge. Or they get killed by flying debris because they are outside.

      I don't know about you, but if I saw a wave that was taller than my house, I run as fast as I could. It might still get me, but at least I tried instead of going toward danger and becoming an easy target.

      People who go to watch tidal waves (tsunamis) or hurricanes, in person, definitely show a lack of intelligence. That's why I mentioned the Darwin Awards.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    3. Re:You are not only insensitive.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we shouldn't send any humanitarian aid over there, just let Natural Selection take over and let the weak and the stupid be taken out of the gene pool.

  90. MOD PARENT FUNNY by D0+J00+W4n7+K4r473 · · Score: 0
    Article is useless, and indeed meaningless without the _what_ filled in...

    Phil


    Because he's either joking or stupid.
    --
    Your Ad Here! $2.00 Per Day!
    1. Re:MOD PARENT FUNNY by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      The grandfather post was perfectly correct in saying that the information in the article was not well defined. The article said "caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds, or 3 millionths of a second, faster". That statement is scientifically meaningless. Since you seem to thing the article was clear I can only guess that you may have *ASSUMED* that the article MEANT "caused the planet to spin exaclty once 3 microseconds faster." Is that what you assumed? I'd really like to know. Either way, that doesn't make the artcle correct.

      The fact is that the original (and meaningful) quote was "May have shortened the day by 3 microseconds" and was misrepresented in the dicussed Reuters article.

      It looks bad when you say someone is "joking or stupid" just because you don't understand something that is immediately obvious to many others. If you would have taken a second to answer the "3 microseconds per __???__" question you were responding to, you may have realized that the article didn't support any answer you would have given... and you'd be taking your first steps toward anylitical thinking. ;)

    2. Re:MOD PARENT FUNNY by D0+J00+W4n7+K4r473 · · Score: 0
      From the article summary:
      enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds
      From TFA itself:
      The deadly Asian earthquake may have permanently accelerated the Earth's rotation -- shortening days by a fraction of a second
      The earth does a rotation in one day, physics boy. It's pretty clear to me that it's 3 microseconds per day.
      --
      Your Ad Here! $2.00 Per Day!
  91. A lesson by shokk · · Score: 0

    The reaction to this earthquake and the resultant tsunami should be taken a practice run for the eventual small asteroid strike that will undoubtedly cause similar results. Our rush to aid fellow men in their time of need will hopefully be returned to us one day when we face the same. Or will they just turn their backs and look the other way?

    So far under $100 million in aid has been pledged by various countries to help in a disaster that has ruined $billions and killed dozens of thousands of people. Is that good enough?

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    1. Re:A lesson by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      By your logic it's actually far too much. Since the countries we are sending aid to now send zero aid to us, and could likely never afford to send any amount that would be really useful there will be no return on our investment. If we really want to make sure we'll be taken care of when we are in similar need, we'd be better off investing the money we use for foreign aid.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    2. Re:A lesson by Diag · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, different countries need different forms of aid when disasters like this happen. Cash to purchase basic necessities is most useful in poorer areas like SE Asia.

      If there were a similar disaster in the States, throwing cash at the problem would be somewhat redundant.

      I recall after 9/11, Australia sent firefighters to back-fill for their American colleagues who had left their own areas to help in NYC.

      --
      Serving Suggestion: Defrost
  92. $5880 - spent to free an individual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think spending that money was good for Iraqis, go bask in their thanks. If you think the war was justified for other reasons, post them; we still haven't heard one good reason.

    1. Re:$5880 - spent to free an individual by Vile+Slime · · Score: 0

      Dear Anonymous Coward,

      One day you will lie at deaths door and you will dearly wish that someone would spend $5880 to save your worthless soul.

      I'm sure that a majority of those that I helped pay for their freedom are happy that they can choose the direction they want to take their country in the future. Lest they be staring down the end of Saddam's, or a similar tyrant's, gun barrel.

      There is a damn good reason that people are still clamoring to come to the United States of America. And I think you know what they are!

      The same cannot be said for Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, or any of the other god-forsaken hell-holes that still exist on this planet.

      --
      ---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
  93. So, you're saying... by Rufus88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that you would have preferred that 420,000,000 Iraqis were killed, to bring the cost per kill down to a commensurate $350 level? I guess you'd really be complaining if only one Iraqi died in the whole war. After all, we'd have spent $147 Billion to kill that one Iraqi, right?

    1. Re:So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that one Iraqi would've been Saddam Hussein, we'd all be better off.

    2. Re:So, you're saying... by klang · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, if that one Iraqi had been Saddam Hussein, that particular war would have been a complete success on both sides!

    3. Re:So, you're saying... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      What a complete idiot you are. You obviously feel ashamed or something, so you're bitting back with something that you know is obviously not his point. We know that's not what he's trying to say. But I'll spell it out anyway.

      The point is that the US gov seems to be more willing to spend money on war than saving lives.

      Insightful my ass.

    4. Re:So, you're saying... by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      What a complete idiot you are.

      (Score:-1, Ad hominem)

      You obviously feel ashamed or something

      Neither obvious, nor true.

      something that you know is obviously not his point.

      He said it, not me. It's not my fault if he can't intelligenntly make the point he wants to make, and instead uses non-sequiturs (e.g. we're not helping enough because dollars-per-killed in the mid-east exceeds dollars-per-aided in Asia.)

      The point is that the US gov seems to be more willing to spend money on war than saving lives.

      I'm well aware of the point he *wanted* to make. My point is that he did a poor job of making it by using faulty reasoning.

    5. Re:So, you're saying... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      I'm well aware of the point he *wanted* to make. My point is that he did a poor job of making it by using faulty reasoning.

      While his calculations were a bit off, he wasn't really using faulty reasoning because he wasn't trying to make any firm conclusion. He left it open-end, ambiguous on purpose for others to think about and interpret how they like. He did suggest, but that is different to drawing a conclusion.

    6. Re:So, you're saying... by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      While his calculations were a bit off,

      No, his calculations were accurate.

      he wasn't really using faulty reasoning because he wasn't trying to make any firm conclusion.

      Sure he was. He made a direct comparison between two ratios for which a direct comparison is meaningless. My follow-up post made it clear why such a comparison is meaningless. And from that comparison he draws the implied conclusion that Americans ought to be ashamed.

      I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of his comments.

  94. 100% goes straight to the Red Cross by Schlemphfer · · Score: 5, Informative
    It says right on Amazon's front page, "100% of your donation will go to the American Red Cross."

    So it looks like Amazon.com is not only giving this front-page billing, they are also personally paying the credit card transaction fee, in effect losing at least a couple pennies for each dollar contributed.

    In other words, they can't be faulted one iota.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:100% goes straight to the Red Cross by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      When the WTC went down, Amazon matched contributions to the Red Cross.

    2. Re:100% goes straight to the Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As I recall, the Red Cross is sitting on a huge pile of cash for 9/11 victims because they don't want to make them millionaires and the government said they can't use the money for relief efforts that aren't 9/11 related.

    3. Re:100% goes straight to the Red Cross by snorklewacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I recall, the Red Cross is sitting on a huge pile of cash for 9/11 victims because they don't want to make them millionaires and the government said they can't use the money for relief efforts that aren't 9/11 related.

      I doubt this -- the Red Cross has never earmarked funds for specific disasters before, refuses to do so now, and the government has absolutely zero power to tell the Red Cross what it can do with its own funds. They are a private agency, and they are absolutely fanatical about their independence.

      The Red Cross has also never paid out directly to victims. The only direct assistance they do give is in the form of vouchers for food, clothing, shelter, and related items.

      So you don't recall anything except what some other very wrong person made up or just repeated from some other mistaken or lying individual.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    4. Re:100% goes straight to the Red Cross by danwarne · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Good for Amazon, that's impressive.

    5. Re:100% goes straight to the Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm wrong and wrong:-) Any and ALL donations can be marked as restricted by the donor...and the government is extremely interested in making sure these restrictions are followed!!!

  95. Re:Don't donate -- let them deal with it themselve by silverbax · · Score: 1

    Four hurricanes in Florida is nothing compared to this.

    Imagine if this happened just off the Eastern U.S. coast during June or July. It would wipe out Miami, Daytona, Jacksonville, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington and Norfolk. It would kill 100,000+ and possibly destroy the economies of three or four states.

    Geez, and the reason the U.S. has building codes and early warning devices is because we're RICH. Most people in these countries would kill to make 10,000 a year.

  96. Not a problem by nizo · · Score: 1
    tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    It seems like this problem would take care of itself, darwin style, after a tsunami or two.

  97. Re:Mirrors of Home Video Footage MOD PARENT UP by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

    MOD PARENT

    AC has posted links to video footage of Tsunamis around the world.

    --
    Live forever, or die trying.
  98. Well spotted. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    THe UK is donating 15 million dollars (after much pressure of the media and the general public).

    This is the amount that football teams have paid for some top players in recent years:

    Manchester United for Wayne Rooney: 54 million US$.
    Manchester United for Rio Ferdinand: 58 million US$.
    Real Madrid for David Beckham: 41 million US$.

    Something is horribly wrong with this.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Well spotted. by Reignking · · Score: 1

      I heard a report on the radio today that France was donating $135,000. The band Linkin Park had pledged $100,000.

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    2. Re:Well spotted. by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      You are so right. We should be pressuring professional atheletes and movie stars for donations! Some actors get paid $20M per movie, for about 3 months worth of "working".

      Atheletes get paid to "play".

      I'm sure the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, Hollywood could easily put together $35M.

      It is a sad world indeed.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    3. Re:Well spotted. by klang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah, you are right! David Beckham is almost 24% cheaper than Wayne Rooney! What is the world comming to?

    4. Re:Well spotted. by spamtastic2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually its 15 million pounds which is over 28 million US dollars.

    5. Re:Well spotted. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      And equivalent to Rosie O'Donnell's post-Xmas scale reading.

    6. Re:Well spotted. by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      Okay, the thing about France aside, that's awesome that Linkin Park is pledging $100K. I wonder if any other celebrities will get in on this. I'm sure more can afford to give tens of thousands of dollars and barely miss it.

      Where's Bill Gates?

    7. Re:Well spotted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right. We should be pressuring computer programmers and MBA for donations! Some MBA get paid $250,000 for about 49 weeks of "working".

      Computer programmers get paid to "play". (I know I do ;-)

      I'm sure MSFT, NOVL, IBM, SUN, SCO, could easily get their workers to put together $35

      It is a sad, sad world indeed.

    8. Re:Well spotted. by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reuters says France gave 15m euros (20m$). You should switch to a channel that broadcasts news, not hate.

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    9. Re:Well spotted. by xlv · · Score: 1
      Reuters says France gave 15m euros (20m$). You should switch to a channel that broadcasts news, not hate.

      Thanks for the link. From that Reuter article: Lundi, le ministère des Affaires étrangères avait débloqué 100.000 euros pour subvenir aux besoins les plus pressants des victimes en Thaïlande.


      A rought translation is: "Monday, the Foreign Ministry Office allocated 100.000 euros for the immediate needs of the victims in Thailand". I would assume that this would be in part to rappatriate the wounded (or dead) French nationals. Of course the US media, including CNN, took that opportunity to bash the French. The way I see it, it went like this: the UN official made some comment about the foreign help, the press mentionned the $15 million from the US and then added the 100.000 euros with the idea: see, we're not that bad, look at the French...

      BTW, official French disaster relief teams are on the ground there.

    10. Re:Well spotted. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      The financial compensation of famous people (whose only real abilities/talents are looking good onscreen or being able to manipulate toys better than everyone else) is getting WAY out of hand. But it's a free market, so some people are willing to pay for that. Well, except for Montreal, who decided that the Expos weren't worth the expense. And maybe the NHL, which is having their own hero-worship payment problems.

    11. Re:Well spotted. by peeledback · · Score: 1

      Why can't these countries take care of themselves? As a U.S taxpayer, why don't they give me an option of whether I want to spend ?% of my tax money helping other countries that can't help themselves. What ever happened to survival of the fitest? (Don't get me wrong, I do feel for these people)

    12. Re:Well spotted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir are an imbecile, or a troll for that matter

    13. Re:Well spotted. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      He's doing his regular thing, an Antonov (sp?) carrier should be arriving shortly with low end basic Wintel boxes.

    14. Re:Well spotted. by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      So get Sir Alex to donate Wayne Rooney and all will be well.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  99. Never? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    When you say "never" how far back does that go? Is it as far as anyone can remember, or through all of the regions recorded history, which for India is several thousand years, unless I'm misinformed.

    If it's the latter, and this is something that only happens every several thousand years, a warning system is clearly not a useful investment.

    1. Re:Never? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not since the 1800s, when the hall of records was mysteriously swept away.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Never? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has not been recorded in history.

      But we cant assume this occurs only every few thousand years and not take any action. If this happens again, my city (Chennai as the original poster as well) will be completely devastated.

    3. Re:Never? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      Metlin was wrong on that aspect. His town, Madras, was washed away by a tsunami in 1883; this was part of the Indian Coastal Guard manual, which is why it was the only Indian governmental agency to be actually prepared for a tsunami.

      We're pretty used to cyclones in the region; after Bangladesh, the south-eastern coast of India gets the maximum number of cyclones in a year. So most of our disaster preparedness (or what little we have) is mosty focussed on that.

  100. No. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Typhoons in Bangladesh and eartquakes in China have been much worse.

    In regards to geographic extension it is difficult to think about something this devastating and widepread (there have beenn people killed as far as Somalia and Kenya).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  101. Oil by SunPin · · Score: 1

    In Florida, uncontrolled water consumption causes some ridiculous sinkholes. I remember when living in Tampa that an entire intersection was swallowed. Houses periodically make the news when a sinkhole takes the thing under.

    This suggests to me that the water pressure holds up a good deal of what we consider to be solid ground.

    Can anybody speculate that oil might do the same thing? Indonesia is a non OPEC country that exploits all they can out of the fossil liquid. Perhaps oil acts as a shock absorber against activity occurring on the crust closest to the mantle?

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
    1. Re:Oil by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have a huge sinkhole just outside Orlando right now.

      It took a road and a few homes in the process. they are currently working on filling it up and reconstructing the road, but it is going to take time.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    2. Re:Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have to replace the oil with something to help pump it out. I know sea water is used in many cases because it is denser.

  102. Less, actually... by avjt · · Score: 1
    $35000000 - amount committed to help victims
    100000 - conservative death toll
    = $350 - spent to aid each victim
    Its less than that, actually. The 100,000 figure is a predicted death toll --- and no amount of money will help someone who is already dead. You want to be looking out for the those who have been injured and those who have lost their homes -- how many millions of them are out there? Five million? More? That is seven bucks or less per needy head.

    But then it seems Mr Bush has said more is to come, let us wait and see.

    As an Indian citizen, in the middle of these dark days of our own, I do feel a tiny bit of pride on reading that the Indian government, poor and 'third world' that it is, is providing assistance to Sri Lanka & Maldives while coping with its own disaster at the same time. That is logistical aid as well as money, some USD 20 million to Sri Lanka and USD 1 million to Maldives, see http://us.rediff.com/money/2004/dec/29tax.htm. (a 'crore' is 10 million, and some 45 rupees make a dollar at today's rates).

    Yes, I too intend to get out and donate tomorrow. And happily pay the 'Tsunami cess' in my taxes next year. It is our corner of the world, and we are all in it together.

  103. Let's not make fun.. by freedom_india · · Score: 0
    Look, this is for a serious cause. OK? 70,000 people dead is not a small thing. OK?

    Let's not have our usual "fun" in this discussion atleast.

    If you do want to help, donate clothing/water purifiers like Brita more than cash. They atleast go the victims directly.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://news.google.com/news?q=stingy&hl=en&lr=&sa= N&tab=wn

      Nobody's making fun of the situation, it's a jab at a dope from the UN who called the US stingy, along with the rest of "the West." Hardly an appropriate label for one of, if not the most generous nation(s) on the planet (yes, even per capita).

      I suspect people will use this as a springboard to say, "yes, but the US is so terrible because of x, y, and z" since this is Slashdot, after all - but that has nothing to do with charity.

    2. Re:Let's not make fun.. by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not making fun of the "cause". I'm just pointing out the huge outpouring of genorisity from the supposedly "stingy" Americans.

      It's always acceptable to make fun of the idiots in the UN.

    3. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why don't you tell that asshat at the UN to quit bitching at the "Western", aka the US, nations for not donating money. They should be off finding out what the hell happened to the billions of dollars in the oil for food program.

    4. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the Red Cross has been asking for cash more than goods. It's quicker and easier to ship money (done electronicaly) and they can buy the goods closer to the catastrophe. It costs them money to ship out clothing et al, and it's slower.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:Let's not make fun.. by tntguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you do want to help, donate clothing/water purifiers like Brita more than cash. They atleast go the victims directly.

      DO NOT DO THIS!!! Donate cash. Legitimate organizations can spend your money far better than you can. They'll have (access to) locals who will know what's needed. The $10 you spend on a filtered water pitcher (which won't help with bacteria) could go toward a real purifier that several people could use.

      Things are cheaper over there, and they'll usually negotiate deals on bulk purchases anyway. Plus, rather than a few bits in a bank's computer, you've caused them to deal with physical items...they have enough logistical problems.

      Now, if you (general "you", not freedom_india specifically) are local to the area, quit reading Slashdot and start helping!

    6. Re:Let's not make fun.. by kngthdn · · Score: 1

      You are completely right.

      Whatever people say about big businesses, it's still easier to trust Amazon.com with a donation than it is to trust the government with anything.

    7. Re:Let's not make fun.. by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      I agree... Cash is simpler, provided it gets used 100% for the purpose it is meant for. Unfortunately, charities and organizations swallow more than 20% of your cash on their internal purposes, and in a country like India/Thailand, the rest goes to feed the local politicians for corruption. Goods are solid and cannot be stolen (atleast not easily). A Brita bought here is cheaper than a water purifier bought in Madras where it would cost twice as much.

      In fact even India is asking for Goods help and refuses cash help as it is more susceptible to theft.

      My 2 bits...

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    8. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A Brita bought here is cheaper than a water purifier bought in Madras

      ...and will do no good. Brita filters, as anyone who's read the label knows, are only good for water that is already safe to drink.

      Which goes to the point under discussion: send money to those who know what to do with it.

    9. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      one of, if not the most generous nation(s) on the planet (yes, even per capita).

      Not any more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&si d=ash4iKmCSW6Y&refer=uk

      And from http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html:

      U.S. is the world's Scrooge

      "The United States is not stingy," Colin Powell said on CNN this morning. "We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world."

      Powell was responding to comments yesterday by Jan Egeland, the United Nation's emergency relief coordinator, who suggested that wealthy countries' initial pledges of assistance in response to the Asian disaster had been insufficient. "It is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really," Egeland said. So far, the U.S. has pledged $35 million in relief aid for victims of the earthquake and tsunamis, and Powell insisted today that the U.S. will give much more -- possibly into the billions -- as the scope of the disaster becomes better known.

      Let's hope so, because as it is, despite Powell's assurances, the rest of the world regards the U.S. as a heartless Scrooge -- and for good reason. A couple weeks ago Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist who heads the United Nation's Millennium Project to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease in developing nations, stopped by Salon's offices to discuss how the United States was shirking its responsibilities to the world's poorest people. In much of the world, Sachs told us, there remains the impression that the U.S. is interested in helping people only when it has something to gain -- and these days we only engage with the rest of the world on anti-terrorism policy, more often than not through war. The United States contributes about a tenth of one percent of its income in aid to poor countries -- an abysmal rate that falls below that of all industrialized nations, and is dwarfed by the giving rate of Canada (0.26 percent), Germany (0.28 percent), the United Kingdom (0.34 percent), and France (0.42 percent).

      What's worse, this situation doesn't seem to be improving. Indeed, in just the past two months, the Bush administration has quietly reduced its commitments to global anti-poverty programs, cutting its contributions to groups like Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services by as much as $100 million. The move prompted the New York Times to ask in an editorial: "The administration can conjure up $87 billion for the fighting in Iraq, but can it really not come up with more than $15.6 billion -- our overall spending on development assistance in 2002 -- to help stop an 8-year-old AIDS orphan in Cameroon from drinking sewer water or to buy a mosquito net for an infant in Sierra Leone?"

      When the state of Florida suffered four hurricanes this summer, the Bush administration quickly and admirably pried open the federal wallet, and so far Floridians have received more than $3 billion in federal and state disaster assistance. Nobody's saying that Floridians didn't deserve that aid; they surely did. But what happened in Asia over the weekend may turn out to be one of the worst natural disasters in human history. More than 40,000 people are now believed dead, and officials fear that the toll may surpass 60,000. A good test of the Bush administration's generosity -- not to mention the generosity of all Americans -- is whether our government can now muster as much money for far-off foreigners as we could for Americans in an all-important swing state.

    10. Re:Let's not make fun.. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I would actually say it's higher stakes not safer.

      With government they will use it for good with a lot of waste, or use it to rape you up the ass with a lot of waste.

      With Big Corps they will do either with efficiancy.

      If I am to be raped up the ass I want it minimized as much as possible with inneficiany.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    11. Re:Let's not make fun.. by stupidfoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why bother quoting an article from Salon.com? Of course it's going to have a strong anti-american slant.

      Those numbers are for government funding only. Private US donations, by which a country should truly be judged as they are not coerced in the form of taxes, dwarf any country by any measurement.

      Private US donations for this recent tragedy were ahead of the whole EU, and still may be.

      Those numbers also do not count other forms of aid (food, shelter, water) that our military provides all over the world that gets absolutely no coverage at all. You know who provides needed goods to most of the poor in rural Central America? The US via the US military.

    12. Re:Let's not make fun.. by nathanh · · Score: 0, Troll
      Then why don't you tell that asshat at the UN to quit bitching at the "Western", aka the US, nations for not donating money.

      Awww, poor little persecuted American. We're all crying rivers of tears over here.

      Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.

      Let's look at the figures. With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997. That's a mere $23 per person. You stingy fuckers. Even Australia came in at twice that. And we're all bastards compared to the Norway who contributed a whopping $311 per person in foreign aid in 1998.

      Bunch of selfish whiney "me me me" Americans with their non-stop martyr complex. Give me a break.

    13. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more of us in America. Let's look at the totals instead of per capita, you fucking ingrate. Feel entitled much?

    14. Re:Let's not make fun.. by corellen · · Score: 1

      Its odd though that you leave out the fact that our "stingy" 0.1% equals more than all the other countries you listed. So what if we are not giving as much as the UN; who has said that devolped contries can/should give 1% of their income we are still the largest donator. And thats not counting the cost of the military units out there helping. Like the carrier group that is moving into the region to help and the P3 Orions based from Japan that are right now flying recon for surviors. If that is not enought shall we go into the ammount of money that is raised and given out privately? You can take your stacked and meaningless stats and go troll else where.

    15. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Plus it helps the devestated economy.

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    16. Re:Let's not make fun.. by stupidfoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Awww... poor little eurotrash. You seem to think that the only organization fit to distribute funds are governmental orgs and that the only funds that count are ones that are gathered through coercion (taxes).

      Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.

      We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?

      With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.

      http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm
      The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending

      LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.

      What were you saying again?

      And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
      Australia - $1.2 Billion
      France - $7.3 Billion
      US - $16.2 Billion (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)

    17. Re:Let's not make fun.. by valmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All statistics you quote are government-donated funds. They do not take into account donations made from the private sector, companies and individuals. If you take those into account, America dwarfs everyone and leaves France far behind. Some countries tax their citizens more than others. Having grown-up in France, i know for a fact from both my parents that companies and individuals get taxed into oblivion.

      Having built my professional life in America, I know I can easily donate to relief organizations without straining my budget too much, and most of the time, write it off on my U.S. taxes, which means money that would otherwise go to the U.S. government now goes to Red Cross, with Uncle Sam's benediction.

      In the end, what matters is how much money relief organizations get, and which countries it's coming from. Let's see who's ahead in terms of income percentage.

      I gave $250 to redcross via amazon as soon as it went up.

      We're not martyrs. We're setting the record straight. And we're here to help.

      Salon is here to slander and make sensationalistic headlines. That's what sells. Use grains of salt and don't take everything you read at face value, and most certainly not anything I write. Do your own research.

    18. Re:Let's not make fun.. by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Not to examine your analogy too deeply, but

      an efficient ass rape would be quick

      an inefficient one would not be

    19. Re:Let's not make fun.. by kmccoy · · Score: 1

      If you want to help, donate cash. That is the best way to do it. Donate it to something like the international response fund of the American Red Cross (if you're in the US), or some other very well-known charity group. They can use cash to leverage very cheap buys of massive numbers of goods. And, more importantly, donating goods is great, but while doing so, perhaps you could also donate some free technology to teleport it over there. Getting the supplies to where they're needed is a significant part of the cost of relief. If a government like that of India is requested donations of goods and not cash, then let the Red Cross do the conversion in the most effecient way possible -- it's not like they're taking your cash and driving it around in trucks on the islands. In fact, the Red Cross doesn't even take donations of goods. http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_312_3877, 00.html

    20. Re:Let's not make fun.. by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Troll


      We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?

      Does that *really* cost anything extra?

      Here's a relevant link.

    21. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Brita bought here is cheaper than a water purifier bought in Madras

      Private individuals donating goods is a very bad idea. There are huge costs associated with collecting, sorting, cleaning, and SHIPPING the goods. It'd probably take a long time to get there anyway. Much better to donate cash so the charities can buy local goods (or nearby goods) and send those.

      Many charities specifically ask you not to donate goods for international disaster relief. So don't donate Brita filters or blankets or clothes. Give cash. Large charities with a good reputation are reasonably efficient. Sure, not 100% will go to the people in need, but they'll get most of it. And more importantly, they'll get it NOW when it's needed.

    22. Re:Let's not make fun.. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you do want to help, donate clothing/water purifiers like Brita more than cash. They atleast go the victims directly.

      Your post is an excellent example of why you should donate cash to organizations who have a good idea what the immediate needs are, rather then donate goods when you don't understand what the problem is.

      People have immediate needs for food, medicine and clean drinking drinking water. Clothing comes afterwards. Brita filters are useless against raw sewage, bad chemicals from the flooded factories, and salt water from the ocean.

      Clothing may be helpful, but it is more efficient for the clothing to be shipped from the unaffected areas in Asia, where the vast majority of clothing is manufactured anyways.

      Even if some of the money is stolen due to corruption, it's better then shipping a ton of plastic water filters to people who can't use them.

    23. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether the international poverty pimps like Oxfam like it or not, there is a strong sentiment in the US that it's giving too much. For many, having the Federal Govt allocate 1 cent for foreign aid is too much. It would be better spent here. Besides, those articles are only referring to % of GDP, not the actual amounts allocated. So as "the rich are getting richer", they are still giving more and more. This only counts govt donations and not private ones. But, hey given that over 43% of France's GDP is sucked up by taxes, I doubt the ave Frenchman has anything left to give.

    24. Re:Let's not make fun.. by the_partisan · · Score: 0
      Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid.

      And that's FAR too much of our income being hijacked (taxes) to send off to Turd World shitholes.

      Let them all die. Those who steal from me need to be shot.

    25. Re:Let's not make fun.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If you aren't close to the relief efforts, then you have no idea what needs are already fufilled and which are not. Giving money is more useful because it lets the relief agaencies portion it out to what is needed, as opposed to, for example, getting 10,000 water purifiers and 1,000 generators when what they needed was 10,000 generators and 1,000 water purifiers (made up exmaple).

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    26. Re:Let's not make fun.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid.
      ?
      The government - yes. the individuals - no. Next time try reading the preceeding posts first. If you add the private donations of citizens within countries to the government donations made by those countries, then the US is not stingy in the slightest. It ends up outdoing all the European countries, for example.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    27. Re:Let's not make fun.. by mpe · · Score: 1

      USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.

      Even more important is who this "aid" goes to. The worst form of aid appears to be that given by governments to other governments, especially that which goes to rich and/or corrupt governments.
      IIRC the US has recently cut the amount of money given to NGOs. But not that going to questionable governments.

    28. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
      Australia - $1.2 Billion
      France - $7.3 Billion
      US - $16.2 Billion (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)

      Australia: $1.2bn
      p/capita: ~$60
      %GDP(PPP): 0.2%

      France: $7.3bn
      p/capita: ~$120
      %GDP(PPP): 0.4%

      USA: $16.2bn
      p/capita: ~$60
      %GDP(PPP): 0.15%
    29. Re:Let's not make fun.. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?

      Does that *really* cost anything extra?


      For a vehicle that measures fuel efficiency in gallons-per-foot I would say the answer is yes.

    30. Re:Let's not make fun.. by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not sure how to translate GPF into nuke useage and I'll bet that the guys aboard are all hooo-hah! about helping people that are in distress. They get paid anyway and if the carrier fleet's budget gets cut next year I'll understand.

      Nice try.

    31. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Australia's $1.2B and Americas $16.2B when worked out based on population is roughly the same per person (although australia is better).

      US $16.2B / 293M = ~$55 per head
      AU $1.2B / 19.9M = ~$60 per head

      http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo s/ us.html
      http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factb ook/geos/ as.html

    32. Re:Let's not make fun.. by nathanh · · Score: 1
      The government - yes. the individuals - no. Next time try reading the preceeding posts first. If you add the private donations of citizens within countries to the government donations made by those countries, then the US is not stingy in the slightest. It ends up outdoing all the European countries, for example.

      No, it still doesn't. Including private flows it seems the Netherlands tops the list, beating the US by a factor of 1.8x.

      See my other posts for the darker side of private flows. They include investments and loans by companies. Not benevolent acts, but ways of gaining a foothold in a foreign country without paying US taxes. The majority of private flows are from this insidious form of "charity".

    33. Re:Let's not make fun.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I din't say private flows. I said individual investments.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    34. Re:Let's not make fun.. by valmont · · Score: 1

      speaking of helping, i put together this handy page to place an amazon donate badge on someone's site.

      please spread the word. and donate.

    35. Re:Let's not make fun.. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fuckoff.

      Do you know what the US pays for a single one of its carriers? The USA is far and away the wealthiest nation on the planet. The USA is stingy -- any way you slice it.

      $400 billion defense budget. to kill people.

      dont run off at the mouth about the good you people do when you spend far more doing ill.

    36. Re:Let's not make fun.. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      $400 billion defense budget. to kill people./
      dont run off at the mouth about the good you people do when you spend far more doing ill.


      Oh, shut up. If you think we're a sick country for having a well-funded military (ha!) then you should perhaps read some history.

      Note that I didn't say I agreed totally with what our Wise and Benevolent Leaders are doing with our military, just that I think that anyone who criticizes military funding in this day and age is a shortsighted idiot.

      Happy New Years,

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    37. Re:Let's not make fun.. by mcbevin · · Score: 1
      Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!)


      Couldn't ignore this. Theres lots of Cuban exiles in American who send money back to their families in Cuba. I'm guessing this is what you consider 'private aid' in reaching your $2.9 billion total? You probably also realise that this total is dwarfed by the cost to Cuba of the sanctions the US continues to impose on Cuba - sanctions repeatedly condemned by the UN every year for the past dozen or so years.

      Note I'm not a communist or even defending Cuba's regime or anything - just want to correct any misimpression your statement might cause.

      Personally it makes me sick when we rich countries cause unmeasurable damage to poor countries by our farming subsidies / tarifs (both Europe and US at fault here) (or sanctions as in the case of Cuba) and then claim to be helping them by throwing a few million in 'aid' at them - aid which often causes more harm than good (I just got back from a trip to Africa and its depressing to see + hear what our 'aid' achieves). The sad thing is that these subsidies / tarifs are of very dubious benefit to our economies - thus the cost to us to remove them would be little if anything, and the benefit to poor countries immense. Yet everyone from anti-globalisation leftists who are supposed to have the poor country's interests in mind to government lobbyists to politicians looking for the populist vote ensure this never happens.
    38. Re:Let's not make fun.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I just got back from a trip to Africa and its depressing to see + hear what our 'aid' achieves

      I'm curious: could you be a bit more specific?

    39. Re:Let's not make fun.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > They get paid anyway and if the carrier fleet's budget gets cut next year I'll understand.

      Well, I doubt that will happen. Government inefficiency dictates that if they used their entire "gas" budget this year (wisely or not) they must need more for next year. So the management-type beurocrats want that thing to move as much as possible, to up their budget projections for next year, to get more money to waste in even more imaginative ways.

      Which is not to imply this event is a "waste," but how is an aircraft carrier going to help people who lost their homes? What, are they going to give them shelter there? Those things have plenty of space, but I don't think that will happen. Housing thousands of civilians on a military craft seems... unlikely.

    40. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good point.

      (posted AC because there isn't any real purpose to this post & don't want to waste +1 browsers' time)

    41. Re:Let's not make fun.. by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking kidding me?

      It's no surprise that the US spent money to rebuild the US.
      You'd spend more for lifesaving surgery for yourself than you would for a random stranger, wouldn't you?
      Part of being part of the US is knowing the other states will help in times of need.
      And who gives a shit about rate?
      Look at actual - the US GDP is enormous.
      A small percentage of a large number can be larger than a large percent of a small number.
      I assume a recepient of aid is concerned with magnitude, not percentage.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    42. Re:Let's not make fun.. by rycodge · · Score: 1

      Aircraft carriers can proccess many many gallons of sea water and turn it into drinking water. This might be a bit helpful when drinking conditions are comparable to the ganges river.

    43. Re:Let's not make fun.. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      shortsighted, if the goal is American Empire.

      Is this the worthy goal you support?

  104. this whole thing is so sad by m2bord · · Score: 1

    but one has to wonder if anything would've helped reduce the loss of life. warning systems can help but what does one do when one lives on an island that is at sea level? even the tallest buildings would be susceptible if anything happens to one of their supports. this is truly a horrific event and my heart and prayers go out to all those affected.

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
    1. Re:this whole thing is so sad by trongey · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a sad fact of human nature that the most popular places for people to congregate are almost always the most dangerous.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  105. Yes, you are a troll. by BurntHombre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And how much money have you donated?

  106. What a Warning can buy you by TheSync · · Score: 1

    "In November 1970, for example, a tropical cyclone, combined with a high tide, struck southeastern Bangladesh, leaving more than 300,000 people dead and 1.3 million homeless. In May 1985, a comparable cyclone and storm surge hit the same area. "This time," according to IDNDR Director Dr. Olavi Elo, "there was better local dissemination of disaster warnings and the people were better prepared to respond to them. The loss of life, although still high, was 10,000 or about 3% of that in 1970." When a devastating cyclone struck the same area of Bangladesh in May 1994, fewer than 1,000 people died."

    "The dramatic difference, according to Roundtable participant Mohammed Saidur Rahman, Director of the Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre, was a new early-warning system that allows radio stations to alert people in low-lying areas."

    source

  107. Since we've killed off the other top predators by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.
    All the more reason to have tsunami warnings.
  108. this is some sort of ad? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I mean really, deathmatch was cool and teamfortress was probably the greatest mod ever written, but "speeds up the earth"? C'mon. I don't believe that.

    In another note "The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves."
    Ah, Darwin moves in mysterious waves.

    --
    -Styopa
  109. And 3 milliseconds = 3/(1,000) of a second by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Your statement was off by a power of 10^5. That is a very large error.

    Your correction was off by a power of 10^2. That is a very large error.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:And 3 milliseconds = 3/(1,000) of a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Your statement was off by a power of 10^5. That is a very large error.

      > Your correction was off by a power of 10^2. That is a very large error.

      I think y'all must be working for NASA.

  110. Yellow Ribbon Magnet Inc. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I guess you equate death, fear, and misery with freedom. Now they can write letters to the editor of the local paper from the rubble that used to be their home (assuming the US doesn't shut the paper down). Lucky them!

    "$147,000,000,000..."

    I hope you don't bitch about your taxes come April. Don't complain about run down national parks, your grandma's medicare, rotten VA hospitals, and everything else that money could've gone to. For someone so patriotic you seem to put more importance in Iraq than you do in the US.

    "but at least I know my country _did_ something"

    Taking pride in pointless violence! Good for you! Sometimes the "solution" is worse than the problem.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  111. Change in geometry can effect Orbital Trajectory! by zwaffle · · Score: 1

    Actually, a change in the earth's shape/composition can alter its orbital trajectory around the sun.

    That's because of tidal effects: planets are soft and deform due to the gravitational forces they exert on eachother. Those plastic deformations result in friction, i.e. the gravitational energy is being converted into heat and orbits are modified.

    For example, the distance between the moon and the earth is slowly decreasing (in a distant future we will no longer observe solar eclipses!), and a similar effect exists between the sun and the earth.

    So a big change in the earth's tectonic plates could in theory affect tidal effects, hence the earth's orbit around the sun (but the effect is probably tiny).

    A change in the earth's inner composition could also modify its magnetic field, but I don't think that would affect its orbit around the sun.

  112. Why do you assume they are not? by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Most companies donate money to charity. Big and Small, doesn't matter. However they only have so much money to work with. Microsoft may have billions on paper, but if they tried to turn that into cash today it would be worth a lot less.

    1. Re:Why do you assume they are not? by silence535 · · Score: 1

      You mean the money people pay their DVDs, books, petrol and iPods with is not real cash cash? Money cash?

      Four billion dollars PROFIT per quarter and not a dime left liquide for helping out? C'mon!

      Granted, companies do spend some money on charity, but that is usually transferred to local charity organizations.

      -silence

      --
      Dyslectics of the world, untie!
    2. Re:Why do you assume they are not? by bogado · · Score: 1

      Most companies donate so they get tax reliefs for those donations, so they donate with money that would be destined to taxes. In exchange they can show in their pages/ads that they did help with X or Y. Enterprises don't loose a penny, only the govern pay.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    3. Re:Why do you assume they are not? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      If it were in the company's best interest to help out, they would. This is the sad reality of "company-worship" that many people get into -- thinking that companies should be some sort of social nanny is completely non-sensical, and the people running those companies know that.

      That profit you speak of isn't profit in the sense you can go out and spend profit that you make. That profit is actually OWNED by someone -- or a lot of someones. They're called shareholders.

      If the shareholders wish to do some (wait for it...) PROFIT-TAKING and sell their shares in the company and send money to the disaster areas, then they certainly can do so.

      In other words, if you're an investor you have the power to do exactly what you claim the company should do. And that power is rightly in your hands and in the hands of every BP stockholder.

      Claiming that a company should do it is just rationalization and trying to take the responsibiliy for being human out of the human's hands and into the pseudo-human entity called the Corporation.

      Governments are the entity in society that handles the "common good" type things, not Corporations.

      If Corporations seem greedy, it's many times because their shareholders demand it.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  113. The obvious joke by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen anyone make the obvious joke yet:

    "I told her I was going to make the earth move last night, and I sure did baby!"

    Ba-dum-dum!

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  114. This won't continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves."

    One word: Darwinism

  115. Iraq comparision by Gorimek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Many people are saying the extent of the disaster is hard to comprehend.

    One measure is that the death toll is approaching that of the Iraq war and may soon pass it, though any cost estimates are still less than a tenth of that.

    Or put in more flammable (but defendable) terms, this is almost as big a disaster as George W Bush.

    1. Re:Iraq comparision by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Funny (in the insane sence) thing is, more money will probably be spent on the war than ever will be on aid for this disaster.

      Even funnier is all this talk about detection and warning systems. How about we just not start wars instead? Can even use the saved money for aid and warning systems for natural disasters.

    2. Re:Iraq comparision by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Or get everyone to move away from coastlines and fault zones. One Problem solved. (flood planes are next).

    3. Re:Iraq comparision by Reignking · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US has helped move towns out of flood plains before -- on the Mississippi River.

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    4. Re:Iraq comparision by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I think the Peace On Earth idea is probably a much easier plan ;)

    5. Re:Iraq comparision by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      You mean peace on eathquake dont you?

  116. An ounce of prevention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thought I've had is: How can this be prevented in the future? Do coral reefs slow/stop tsunamis? Is it possible to construct something like a reef where there are none?
    I think a warning system (beyond the knowledge that if the sea receeds it's time to run like hell) is worthwhile, but how about a PREVENTION system? Does /. have any wisdom on this topic?

  117. Re:Rotation (will have no long term effect!) by otisg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the 3 microsecond effect (the Earth is now spinning a bit faster, shortening our day by about 3 microseconds) will have no long term effect. Our Moon has the drag effect on Earth anyway, continuously prolonging our days - about 15 microseconds per year.

    Aha, here is a bit about that from Wikipedia[1]:

    "The moment of inertia of Earth decreased a bit due to the earthquake. Because the angular momentum is conserved, this results in an increase of the angular velocity of Earth's rotation. In other words, the earthquake shortened the length of a day by as much as 3 s. However, due to tidal effects of the Moon, the Earth's rotation slows by 15 s per year. So any rotation speedup due to the earthquake will have no long-lasting effect at all."

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_ear thquake

    --
    Simpy
  118. I wonder by cmclean · · Score: 1

    how long it will be before I get my first "Help the victims of the tsunami, forward this mail to everyone you know and $company will donate $0.10 per person to the relief fund" chain email? Nothing is sacred to those shitheads.

    --
    "Any similarity between the hooting of a million eager monkeys and Slashdot is purely coincidental." -THEFLASHMAN
  119. Talk about a moronic post by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God!

    Your post made me mad, really. I've had to make a serious effort to remind myself that I should not fall to easy generalizations. No, most Americans are not like you. Most Americans are actually decent and caring people.

    Most Americans just happen to live in the same country as you. I don't even think that the proportion of selfish bastards is higher in the US than in other countries. It's just that, for some reason, selfish bastards are more vocal in the US than elsewhere.

    It's OK now, the burst of anger has receded. My faith and respect in the American people is unharmed. I'm even willing to consider that you didn't really think before posting and that you don't really mean that. But do you realize how hard you make it not to hate the US? Do you realize that you're a liability to your country?

    --

    It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
  120. Re:Don't donate -- let them deal with it themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear JackAss,

    After the Hayward fault lets go with the schools and apts and hospitals that were built on top of it and sudden the damage goes from "a jar of mayonnaise fell from the shelf of a grocery store and broke" to holy fuck alot of people are dead and homeless, get back to us. Obviously you weren't in East Oakland in 1989, digging people out of their cars with their legs crushed.

    BTW, I live near the Rogers fault a continuation of the Hayward fault and it has a 15% chance of a great earthquake between 2003 and 2032.

  121. Re: Trolling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, your country (and mine) sure _did_ something. We launched an unjust (and corrupt) war against a sovereign nation, effectively distracting its citizens from the real focus of necessary military action: finishing the Al Qaeda hunt in Afganistan/Pakistan.

    But you already knew that, didn't you?

    Bush on Osama: "Now you see him, now you don't!" I mean, come on. Who cares how much Iraq cost - even ONE penny was too much. A lot of people have died this weekend - let's keep our eyes on the prize, shall we?

    Okay, back to your soapboxes, everyone.

  122. NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Question to U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center, sedas [-AT-] neis.cr.usgs.gov: I haven't seen this discussed anywhere. Why didn't the NEIC call the U.S. State Department, so that they could warn people about the Tsunamis? The earthquake position and magnitude was known 6 hours before the waves arrived in Thailand, I understand. Wouldn't almost every person's life have been saved if Thailand, for example, had had warning? It is easy to find the telephone numbers of newspapers in beach cities in Thailand, for example, by searching with Google.

    1. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here you go: bq mailing list
      You can do it yourself next time, I got the first email at 6:15 PM PST that it was an 8.5, the quake happened at 5:00 PM PST so you would have still had time to call around after getting the email. I hadn't finished my parser for the emails to send really big ones to my phone yet, so I didn't see it till a few hours later.

    2. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did contact the State Department. The State Department also could not find contact information for disaster warnings.

      My guess is that now they know who to contact, perhaps even for all countries in the world.

    3. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      PS - I have received about 45 emails since then, all 5.5 Mag or greater, last one was:
      2004/12/29 13:20 M 5.6 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN Z= 8km 28.89N 130.44E
      Location with respect to nearby cities:
      300 km (185 miles) S of Kagoshima, Kyushu, Japan
      350 km (220 miles) SSW of Miyazaki, Kyushu, Japan
      405 km (255 miles) NE of Naha, Okinawa, Japan
      1155 km (720 miles) SW of TOKYO, Japan
      Most of the others are around Sumatra, so 40 or so aftershocks that are 5.5 or greater - pretty significant quake.
      I also get the Moment Tensor emails:
      04/12/26 00:58:50.76
      OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
      Epicenter: 3.298 95.778
      MW 8.2

      USGS MOMENT TENSOR SOLUTION
      Depth 7 No. of sta: 31
      Moment Tensor; Scale 10**21 Nm
      Mrr= 0.78 Mtt=-1.01
      Mff= 0.22 Mrt= 1.16
      Mrf=-1.27 Mtf= 0.49
      Principal axes:
      T Val= 1.95 Plg=54 Azm= 67
      N 0.12 17 311
      P -2.06 30 210

      Best Double Couple:Mo=2.0*10**21
      NP1:Strike=259 Dip=22 Slip= 37
      NP2: 135 77 108

      cool ascii art
      of the affected area
      filtered by /. goes here

      Location map at
      http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/FM/neic_slav_q.html

      To unsubscribe go to
      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/products/neic_data_ services.html
    4. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      New one:
      2004/12/27 08:37 M 5.7 NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA REGION Z= 30km 6.49N 93.26E

      This information is provided by the USGS
      National Earthquake Information Center.
      (Address problems to: sedas@ghtmail.cr.usgs.gov)

      These parameters are preliminary and subject to revision.

      A magnitude 5.7 earthquake IN THE NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA REGION has occurred at:
      6.49N 93.26E Depth 30km Mon Dec 27 08:37:38 2004 UTC

      Time: Universal Time (UTC) Mon Dec 27 08:37:38 2004
      Time Near Epicenter Mon Dec 27 14:07:38 2004
      Eastern Standard Time (EST) Mon Dec 27 03:37:38 2004
      Central Standard Time (CST) Mon Dec 27 02:37:38 2004
      Mountain Standard Time (MST) Mon Dec 27 01:37:38 2004
      Pacific Standard Time (PST) Mon Dec 27 00:37:38 2004
      Alaska Standard Time (AST) Sun Dec 26 23:37:38 2004
      Hawaii Standard Time (HST) Sun Dec 26 22:37:38 2004

      Location with respect to nearby cities:
      165 km (105 miles) S of Misha, Nicobar Islands, India
      255 km (160 miles) WNW of Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia
      1125 km (700 miles) SW of BANGKOK, Thailand
      2970 km (1850 miles) SE of NEW DELHI, Delhi, India

      For maps, additional information, and subsequent updates,
      please consult:
      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/ussn ap.htm .

      Flinn-Engdahl Region Number = 704

      For the most significant earthquakes, information may also be
      available from the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program home page at
      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ and the USGS home page at
      http://www.usgs.gov/ .

      You will continue to receive messages like this when
      earthquakes occur that have magnitude 5.5 or greater
      anywhere in the world OR 4.5 or greater in the contiguous
      US, Hawaii, and Alaska (excluding the Aleutian Islands).
    5. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by DrBobcf · · Score: 1

      The NEIC is not in the Tsunami prediction game. To predict that you need tide gauges along the coasts. Even then, you need to be able to get the warning out to ALL the cosatal villages - not possible. Even if the NEIC had been able to predict the wave (which they weren't) calling someone there would not have changed anything. No warning network in place, no way to get the warning out.

      --
      Don't mind me, I have more fun this way!
    6. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the NEIC hasn't studied Indian Ocean Tsunamis and didn't know what was likely to happen? Maybe because the countries in the area haven't installed any equipment to tell NEIC or anyone else what was happening? Maybe because it isn't the NEIC's job to issue such warnings? (The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center knows more, but the Indian Ocean countries are not participants.)

    7. Re:NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by mcwop · · Score: 1
      From the 12/29/04 WSJ Page B1

      Bayu Pranata was sipping tea shortly after starting his 7am shift at the Meteorology and Geophysics Agency in West Sumatra, Indonesia, about 500 miles south of the quake's epicenter, when he was disturbed by a "tak, tak, tak" sound. It was so loud he thought mechanics had started working in the garage next door. Then he realized it was the pen on the seismograph. He hurriedly called the National Earthquake Center in Jakarta, but ended up spending more than an hour trying to contact Indonesian disaster officials in vain.

      The quake was detected in Japan, and Australia. Austrailian seismology officials (knowing that it would likely create a Tsunami) notified some overseas embassies , but they did not pass on the info because it might overstep diplomatic protocal.

      This is a re-post.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  123. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry refered to 55 ft/day that is per/year but 4.63 ft month or about 1.8in/ day. So you have a month or two to move from next to ground zero to not be mistaken for a terroist bomb factory by a GPS weapon (if the GPS system is not updated).

  124. Re:Don't donate -- let them deal with it themselve by bahree · · Score: 1

    Umm, I think the person... err... Idiot who wrote this apparently is too busy with their head up in some part of their body to comprehend the reality here. Oh, and not to mention that the earthquake in CA (I happen to be in SFO then), was in the middle of nowhere with a total population of the area in 100's (and not thousands and millions). I think the person again forgest the devastating effects of the Tsunami in Hawaii in the 50's (or 60's - something like that I forget). Given his/her state of mind, I think we can have pity on him/her.

  125. Ummm HELLO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Even for a very large event, the effect is very small," Kanamori said. "It's very difficult to change the rotation rate substantially."

    Didn't any of these scientist fools ever see Superman 2?

  126. NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0


    Question to U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center, sedas [-AT-] neis.cr.usgs.gov:

    I haven't seen this discussed anywhere.

    Why didn't the NEIC call the U.S. State Department, so that they could warn people about the Tsunamis?

    The earthquake position and magnitude was known 6 hours before the waves arrived in Thailand, I understand. Wouldn't almost every person's life have been saved if Thailand, for example, had had warning?

    It is easy to find the telephone numbers of newspapers in beach cities in Thailand, for example, by searching with Google.

  127. Re:Don't donate -- let them deal with it themselve by klang · · Score: 1

    There hasn't been anything like this in the Indian Ocian the last 300 years (longer than history, for you, mr. A.C.) which is partly why they don't plan for things like this.

    As of now, 78.000 people have been confirmed dead in the area. Officials expect the number to reach (100.000) one hundred thousand, from several different countries. .. and you tell them to fend for themselves? wow!

  128. TSUNAMI VIDEO by wh173b0y · · Score: 2, Informative
    heres some footage of the wave as it coms into a resturant.

    http://www.big-boys.com/articles/tsunami.html

  129. Problem... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    What's the drill for New York and Miami when this happens?

    My guess is, absolutely none.

    So, if this mega-tsunami happens sometime after midnight eastern time, the evacuation is going to be something like "wake the neighbours".

    I'm not sure even I have the solution to this. Should you create an alarm system for something that just may never happen or take hundreds of years possibly? On the other hand, if you don't, you've got millions of deaths going to occur.

    Best thing is probably to blow the thing up.

    1. Re:Problem... by DeeFresh · · Score: 1

      During the Cold War there was a lot of Civil Defense-related research for their crisis relocation program that came to the conclusion that it was impossible to fully evacuate any of the major American cities. The infrastructure does not exist to accomplish an evacuation in time. I don't think things have changed enough since the end of the Cold War for the situation to be any different today.

      Link to a discussion on evacuating NYC in the event of a mega-tsunami: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php ?t=293790/

    2. Re:Problem... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Impossible period? Or impossible in less than N hours? Missiles take 20-40 or so minutes to cross the world, the Tsunami being talked about would take 5 hours, subtract overhead-want-to-be-sure-etc, we'd have 4 hours for an evacuation.

      IIRC the core of Toronto grows by 300,000 to 500,000 people during the day due to people commuting in, and that's not with cars packed to capacity. I think that with 5 hours warning you could evacuate all 2 million people from a place like Toronto.

      Now the Island of NY... no idea. I betcha someone smart in the City of NY govt has worked the numbers what with all the disaster planning and prearedness of late. One of their plans would be usable for something like this... ...probably the one where they get solid intel that there's a nuke somewhere in NewYork and it's set to go off at Xpm.

    3. Re:Problem... by AA1 · · Score: 0

      During the cold war they were worried about nukes. If a nuke were to be launched at NYC, you would have to relocate everyone in the area quite a long way from the 'danger zone', correct? For the tsunami you would just have to get the people that are too close to shore, and you only need to get them far enough that the wave cant reach them with enough force to pose a threat. I'm sure that is very possible with 5-6 hours warning.

    4. Re:Problem... by Wudbaer · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between some hundred thousand people more or less peacefully commuting and even half this amount of people panicky trying to get away from somewhere in a hurry.

      Think of the proverbial person crying "fire" in a crowded theatre; normally the same amount of people would leave the theatre and the end of the show without any trouble in a couple of minutes; in case of emergency, everyone tries to get away in a hurry, thus creating chaos and traffic jams.

      Remember 9/11; an event that had a very localized effect on Southern Manhattan nevertheless bringing down traffic all over the area and requiring people to walk for hours and hours to clear Manhattan.

      In theory all of those emergencies would be no problem at all if everyone kept quiet and the authorities reacted without delay and 100% correctly; in practice there will be widespread panic and fuck-ups in emergency management so that nothing gets done as planned.

  130. Re:Atlantic Ocean -vs- Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortuantely most people just don't look at the two oceans, especially their underwater attributes.

    Both the Pacific and Indian Oceans have very small if non existant shelves. There is simply deep ocean and then land rising up very quickly.

    The Atlantic Ocean has a large shelf that protrudes well out to sea on the east coast of the US. This can significantly reduce the effects of Tsunamis (which are the displacemnt of water). Think of it this way, the Tsunami will "break" hundreds of miles out to sea and then flow in to the east coast of the US.

    This may mean extremely high tides and localized flooding, but very unlikely to create the situations seen commonly in Japan and this week in SE Asia.

    Go do some *BASIC* research and get back to us, eh?

  131. What happens if an earth quake moves Greenwich? by stry_cat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Alright this slightly off topic, but I want to know.
    What happens if an earthquake moves Greenwich? Does 0 degrees longitude (and thus everything else) move with it?

  132. Re:£15mil not $15mil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    actually it's 15 million pounds not 15 million dollars. That's about 28.7 million dollars.
    I don't think this really affects the good point you are making though.

  133. Almost - it's the world maps that are upside down by origamy · · Score: 2, Funny

    The northern hemisphere is heavier, and as such, forces all continents to move "downwards". It's called gravity.

    Why else would all the continents have tips on their upper part, as if the mass was dripping down? (turn your maps upside down to see this!).

    Happy Holidays!
    http://www.origamy.com.br/xmas2005

  134. You Don't Understand Your Sig Do You? by Black-Man · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What a joke!! Another one of your Democratic Hero's who also happened to be a slave owner!

    He made those remarks about Hamilton - his and Jefferson's enemy who also happened to be an abolitionist - which greatly angered these slave holding "gentleman". All the while whooping it up over the great French Revolution, of course ignoring the slaughter the eventual coup from Napeoeon. I guess he was their 'hero' too!

  135. Obligatory French Joke by ack154 · · Score: 1

    But did you really expect more out of the French?

  136. You can send the check then by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

    I pay enough in taxes already. You can send them the check for the services to monitor other countries problems such as this. Nothing is free.

  137. mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1, Jackass

  138. Greaaaat..... by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

    Even less time between shifts at the office!

    --
    VD
  139. compression would slow earth down, not by Blitzenn · · Score: 0

    Further compression of the earth's mass would actually slow the earth down, not speed it up. Someone has there physics in a wad. Think of it this way. If you are being swung in a cricle and you then extend your legs. The result is that you swing faster, because your mass is distributed further from the center of the rotation. Not the other way around. Freaking dorks don't know what they are talking about. Secondly, the earth did not change it's mass, so travel around the sun is NOT going to be effected in the slightest. It would take an outside force to effect that, not an inside one.

    1. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why when spinning skaters pull their arms and legs in they spin so much slower.

      And yes, your velocity will only ever change if your mass does. This explains how swingsets (kicking your legs) and rocking chairs work. Obviously shifting your center of gravity has no effect.

      If more slashdot geniuses like yourself would speak up more often you could really straighten out the so called experts.

    2. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me???

      Sit in a stool that spins. Give it a whirl, pull your legs in, and then push them out. You spin much slower with your legs out. Basically, a wheel is a lever. The fulcrum is the pivot point and the load is the radius of the circle. The further the load is from the fulcrum, the greater the force is needed to move the load the same speed. The force is is provided by momentum so no additional force can be added. It's a trade off, the greater distance traveled, the less effective the lever, and vice versa.

      Sounds like you need a lesson in physics...

      http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/simple.html

      --
      VD
    3. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by uncadonna · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I've got mod points but there's no "-1 wrong" on the pulldown. mt

      --
      mt
    4. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      Remember relativity? Where are you measuring from? What is your perspective or how are you relative to the measurement? If you stick your feet out, the speed at which your feet are moving is actually faster than if they were retracted. Your eyes, on the other hand, are at the center or axis and move slower. Your feet actually move at a greater distance per unit of time than when they are tucked in, despite your perception. The measurement at the axis of spin, IS going to be slower. Try it and measure it yourself.

      I will remind you that we live on the outer crust of the earth, not in the mantel or core. So our perspective on the speed, at the crust's surface, is going to be different than that at the core.

      Try to remember your University physics! It really doesn't matter. The dude is speaking out his butt, because he really doesn't know if the earth compressed, expanded or simply burped. There is currently no way for measuring the result definitavely, so the point is mute and wasted to begin with.

    5. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      Remember relativity? Where are you measuring from? What is your perspective or how are you relative to the measurement? If you stick your feet out, the speed at which your feet are moving is actually faster than if they were retracted. Your eyes, on the other hand, are at the center or axis and move slower. Your feet actually move at a greater distance per unit of time than when they are tucked in, despite your perception. The measurement at the axis of spin, IS going to be slower. Try it and measure it yourself.

      I will remind you that we live on the outer crust of the earth, not in the mantel or core. So our perspective on the speed, at the crust's surface, is going to be different than that at the core.

      Try to remember your University physics! Oh, sorry I forgot you failed that course!

    6. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point...when the Earth is compressed, the radius decreases...you are closer to the mantel but with the same total mass, just like pulling in your legs on the spinning stool. This will cause your revolutions/unit of time to increase. We are not measuring the speed of a point on the outer edge of the sphere, but the rate of revolution.

      Try this yourself on the spinning stool...count how long it takes to make 1 revolution with your legs out, then count how long it takes to make one revolution with you legs in. And with this measurement, it doesn't matter where your point of perspective is.

      Feel free to fire back if you still think I'm wrong.

      --
      VD
    7. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      If you are measuring degrees turned per second that is right. I was countering the charge that the speed, feet per second at the surface would be faster. That would be false. The speed that the surface of the sphere is actually moving at less feet per second that before. There are a lot move formulas that need to be considered when trying to determine if the surface of the earth actually sped up or slowed down. The big one is determining if the core sped up or slowed down, as it actually turns at a different rate than the surface. The second is to find the new apparent center of the mass and figure out a change in gravity has resulted in the change in the denisty and position of the center of the mass as it relates to the center of the axis it is spinning on. There can then, and only then, be some calculations done to figure out how the revolutions are effected as the fulcrum of the new mass center versus the axis center has changed. You then can reverse the equations and determine if the speed at the surface of that sphere has sped up or slowed down as a result of the compression.

      It simply is not as easy as taking a simple experiment as spinning on a stool and drawing in your legs. The two are similar, but not completely relational. The arguement seems in conflict with the common sense answer, but the physics of the whole set of equations, taking into account how a possibly denser mass would effect the gravity of the sun we revolve around, (or more simply, but more incorrect, how the suns gravity effects us with a change in mass), is much much more complex. It's almost the same arguement as a flat earth and a round earth. You have to look at the bigger picture. The rotation of the earth is actually a result of the sun's gravity, not the other way around. I know it seems wrong to a lot of people, but it really isn't. The deep set of equations proves, (or really thoery), that out.

    8. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      Here is an experiment you can do to understnad what I am driving at. It is much more representative of of reality than the simply stool trick. Take a bed sheet suspend it by it's four edges and put a heavy sphere in the middle. Now find two sphere's of the same weight but substantially different diameters. We only want the different diameters largely differnt so you can see the effect of a compressed mass as opposed to one that is not compressed. Roll the larger shpere around the dimple or depression that is made by the larger sphere in the middle of the sheet. Take the smaller mass and roll it in exactly the same way as the larger mass of the same weight. observe what happens to the rotation of the smaller mass as it travels forward.

      My arguement is based on more forward science that 1940's grade school physics here. It based on the theory that the earth spins as an result of an outside force, not it's own, and revovles around the suns as a result of the gravitational effects of the sun's mass, not the earth's. This is standard accepted astro physics. The earth is not the center of the cause and effect equation. The sun is to is. The smaller mass with the same has a different result based on that than if you only accept the earth in the equation and forget why the earth spins in the first place.

      I feel like a lone sane person in an insane assylum trying to explain this. I know that it is right, but I am not sure how to explain it on a simple enough level so that it is understood. I am flabbergasted and astounded that some 'scientist' today would have the lack of understanding to make such a statement and not take into account the larger cause and effect picture that you must to determine the outcome. It's quite frustrating and annoying. I keep trying though. Maybe some day someone will look back and say, "Yea he was right! Poor soul got laughed out of the public forum, but he was right."

    9. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explaination. Admittedly, I did not major in Physics in college and the only classes I took were the required physics (mostly basic physical sciences) and Electromagnetism. So Astrophysics is not my background. Can you post a URL that describes this in mathematical terms? I swear if this string theory, I'm not going to bother, but oh well.

      I actually have a brother who is getting is doctorate in physics so I'll aslo run this by him. Not that I'm saying you're wrong or that what he says will be right, but I will look into it.

      Ultimately this yet again proves you can not trust what other people say or publish (again, not that either is right or wrong, just trust). But again, you've sparked my interest and I would like to learn about how this article is wrong.

      Look forward to your post!

      --
      VD
    10. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

      In following my last post, I came across this. Granted it is from a BA in Physics, but it backs up my point. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae201 .cfm I will surely like to get your references before I make a personal judgement. On a side, this is an example of good use of this forum. Not just ripping on people (even though I started that way in my infite wisdom), but explaining and provided information for one to come to their own conclusions. Thanks!

      --
      VD
    11. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moving slower if contracted...and relativity in there...no no my friends...its much simpler than that...Conservation of angular momentum which is the speed of rotation times the moment of intertia....in the absence of external torque this angular momentum is conserved. thus, when you pull your legs in (or when the earth contract) the moment of intertia decreses (since more mass is closer to the axis and moment of inertia is defined as the integral of the mass times the radius squared) so the speed of rotation has to increase

    12. Re:compression would slow earth down, not by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      My supposition is based on M theory, (better known as string theory). M Theory has been heralded as the 'unifying' theory of all of the different 'string theories' that have been published. There are those who strongly disagree that M theory is any better than any other supposition and is a wild stab in the dark. I think that it is an elegant explaination of all of the different theories that are currently out there and even explains why those different theories may all be right in their own regard. It is not something that I can explain in a reply and I am not sure where there may be a decent write up of it on the web. M Theory, as stated, is a unifying strategy for the other String Theories that are out there. Here is a simple overview of them, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.ht ml and http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.html . The largest point within the theory that I am standing on is the gravitron. No, not the ride at the midway, the particle (if we can really use the word particle here).

      The hardest thing for people to understand today seems to be that we do not yet have ANY understanding of the cause of gravity. We know it's effects via Newton's observations and subsequent theories, but nothing exists on the causal side of the equation. the gravitron is a proposed theory for that causal side, but still just a theory. I, for one, think that it is by far the best explaination that we have to date and stand by it, so far. Where does our understanding of gravity go from there if we were to suppose that it were truth? No one really knows, again. Probably CERN's new collider will give us some insight here if it can really detect those heavy 'particles' that are thought to drop out of the current collection areas.

      The basis of my frustration is this; the prediction of the 'wobble' and speed change is based on the old set of theories without regard to string and/or particle physics and the possible existence of the gravitron. If that one point is ever found to be true, then this prediction most probably would prove to be false. Why? That might take a document on the scale of several hundred pages to explain. Stated as short as possible understanding that it will inject suppositional errors? Well, that would have to be that a change in the position of a portion of the earth's mass, while equally displacing other portions of mass, will not effect the overall distribution of gravitrons being cause to pass through our dimension(s). It would litterally take an outside addition or subtraction of mass or energy to produce the effect that they are proclaiming has happened.

      I am frustrated trying to put this into layman's terms, as you can possibly tell. I would be interested in your brother's take on this too.

  140. paypal donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does anyone know if their are any legitimate websites taking paypal donations for the relief effort?

  141. there goes the extra sleep time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ack - there goes my sleep time.

  142. OT: physics by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 0
    Heh, I'm not an anything major (before, I was a Comp. Sci and then later a music major in college), but I'm a physics geek. At least in the sense that I enjoy reading Stephen Hawkings, Brian Greene (got the DVD of his NOVA series, really interesting animation examples of concepts like Brane Theory), etc...

    Right now I'm reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. Very interesting in that it talks about some of the non-physics implications of the mastering of space-time such as direction of technology and impact on the future of civilizations. Check it out if you haven't yet.

    Email me for more discussion.

    </off-topic tangent>
    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    1. Re:OT: physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are a Hyper-Text-Markup-Geek as well.

  143. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by NoData · · Score: 1

    Sorry, doesn't the DoD regularly recallibrate known GPS satellite positions against the "fixed" stars anyway to check for ephemeris errors? I don't think we have to worry about this from a GPS perspective very much at all.

    I found this incredbily useful:
    Trimble's tutorial on GPS.

  144. Devastating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To put this in more perspective: more people died with this single wave than in the Vietnam or Korean wars (US death toll), which were both in the 50,000s if I recall correctly. Incredibly traggic.

  145. Per Capita: Wrong metric by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Interesting
    > > [derivation of $350 spent per tsunami victim snipped for brevity]
    > >$147000000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
    > > 17000 - rough number of Iraqis killed
    > > = $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi
    > >I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.
    >
    >$147,000,000,000 - spent on war in Iraq
    >25,000,000 - number of people freed from dictator
    >= $5880 - spent to free an individual
    > I'm proud to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but at least I know my country _did_ something.

    Suppose we drop a cheap ($10M) set of nukes across Baghdad and in doing so, kill 1,000,000 people.

    $147,010,000,000 spent.
    1,017,000 Iraqis dead.
    24,000,000 Iraqis liberated.

    That comes out to:
    $1,445,526 - spent to kill each Iraqi, and
    $61,204 - spent to free an individual.

    In short, the nuclear annihilation of 1,000,000 civilians would cut the cost of each preventable civilian death by 85%, while simultaneously boosting per capita humanitarian spending per capita by 20%. And somehow both of you would regard this as an improvement?

    I'm ashamed when Americans attempt to optimize the wrong metric. Call me a QA weenie if you want, but at least I know something about process engineering!

    1. Re:Per Capita: Wrong metric by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Call me a QA weenie if you want, but at least I know something about process engineering!

      (Dividing by ten is another story. $6,120 - not $61204. But the "20%" figure was correct :)

    2. Re:Per Capita: Wrong metric by Revek · · Score: 1

      'I'm ashamed when Americans attempt to optimize the wrong metric. Call me a QA weenie if you want, but at least I know something about process engineering!'

      lovely bull but all your saying is that your opinion is better than ours. Which of course is what we are saying about you. 70,000+ dead and you are worried about the wrong things

  146. Re:PDF Format by KrackHouse · · Score: 1
    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  147. Laser ring measurement by hedley · · Score: 1

    The 'wobble' known as Chandlers wobble can be measured using a Laser Ring Inferometer.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=35042 68

    It's pretty cool tech actually, a rediculously precise table with a laser split at a corner travelling around the corners via mirrors reflecting back to the source. The slight phase difference in the beams is measurable. This phase difference is actually how your 777 flies from A to B with 3 laser ring gyros one for each axis.

    Hedley

    1. Re:Laser ring measurement by hedley · · Score: 1
  148. Re:Don't donate -- let them deal with it themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I resent being made to feel that I owe something to the third world because they don't plan/build to withstand disasters the way we do here in the United States.

    Right...so you realy think there are defences in place that will protect the East and West coast from tsunamis like the one that struck SE Asia?

    Please get your head out of your ass!

  149. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by drew · · Score: 1

    i believe the earth's rotation already varies slightly from year to year and day to day as a result of weather patterns and normal seismic activity. so while this may be a larger than usual one time change, there is nothing to say that it won't reverse itself due to other eartquakes or volcanic eruptions sometime in the future.

    i'm also pretty sure that the gps satellites are regularly repositioned slightly, and that they carry enough fuel to last some time, besides which, they would only have to be adjusted once to make up for the change, not continually. all they have to do is move a few feet (or maybe even less- to lazy to do the math at the moment) closer to the earth, and they will speed up appropriately to match the new period of earth's rotation.

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  150. Would you save the lives of 5,000 people for $20? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Using Skype.com software, and a broadband connection, it would have been possible for a single person in the U.S., using SkypeOut, to call telephones in Thailand for an hour for just a few U.S. dollars. Would you save the lives of 5,000 people if it cost only $20 and an hour of your time? Of course!!!!

    It is VERY easy to find the phone numbers of hotels and newspapers in Thailand, for example, using Google. Just tell everyone that, if they see the water receding, they have just a few minutes to get to safety.

  151. Not that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kanamori said. "It's very difficult to change the rotation rate substantially."

    Unless you're an angry Superman trying to save Lois.

  152. Quake's a great game but come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't expect that marketing spin to sell more games...

    Oh, what storm?

  153. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    I would hope so. I would hope they do that update soon as we undoubtedly are starting to slip.

  154. You forgot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being an evil dictator, hated by the world: Priceless

  155. SHOULD prove the point to all you lefties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WE (people) don't do anywhere near the damage to
    this planet than the planet does to itself! It is
    no coincidence that the "ozone hole" is over one of the largest ACTIVE volcanoes! Again, see the
    last chapter Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton
    has a wonderful essay, that says it much better
    than I can.

    1. Re:SHOULD prove the point to all you lefties! by valkraider · · Score: 1

      WE (people) don't do anywhere near the damage to this planet than the planet does to itself!

      So because Hitler killed millions, it makes it OK for me to kill 1 since it is not anywhere near the damage?

      Damn. I ended my own argument.

  156. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    Yes but a catostrophic event like this may translate to a larger than planned orbital correction which would reduce the lifetime of the satalite. More likely a software correction would be made. I don't whether the handheld devices "know" where satalites are supose to be, or whether the satelite tells the devide where it is. I the former then orbit correction needed, the later, just prgramming change.

    The Geosycnronous satelites have more of a task as they need to re-position to maintain station. Their lifetimes have just been shortened.

  157. At Last! by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    This week's deadly Asian Quake and Tsunami may have been so powerful, that it changed the rate of Earth's rotation.

    At last, my evil plan is coming to fruition. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ......

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  158. Re:Let me get this straight by DrBobcf · · Score: 1

    No, we only got to where the earth would have been at that time in its rotation 3 mircoseconds faster. Drat!!! Now I've got that much less time today!!! The fact that this happened when we did NOT have daylight savings time in effect makes it worse. This is undoubtedly a plot to steal time from us. Now to counter-act this we have to get everyone to wind thier watches at the same time. . .

    My brand new GPS system is now going to be off too, THAT's why I couldn't find the car keys!!

    Seriously, how much shift would it take for the GPS satellites to be affected? My brain is in low gear today, I suspect an alteration in the rotational axis would have more of an effect than a 3 microsecond alteration in the time of rotation.

    --
    Don't mind me, I have more fun this way!
  159. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by canavan · · Score: 1

    No, they recalibrate to a ground station.

  160. This is why I'm through with Slashdot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reading Slashdot since 1997. Trolls have always been annoying, but as for the *hundreds* of flamebait/troll comments on the recent tsunami threads...well, I don't know if I've ever seen such unbelievable indifference to the value of human lives--or such stunning ignorance.

    I'm not trying to make a statement by leaving Slashdot forever or anything like that, but I doubt I'm the only person who's swearing off comments and sticking to the headlines after reading some of this trash. It makes me ashamed to have a /. account. Unbelievable.

    1. Re:This is why I'm through with Slashdot comments by TaintedPastry · · Score: 1
      amen.

      Maybe video games really do desensitize the masses to terrrible events, violence and death.

    2. Re:This is why I'm through with Slashdot comments by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I don't know if I've ever seen such unbelievable indifference to the value of human lives

      Am I supposed to shed a tear every time a person dies in this world? Hell, half the population of my town could die right now and it wouldn't affect me too much (except that I work at a hospital), as long as it wasn't something contageous or directly threatening to me in some other way.

      It's not just Slashdot, it's all over the world. Slashdot just happens to have a younger-than-average population that isn't going to have a pity party for every family that loses someone. Take notice every time someone dies and take a few seconds of your day to give a moment of silence for them. Might want to do some of them consecutively, though, because 150-200 people die every minute, worldwide.

      Or are you saying that these people's deaths are more important because they happened all at once? If everyone affected died (IE, the population of an entire country GONE) you might find us a bit more willing to be awed. This was a natural event, we had no control over it. It's a shame to someone when anyone dies, but please don't expect me to take it personally every time.

      If one person dies, it's a tragedy. If a million die, it's a statistic. Still true.

      Oh and in case you are worried about a person like me working at a hospital, don't: I don't deal with patients. :)

  161. flock you by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves."

    Call it the Darwinian Warning System

  162. In other news... by joppabukowski · · Score: 1

    http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/041217/b121706.html/ Rather than reporting on the disaster, Fox News have been harping on about how the world hates America. I wonder if they ever had a "memo of the day" about this story.

    1. Re:In other news... by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

      That's why "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.

      ~G

  163. BAD MATH (was Re:Donations) by Zathras11 · · Score: 1

    147000000000 / 25000000 Iraqis SAVED from a brutal dictator and his crazy sons (who took freshly married women from their husbands to have sex with them, and who threw people into plastic shredders for fun; head first for a quick bit of fun and feet first for loads of fun -- ie SCREAMS) = $5880.00 per life SAVED! Money well spent. The amount we give is the amount we give. It is ours to decide. And it is usually (almost ALWAYS) more than the combined giving of all others, so back the fuck off. And I don't see anyone lined up to aid us when we have problems (911). We seem to be able to handle ourselves. And I hear Sri Lanka turned DOWN aid, because it was from Israel. Oh, to have that luxury! By the way, I'm ashamed that you are an American too! Your numbers are sickening, and biased. If you don't like it here, I believe Canada is accepting applications...

    1. Re:BAD MATH (was Re:Donations) by Zathras11 · · Score: 1

      ORIGINAL MESSAGE I REPLIED TO:

      **BEGIN QUOTE**
      Donations (Score:3, Insightful)
      by supersmike (563905) on Wednesday December 29, @10:09AM (#11208975)
      I'll donate this evening
      The U.S. will donate $35 million. Let's see...

      $35000000 - amount committed to help victims
      100000 - conservative death toll
      = $350 - spent to aid each victim

      $147000000,000 - spent [costofwar.com] on war in Iraq
      17000 - rough number of Iraqis killed
      = $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi

      I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.
      **END QUOTE**

  164. Let Darwin Reign by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    "The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves."

    Call me crazy, but isn't it these very type of people we DON'T want living with us?

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  165. Any magnitude 9 earthquake at sea causes tsunamis. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    What you said does not seem right to me.

    Any magnitude 9 earthquake at sea, 10 KM down, can be presumed to cause Tsunamis. If I had known about it in time, 10 of my friends could have called 10 of their friends, and we would have had 100 person-hours of calling. We could have notified hundreds of thousands of people, assuming a little cooperation from the people in the nations we were calling.

    It is easy to show that such a call is not a hoax. Tell anyone who will listen that, when the water recedes an unusual amount, there is only a very short time to get to safety. It doesn't take much to get to safety from a 20-foot wave, assuming there is higher land nearby, or a strong building behind other strong buildings.

  166. Shorter days? by kavau · · Score: 1
    the quake compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds

    Darn. This means the days are getting even shorter. I hoped the change was for the better.... (walks off to pour another cup of coffee)

    1. Re:Shorter days? by thisgooroo · · Score: 1
      you forget yhe job situation: the days will stay as long as before, but the will shorten the night.

      damn, i'm going to lose some sleep over this

  167. Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from Philadelphia, and last night I sent $5,000 to the Red Cross for their International Response program. Today, I'm sending $2,500 to Doctors Without Borders and (just to be a selfish American prick) $1,750 to sponsor training for a guide dog puppy at Southeastern Guide Dogs in Florida.

    That's almost 2% of my 2004 income.

    So fuck you, you piece of shit. What have you done for humanity lately?

    1. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget to write those off when tax time comes around.

    2. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      ..from Philadelphia, and last night I sent $5,000 to the Red Cross for their International Response program. Today, I'm sending $2,500 to Doctors Without Borders and (just to be a selfish American prick) $1,750 to sponsor training for a guide dog puppy at Southeastern Guide Dogs in Florida.

      Don't you love how Americans have to TELL everybody how much they donated. Felling a little bit of guilt there, eh?

      That's almost 2% of my 2004 income. So fuck you, you piece of shit. What have you done for humanity lately?

      I donate, but I don't feel the need to let everybody know how much. It stops being charity for OTHERS and starts being all about YOU.

      2%. So you make $462,500 per year. You're living in the lap of luxury yet you donate such a piddling amount. Then you feel the need to crow about it and abuse others for not being as "charitable" as you.

      Typical American. Does 2% of your half-million dollars per year buy some temporary relief from your guilt?

    3. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      When you are attacked, you defend. When attacked by someone who is clearly an idiot, facts and numbers sometime help.

      Another note: the US donated 40% of the funds, worldwide, for relief from natural disasters (and no, that number does not include funding for our domestic natural disasters).

      I donate, but I don't feel the need to let everybody know how much. It stops being charity for OTHERS and starts being all about YOU.

      So, what is it when you bitch about how much you ignorantly though others donate? What is that exactly?

    4. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you love how Americans have to TELL everybody how much they donated. Felling a little bit of guilt there, eh?

      What a fucking loon you are. You want it both ways. "Americans are stingy pricks!" Then when someone refutes your bullshit, "You have to brag about your charity!"

      That's my year-end giving, not my total for the year. Again, I wonder; what have you done for humanity lately, you knee-jerk American-bashing asshole? Hint; writing shit on /. doesn't count.

    5. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      When you are attacked, you defend. When attacked by someone who is clearly an idiot, facts and numbers sometime help.

      An anonymous coward claiming to have a half-million dollar income is now a fact? Get real! I think the odds are rather good that was simply an anonymous liar.

      I provided the facts and figures earlier. The US donates less per person than France, and significantly less in total than just the Scandanavian countries.

      Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Idiot, indeed. You just don't like hearing the truth.

    6. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 0
      What a fucking loon you are. You want it both ways. "Americans are stingy pricks!" Then when someone refutes your bullshit, "You have to brag about your charity!"

      Oh yeah, I was really refuted. The facts show that Americans contributed $23 per person on average. An anonymous coward claims to have an income of half a million dollars (yet still reads /.) and claims to donate 500x the average. This anonymous coward somehow thinks that his fantastic generosity means Americans aren't stingy.

      So I take it you don't get this half-million dollar income for being intelligent, because your logic sucks.

    7. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      An anonymous coward claiming to have a half-million dollar income is now a fact? Get real! I think the odds are rather good that was simply an anonymous liar.

      I was referring to your "typical american" line. Who knows if he actually donated that money...

      I provided the facts and figures earlier.
      Which were old, dated, and just plain wrong.

      The US donates less per person than France, and significantly less in total than just the Scandanavian countries.

      Incorrect.

      Clearly you haven't read my other post

      Here are the highlights, maybe you'll read it this time
      --------------
      Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.

      We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?

      With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.

      http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm
      The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending

      LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.

      What were you saying again?

      And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
      Australia - $1.2 Billion [oecd.org]
      France - $7.3 Billion [oecd.org]
      US - $16.2 Billion [oecd.org] (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)
      --------------

    8. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      ughh... responded to the wrong post - see here

    9. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, troll boy, here's the last installment, since your hatred of Americans prevents you from thinking straight.

      France more generous than the U.S.? France: $7.3 Billion last year, U.S.: $15.4 Billion. The U.S. provided $2.4 Billion - 40% of international disaster relief last year.

      As for this disaster, yes, I sent more than the average person will contribute, but once again, the U.S. will give far more total aid in public and private assistance than any other country, including yours.

      Americans are not stingy. And if I thought it was cool to look for credit for my contribution I wouldn't post AC. So much for your logic, dopey.

      Yes, I make a lot of money, and I read Slashdot for information and entertainment. But the percentage of ranting turds like you may make me reconsider.

      My guess; you didn't contribute anything for this disaster, give little or nothing the rest of the year, and hang out on /. just to fractionally raise the misery index of other people.

      I'm done with this thread, since you have nothing to say worth considering.

    10. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "I provided the facts and figures earlier."

      Which were old, dated, and just plain wrong.

      Old and dated mean the same thing, so you repeat yourself. I wrote the years anyway so there was no chance for confusion. Your accusation of "just plain wrong" is simply a lie. The figures are not wrong. You just don't like the way I presented them because you agree that the US ODA figures are terrible and you want to discuss US private donations instead. Accusing my figures of being "just plain wrong" is dishonest of you.

      Clearly you haven't read my other post

      Actually I haven't yet, I was reading some other stuff.

      And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are: Australia - $1.2 Billion [oecd.org] France - $7.3 Billion [oecd.org] US - $16.2 Billion [oecd.org]

      Alright. If you want a figure fight, you've got one.

      Here is a rather good article on ODA by country. You'll see USA has the stingiest "1st world" government offering with only 0.14% of GDP.

      Looking at total ODA the US only beats other countries because of its huge population. The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.

      Yes, private aid is greater - apparently the US citizens are nicer than the US government - but read further into that same article. The problem with private donations is special interests.

      "Private donations, especially large philanthropic donations and business givings, can be subject to political/ideological or economic end-goals and/or subject to special interest. A vivid example of this is in health issues around the world. Amazingly large donations by foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are impressive, but the underlying causes of the problems are not addressed, which require political solutions."

      And further...

      "As another example, Bill Gates announced in November 2002 a massive donation of $100 million to India over ten years to fight AIDS there. It was big news and very welcome by many. Yet, at the same time he made that donation, he was making another larger donation -- over $400 million, over three years -- to increase support for Microsoft's software development suite of applications and its platform, in competition with Linux and other rivals. Thomas Green, in a somewhat cynical article, questions who really benefits, saying "And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a 'Big Win' in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here." (Emphasis is original.)"

      That's one of the larger problems with private donations; they're not necessarily charitable.

      Your turn.

    11. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 0, Troll
      As for this disaster, yes, I sent more than the average person will contribute, but once again, the U.S. will give far more total aid in public and private assistance than any other country, including yours.

      Yeah no shit, because you've got 15x as many people in your country. But my country still donates twice as much per person as yours.

      My guess; you didn't contribute anything for this disaster, give little or nothing the rest of the year, and hang out on /. just to fractionally raise the misery index of other people.

      My guess is you're in your mother's basement, you have pimples, and you've never donated a dime in your life.

      As I said earlier, my donations are private. I refuse to discuss which charities I donate to or how much I donate. Not even with my closest friends or relatives. I consider it more private than who I vote for.

      But you got that bit right about hanging out on /. to raise the misery index of other people.

    12. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by slumpy · · Score: 1

      Guys, stop arguing. This catastrophe changed the earth's rotation for fucks sake!

      --
      http://www.commaecho.com
    13. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by zapp · · Score: 1

      Maybe he posted anonymously because he didn't want personal recognition for his donations.

      Who knows, just a thought.

      --
      no comment
    14. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's just what he donated in the last few days, who knows how much he's forked over during the rest of the year. So, do you have people bitching that you are being stingy? Maybe you are the stingy one here? Cough up the percentages asshat or STFU.

    15. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just what's spent via a wasteful govt bureaucracy. The total US donation totals about $44.5 billion which comes to about $150 per person. Only $16.5B of that comes from the govt, which is still more than any govt on the planet. Your 'truth' is twisting figures to fit your agenda.

    16. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the govt donations aren't necessarily charitable either since most of the govts also tie such aid to requiring the money go to buying products from the donor countries. What the international poverty pimps really want is a blank check, but no sane govt is going to cave into that (ok, maybe the Scandinavian countries will, but they're not sane). Maybe you should be bitching out the Japanese. It seems they are the only major country were the absolute numbers of aid given is dropping (over $4B since 2000).

    17. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Here is a rather good article on ODA by country. You'll see USA has the stingiest "1st world" government offering with only 0.14% of GDP.

      And, once again, that figure only counts money/aid given. It does not count military humanitarian expenditures, of which the US does a ton of, and most importantly it does not cover private donations, most of which are not in the form of large donations from Gates (which gain the most headlines), but in small, individual donations, which carry no crazy conspiratorial connections.

      The fact is, with private donations which total over 200% of what the government gives, the US is extremely charitable. We are the most charitable per capita in private donations. It's a fact. If you want to get hung up over the low public funding, that's fine, and there would be a problem with it if there wasn't the massive amount of private giving that takes place.

      The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.

      European population: 729,966,641
      Even if you take out Russia you're still at about 600,000,000, roughly twice that of the US. With that taken into account Europe puts out roughly $42 billion in public funding, the US puts out roughly $16 billion (or 38% of Europe's total, with 48% of the population - and this is with Russia removed). Now, if you compare the European public funding with American private funding, some other numbers appear. American private funding is roughly $28-$30 billion which is about 70% of the European funding with the US again only have about 48% of the population.

      American's, on average, donate 2% of their income to charity (both domestic and international), or roughly ~$800 per person. The figures for 2003 are at roughly $236 billion.

      Some EU examples:
      UK: ~$150 per person
      Germany: $50 per person
      Netherlands: $251 per person

      So, take those numbers, add them to the number for per capita giving by their respective governments, and the US is clearly on top. By a large amount. I would like to be able to split all of the above data into international and domestic giving per capita, but I don't have the data for the UK, Germany, or the Netherlands. For the US it would be ~$150 a person, or a little under 20%.

      based on: Private Donations for International Development and Europe Population

      If you want to continue harping on low public funding, you can, but then we might as well just be done.

    18. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Don't you love how Americans have to TELL everybody how much they donated. Felling a little bit of guilt there, eh?

      Yeah, how dare us for correcting a fucking liar. When someone lies about us we're supposed to say nothing.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    19. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Quikah · · Score: 1

      I don't see the point of criticising the Bill Gates donations. The Gates foundation has donated almost $4B to global health programs to date. Yet, because MS has made investments to increase market share all of that is somehow bad? Seriously? Criticising Bill Gate's business practices is fine, but to do it to his charitable organization, (which gives more money than most countries!) is ludicrous.

      --
      Q.
    20. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yes, private aid is greater - apparently the US citizens are nicer than the US government - but read further into that same article. The problem with private donations is special interests.
      "Private donations, especially large philanthropic donations and business givings, can be subject to political/ideological or economic end-goals and/or subject to special interest. A vivid example of this is in health issues around the world. Amazingly large donations by foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are impressive, but the underlying causes of the problems are not addressed, which require political solutions."


      Thus it is perfectly possible to waste huge amounts of money. Whilst appearing to be a good doner, in addition to getting a tax write off. A cynical position would be that the last thing these people would want to do would be to fund anything which would in any way be a "solution".
      Another example is pharmacutical companies dumping drugs as "aid". Not only can they reclaim tax they also don't have to pay storage/disposal of useless drugs.

      That's one of the larger problems with private donations; they're not necessarily charitable.

      Much the same can apply to donations made by governments.
      Simply listing amounts is meaningless without some criteria of which donations make things better, which change little and which actually make things worst. Some "aid" is actually worst that useless especially that which is used to buy weapons.

    21. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Yeah no shit, because you've got 15x as many people in your country. But my country still donates twice as much per person as yours.

      That is likely because your government takes your money so you don't get to decide what to do with it. The US leaves the money in the hands of the citizens... who donate more privately than your government does.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    22. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is a simple difference. The United States is not a socialist country, and indeed, most of the population dislikes socialism. Thus there are large private organizations (like the American Red Cross) and both individual and corporate donations to any disaster that far exceed what the government can do.

      That is the preferred way for the United States. It's different than how some other countries handle it, but the numbers, when compared on a "total assistance" basis, rather than being skewed, are certainly favorable to the United States.

      Consider this - many people in the United States want *less* government support of even domestic disasters. The private sector handles such events quite capably, with both sufficient funds and resources.

      It is not that "US citizens are nicer than the US government" - that distinction is not something that the United States is based on. The citizens *are* the government... our founding documents dictate that the government is "of the people, by the people and for the people". Many citizens prefer that the government take an absolute minimum in taxes and allow the individual to decide how to spend their individual income. Thus, the US government *cannot* match the EU's disaster aid - they aren't taking in the income to be able to. I would guess (and would appreciate somebody checking this) that the EU has a larger available budget to give aid with than the US federal government. The population of the US, however, has more money and gives that in aid.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    23. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I don't see the point of criticising the Bill Gates donations. The Gates foundation has donated almost $4B to global health programs to date.

      The amount of money is often rather less important than the how and to whom...
      It is perfectly possible to give money in ways which have marginal, even negative results. Thus a better metric would be how many people have had their health improved by the Gates Foundation?

    24. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      "The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations."

      European population: 729,966,641

      Sure. Off by a factor of 2.5. It's fairer than the earlier comparisons that you Americans were making where there were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in population size. I didn't say it was equal. I said it was fairer.

      American private funding is roughly $28-$30 billion which is about 70% of the European funding with the US again only have about 48% of the population.

      American's, on average, donate 2% of their income to charity (both domestic and international), or roughly ~$800 per person. The figures for 2003 are at roughly $236 billion.

      I don't know where you're getting your figures from. They're in disagreement with OECD.

      I agree with the private flow of $30 billion and the ODA flow of $16 billion for the US. That's $46 billion or about $150 per head. About the same as UK, France and Australia and less than the Scandanavian countries. That is in agreement with everything else I've read.

      So where did this $236 billion figure come from? That looks to me like the total WORLD figure for private flows. You're not perhaps counting the whole WORLD's private flows just for the US, are you?

      And, once again, that figure only counts money/aid given. It does not count military humanitarian expenditures, of which the US does a ton of, and most importantly it does not cover private donations, most of which are not in the form of large donations from Gates (which gain the most headlines), but in small, individual donations, which carry no crazy conspiratorial connections.

      Oh yes, let's look at private flows. They're an interesting lot.

      The OECD lumps them all together as a single private flow for the world. Presumably because the nature of international charities makes it far too difficult to tell which country actually funded which charities. The OECD won't even provide private flow figures for most countries. The US and Japan seem to be the only countries with private flow figures and their own governments had to supply the figures. Maybe because US and Japan rank 22nd and 21st on the list of stingiest countries by ODA of GDP and they need some form of positive spin.

      But what is very interesting is what counts as private flow. The OECD points out that bonds and bank loans count as private flows. Those figures are for 1998 (it's incredibly difficult to find recent figures) but they show that of the $234 billion of private flows for the entire world, $156 billion was "strings attached" investment. Loans and bonds. Not charity.

      So I'm deeply suspicious of anybody quoting "private donations" to try and dig the US out of its stingy hole. The US agreed in 1970 to provide 0.7% of GDP as ODA. They're currently providing a mere 0.14%. The US government is spinning that they provide 3x as much foreign aid if you factor in private donations. But as we've seen - from these figures above and my earlier example of the $400 million "donation" of Microsoft software to India - those donations don't seem to be entirely charitable.

      Your turn.

    25. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      That is likely because your government takes your money so you don't get to decide what to do with it. The US leaves the money in the hands of the citizens... who donate more privately than your government does.

      No, they still don't. See other posts. You can keep telling yourself "we're more generous, we're more generous" but repetition doesn't make it true. You're still a stingy lot.

    26. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Quikah · · Score: 1

      Yes, Bill Gates' goal in life is to throw billions of dollars at ineffective organizations so that they will cause more pain and suffering in the world, he is just that evil. Go read the foundation's website if you want to know what they are doing and some of the organizations they are helping. Sorry to break it to all the slashbots, but Bill Gates isn't the devil.

      --
      Q.
    27. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Who said I was a United States citizen? You presume, sir. I am merely pointing out that you are not comparing equivalent numbers.

      The best comment in this thread was YrWrstNtmr when he said "This is not an international dick-waving contest to see who can 'contribute' the most. How about we just help them, OK?".

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    28. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      The best comment in this thread was YrWrstNtmr when he said "This is not an international dick-waving contest to see who can 'contribute' the most. How about we just help them, OK?".

      I wholeheartedly agree.

    29. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      OMG, you are so right. I was starting to get into the financial arguments until I saw this. Comparing the amount of money sent by different countries solves nothing.

      Can't see the forest for the trees.

    30. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Whilst appearing to be a good doner, in addition to getting a tax write off.

      I get sick of people insulting companies for taking a tax writeoff on donated money. How can someone claim they donated money with personal business motive: THEY LOST MONEY ON THE DEAL! They may have gotten a $5,000 break on their taxes, but they gave away $20 million!!! Let's see...

      Net loss of $19,995,000 means they were doing it for business reasons? No. Good Press? Bad press goes so much further than good press, that they'd be better off spending HALF of that money to make shit up about their competitors.

    31. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      Given my somewhat limited exposure to Australians, I can't dismiss you as typical.

      How should I address you?
      How about "fuckstick?"
      That should do.

      Hey fuckstick, maybe he quantified his donations to rebut claims of insufficient dollars.
      Maybe he mentioned percentages to rebut claims of insufficient percentage.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    32. Re:Stingy Americans? Here's One... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Maybe he mentioned percentages to rebut claims of insufficient percentage.

      Maybe he mentioned them because he doesn't donate to ease the sufferings of others, but to raise his own status.

      In any event, his logic is flawed. A single individual's generosity can not redeem an entire country's general stinginess.

      How should I address you? How about "fuckstick?"

      Can't blame me for telling the truth. You and your ilk proclaim the USA's great worth to the world - "World Police", "Benevolent Providers", "Bringers of Democracy" - but the reality is so harshly different. The US is called stingy by the UN, by truly charitable organisations, and by the facts and figures. Yet your response is to call me a "fuckstick". Why? For pointing out the harsh truth? That the US isn't as wonderful as you keep telling us?

      The reality is that you don't like being told the truth. Wake up. The rest of the world doesn't buy the US spin anymore. Only the US sheeple seem to believe it now.

  168. GODDAMMIT by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not an international dick-waving contest to see who can 'contribute' the most. How about we just help them, OK?

    1. Re:GODDAMMIT by jonhuang · · Score: 1

      This is not an international dick-waving contest to see who can 'contribute' the most. How about we just help them, OK? This is the most insightful comment made today. That and the link to amazon. goddammit.

    2. Re:GODDAMMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on!

  169. About class... by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 1

    And to my French "friends", I only wish you had
    war dead buried here whose graves I could desecrate
    the way you did the graves of the brave Americans
    who helped free your land from the Nazis! Of
    course if there were such graves, I wouldn't do
    anything because unlike you fuckers I have class.


    I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but... No, you obviously don't have class.

    --

    It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
  170. U.S. donated about 5 times as much ODA as Norway by ugmoe · · Score: 0
    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ no.html

    From the link you posted one can see that the U.S. donated 6.9 Billion in ODA (Economic Aid - Donor) while Norway donated only 1.4 Billion.

    Also, there is this little goody -

    Norway exports 3.466 million bbl of oil/day - Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway.

    Due to their oil production, Norway is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emmissions on earth, but they don't seem to feel very guilty if you were to judge them on the amount of foreign aid they give. They make ~40 Billion a year selling oil, and they donate a paltry 1.4 Billion?

    What does Norway think happens to all the oil they sell - do they think it magically disappears? Why do they continue to supply this greenhouse gas producing liquid?

    Norway is world leader per-capita in the production of greenhouse gas precursors!

  171. Assist the natural selection? by northwind · · Score: 1

    As so many others I fully agree: A tsunami warning system should be put in place. It ought to be fairly simple given the amount of satelites in orbit.
    Those who flock to see the killer waves - well - www.darwinawards.com will take care of those. The rest of us can only applaud their stupidity and lack of presence on the roads leading away from disaster.
    In a report the day after the quake I saw a number of tourists stating "we are going there and we are fully confident that the travel agency has everything under control".
    What a tribute to Darwin.

  172. Evolution in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    Ok by me. Let us know about the tsunami, and I'll get the hell outta the way. If other people prefer to get a nice view, that's their decision...at least average human IQ goes up a little bit. Given the choice between allowing the death of 70K randomly selected people, or 70K people allowing themselves to be killed by their own stupidity, let's let the stupid ones go.

  173. Amazon Donation... by uptownguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't have a credit card but I'm sitting on a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate that someone gave me. I was hoping to be able to use THAT to make a $25 donation to the American Red Cross (Or, frankly, ANY organization providing relief!) through Amazon.com. After some searching I can't find any way to do it...

    So I'm going to use Slashdot to see if I can do the next best thing: I'm willing to give my validation code for a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate to anyone who is willing to MAKE a $25 donation. Seriously. No stings attached here and I suppose, ultimately, that I'll never have any verification that it worked but cynicism is worse than inaction. I'm just a guy with bad credit who still wants to find a way to help.

    If you are willing to make that donation, just send me an email (to my email address listed above) and I'll send you the code to the Amazon.com gift certificate -- it is good through 17-Nov-2005.

    --


    I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
    1. Re:Amazon Donation... by cos(0) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      E-mailed.

    2. Re:Amazon Donation... by uptownguy · · Score: 1

      Done.

      I've emailed you the Amazon.com claim code. Thanks again for making the $25 donation!

      --


      I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
  174. Re:the red cross will steal the difference by Szentigrade · · Score: 1

    Whatever difference is made by donations via the information age will be sucked up by the red cross for their salary just like they did during the 9/11 attacks.

    --
    When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up... reading.-Henny Youngman
  175. Re:U.S. donated about 5 times as much ODA as Norwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Due to their oil production, Norway is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emmissions on earth, but they don't seem to feel very guilty if you were to judge them on the amount of foreign aid they give. They make ~40 Billion a year selling oil, and they donate a paltry 1.4 Billion?
    Norway is not the 3. biggest oil producer, but the 3. biggest oil exporter (USA is still a big oil producer even though its also the biggest importer of oil). And who says oil has to be transformed into greenhouse gas? If you decide to burn oil, then yes.. it will end up as mosly CO2, but you could also make plastics and numerous chemicals.

    Lastly, not all greenhouse gas stem from consuming oil.

  176. Re:U.S. donated about 5 times as much ODA as Norwa by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

    That's the reason they're so high on the list. The government simply pockets the money, has absolutely nothing to do with it, so instead of giving it to it's citizenry (like it should) it just gives it away.

    The current number for the US is $16.2 Billion, btw. Strangely during the end of the Clinton numbers the funding dropped significantly.

  177. Re:Almost - it's the world maps that are upside do by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1
    Gravity pulls inward, not downward. Looking at a map, other than a topographical map, would be useless to prove this. And mountains are not being pulled inward, they are diwndled away by erosion and reformed by tectonic plates colliding and jutting upward (e.g. volcano).
    Gravity:
    The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    --
    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
  178. Re:Any magnitude 9 earthquake at sea causes tsunam by borkus · · Score: 1
    If I had known about it in time, 10 of my friends could have called 10 of their friends, and we would have had 100 person-hours of calling. We could have notified hundreds of thousands of people, assuming a little cooperation from the people in the nations we were calling.

    And assuming two other things -
    • That someone in your your circle for friends actually knows someone in Indonsia or Sri Lanka.
    • That anyone in the affected areas has a phone. For example, Sri Lanka has a population of 19 million with less than 2 million phones (mobile and land line combined). In comparison, Ireland has over 5 million phones and less than 4 million people.
  179. 3 microseconds per DAY by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
    Yes, that statement in the Reuters article is meaningless.

    A quick search on google for more information shows that the information was misquoted in the Reuters article and that the original quote was that this event "May have shortened the day by 3 microseconds" which IS a meaningful statement.

    Judging by the responces your post has garnered, it seems that far too many /. readers have a fairly difficult time with analytical thought. ;)

  180. I disagree by silence535 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I have to disagree in two points.

    I DO agree that charity should not be a publicity stunt, but I am pretty much sure that neither Apple nor Dell nor Amazon nor any other major player in the market made a quick and direct donation to help the victims of the flood.

    I disagree on the point that charity should be local. These companies are global players. They thrive on the globalization effects. Thus their donations on charity should also be global.
    Right now USA companies make big money on all markets, on all peoples, on all societies, but only the american people benefit from the charity donations. That might be nice for you if you are a USA citizen, but ROW is ignored once again.

    Yes of course, they can absolutely spend their money in any way they choose. But this is exactly the kind of behaviour that make other peoples hate you. You may call it envy or greed, I'd call it comprehensible. No one likes to be dominated, no one likes to be ripped off.

    I also disagree with the 'Microsofts not liquid cash' argument. First of all I never even mentioned Microsoft, I was talking about those companies who put up links to donation sites on their front page. These companies are in the consumer market. They have liquid cash income. You don't pay your book at Amazon with hedge fonts options or real estate. You pay them with money. Per definition this money is liqid. It has flown to them just a few days ago.

    And one afterthought to that marketing stunt argument. If for example BP would donate one months profit (~ 1 billion $) to the flood victims instead of shoving it to the share holders, then I would happily fill my car up at their station the next time.

    -silence

    --
    Dyslectics of the world, untie!
    1. Re:I disagree by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can you say that Apple, Dell, and Amazon haven't made a donation? You have absolutely not support and nothing but your hatred of America as evidence.

      I strongly disagree with you on the local charity front. Charity should always start at home. Of course, they should give globally but when you take from a community I think it is important that you give back. By take I don't just mean by selling your products to them but by using the resources of the community such as police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance, etc. Many of these companies don't pay proportionately in taxes what they use. Sure there are some huge companies that should give to more communities than others but they number only in the dozens. I should also point out that the US is in a trade deficit which means that more of our money goes overseas than comes in. Perhaps you should attack Japan instead.

      What people hate me? They haven't even met me. I gave what I could to the relief effort just like I volunteered my time after september 11 which affect my community directly. Our country gives FAR more per capita than any other country in the world. You are barking up the wrong tree if you thinks that people hate the US because it doesn't give enough to charity.

      I mentioned Microsoft because the other poster mentioned Microsoft. Other companies would be the same. And I don't pay Amazon with cash. I pay with credit which they then get charged a percentage to process, lose a part to cost of goods sold, taxes, etc. and some of the rest is used to pay their employees and other overhead costs. Obviously they end up with money at the end of the day but the law requires that most of that has to go back into the business or to the shareholders. In no country can a company donate its entire profits to charity. Remember that a company is owned by its shareholders not the board. That isn't US specific either.

      And if you donate to a charity and make a big stink about it then it isn't charity. It is advertising expense. I would also be wary of those companies that say they donate a percentage of profit. Make sure you find out what percentage and what they define profit as. Also see my comment about shareholders rights.

    2. Re:I disagree by silence535 · · Score: 1

      How can you say that Apple, Dell, and Amazon haven't made a donation?

      I can very simply turn your point around: What makes you think they have? They have linked to donation sites from their front pages. But did they themselves click that very link and donate? I doubt it very much. ...and nothing but your hatred of America as evidence.

      Anti-Americanism is growing. You and I know that not all of the 256 million USA citizens are ignorant assholes. I have friends and family in the states.
      Still whenever I talk to Americans I can not believe how indoctrinated even those are who you would expect to be sort of on the same track as yourself. We can privately email on this point of you'd like to. I think it is way off topic for this thread.

      Perhaps you should attack Japan instead.

      Yes, any globally operating Japanese company with the same behaviour should face the same argument.
      Any global player should have global responsibility.

      This is a mayor part of an economic and political problem we have. Companies can act globally whilst governments can only act regionally. Usually these companies threaten to build new factories in another country and/or move production somewhere else if their demands are not met. They are playing with peoples existential fears and governments become their bitches.
      (BTW big German companies do the same.)

      Obviously they end up with money at the end of the day but the law requires that most of that has to go back into the business or to the shareholders.

      You mean laws made by their bitches?

      Sorry if I become a bit cynic here, but as I mentioned before, it is the sacred cow shareholder value.

      Shareholder rights vs. companies social responsibility.

      Just to point out something else: US scientists tried to warn the flooded countries. This is good and sad at the same time, because these countries have no early warning system.

      3000+ have died 9/11 which is terrible, no doubt (and I seriously mean that), and look at the vast amount of money going into homeland security in this silly (yes, silly!) war against terrorism.

      Now 50000+ have died, do you think any money will go into building a warning system?

      In Africa 40000+ are dying each year from malaria but scientists have severe problems founding their research on finding a cure. Meanwhile the pharma industry is spending big money into research on 'how not to grow fat' pills.

      Earth has a lot of upcoming problems and anything I always hear is 'shareholder value'.

      -silence

      --
      Dyslectics of the world, untie!
  181. Amazon waiving normal honor system fees by Urgo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Normally when a person or entity uses the amazon honor system for donations/payments amazon takes a nice cut of the pie. I emailed them today to check if they did the same thing for the disaster relief and apparently they aren't!

    I included both emails below:

    TO: Amazon
    FROM: Urgo
    I have a question about the disaster relief donation page that you have setup on amazon.com. I know normally with the amazon honor system amazon gets a cut of all the donations. Is amazon taking a cut of the money in this case or is all of the money people donate going right to the red cross?

    FROM: Amazon
    TO: Urgo
    Thanks for writing to us at Amazon.com.

    Please rest assured that all the donated money will go to the Red Cross to help victims of tragedies in southern Asia, India, and Africa.

    Please know that Amazon.com is waiving its usual fees.

    --
    Belive in Technology and AMAZE yourself. -- RIP ZDTV/TechTV
  182. Good! by silence535 · · Score: 1

    Cool!

    I think that are good news and that is the right way.

    Setting up a link to a donation sites is something the weblog community should take care of. Those who have little money but a lot of web site hits to offer. Those who have the money or the goods should rather donate that directly.

    -silence

    --
    Dyslectics of the world, untie!
  183. Re:Photons vs Gas... Orders of magnitude? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the boon for the economy. We need to outlaw earthquakes so we can have longer days...

    It's the only way to save social security!

  184. Re:the red cross will steal the difference by Badgerman · · Score: 1

    Which is why I donated to Doctors Without Borders.

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  185. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    I did some calculations earlier and found that the Geos would have to move less than a centimeter. The GPS satellites reposition relative to ground stations anyway, though I am not sure on what period. At any rate, they would only have to correct course once, and not by much. Remember, we are talking about a change on the order of 10**-11 relative to the current length of the day.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  186. "Insurgents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize that word has come to mean "people trying to defend their home from invaders" when used by the invaders, right?

  187. A collection of mirrors for those videos. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    In an effort to connect images of the tragedy with sites that allow people to make donations to the relief effort, myself and a number of friends have posted a list of mirrors to my weblog. Please use this to take some of the load off video.contemporaryinsanity.org and help get the word out.

  188. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    That seems small, but remember these huge satelites are out at 2 * 10**5 miles or 1 * 10**9th feet aprox. and given the tonnage of the satelites, there would be a real measurable change in energy to make the correction.

    Your centimeter change, is that a centimeter closer orbit to make that adjustment?

    I would be interested to see your calculations.

    One article I read said the change would be about 1/10,000 of a second / day which is on the order of 10**-5 which is certainly an upper bound for the effect. I await things settling down and a new reading on the actual new length of day being discovered. I guess leap seconds will become a much more common occurance.

  189. Subsonic testing contributing to earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has been some odd correlations between where the oil industry has been performing 200+db subsonic ocean floor tests and the earthquake.

    Also, the experiments appear to be devestating to local marine life populations - my guess is that the 200+ dB tests destroy much of their sense of sound or pressure.

    Anyway, it is worth a read.

    1. Re:Subsonic testing contributing to earthquake by thisgooroo · · Score: 1

      funny, but i thougt when earthquakes were invented, the oil industry didn't perform these tests yet. do you really think that plate tectonics stopped and let the oil industry toke over earth quake production?

  190. Re:Darwin is everywhere! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Okay, that is about the 50th post on Darwinism I've seen. But come on now, we've had how many million years to syphon these traits out of the gene pool, and people still do dumb things like this? Something is wrong with the theory.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  191. Front Page Link? by TrevorB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amazon and Google, among others, have added front-page links to simplify donating to the disaster relief effort.

    Perhaps Slashdot could do the same? After all, 80,000 dead and counting definately counds as "Stuff that matters."

    1. Re:Front Page Link? by gabbarbhai · · Score: 1

      Well. Somehow I feel the Slashdot audience is savvy enough to find their favorite aid agency and donate by themselves. If Amazon or Google were to match the donations, on the other hand, I'd fully support (hell, even pay for a 'meta ad') putting a link to them on Slashdot.
      If there are companies that match donations by their employees it would be good to know so that we can find friends working there; maybe an 'ask Slashdot' for that?

  192. Tourists: Help out! by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Insightful
    the quake moved undersea tectonic plates by up to 98 feet, shifting islands near Sumatra out to sea an unknown distance.

    OK, so all you tourists in the area with GPS units should take some readings so rescue workers can make adjustments. Post them in the Discuss page on Wikipedia for the earthquake.

    1. Re:Tourists: Help out! by saiha · · Score: 1

      The problem is that normal GPS units will only be accurate within about 15ft to 50ft so I'm not sure how much help that will actually be. And I don't know if they have differential capability in Sumatra so it might be closer to the 50ft range.

      However survey grade GPS or military GPS should be accurate enough to measure the shift.

    2. Re:Tourists: Help out! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Rescue workers should be able to figure out that their destination is thirty steps over from where their GPS is telling them it is.

      A 100 foot shift is only a problem if they're trying to get through a 100-foot-wide gap in a reef...and they think their GPS is accurate enough that this matters.

  193. Re:Rotation (will have no long term effect!) by qval · · Score: 1

    Both of the seconds times are actually microseconds in the wikipedia article. A great reason why you shouldn't spend your time looking through character maps to find obscure mu symbols and just use a u for microvolts, microamps and microsoft. This formatting issue has caused problems in many published papers, which which often don't get corrected.

  194. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    My calculations are based on:

    G= 6.67259E-11 m**3/kgs**2
    Mass of Earth (Me)= 5.9742E24kg
    Current rotation period(w) in Seconds=86040
    Although these are estimates, they are close.
    For Geosync orbit:
    Radius=((G*Me*w**2)/(4*pi**2))**1/3
    For current Geosynch, I get 42124855.2417033 meters. This may seem large, but remember that most people report Geosynch above the radius of the Earth, so they are in the neighborhood of 36000 Kilometers.
    Then, since I don't have a good high precision calculator, I was able to only go to the precision of subtracting 10 microseconds instead of only 3. With this calculation, I got 42124855.2414383 meters. This makes a difference of less than a millimeter in fact, and the time change was still three times larger than it should have been.
    It seems like the difference should be more, but remember that 3 microseconds is less than 1 in 10**11 of the total time in a day. And although we square the orbital period, we then take the cube of the whole thing because gravitational attraction goes down with the cube of distance. So in all, we are talking changes 11 or more decimals out.
    I know I didn't follow scientific precision principles. If I did, I would have had to cut off at five digits, which would mean I couldn't calculate any time differential less than a second. This calculation is not accurate, but the order of magnitude should be right on.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  195. So what about... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 0

    What the hell does this mean about our atomic clocks???

  196. Run, Run, As if your life depended on it. by chris_sawtell · · Score: 2
    Why is it that so many people did not know that if the sea suddenly goes out very fast, it's going to come back again even faster.

    So if that ever happens to you, don't hang about, run inland as fast as your little legs will carry you. You life depends on it.

    Slashdot moderators please help get that message out, you will save lives.

    1. Re:Run, Run, As if your life depended on it. by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Apparently Moses had quite a different idea.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  197. Re:Atlantic Ocean -vs- Pacific Ocean by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You have a point to some extent. But you should also make your research properly. It is not uninterrupted contiguous barrier. It has everything from shallow banks to deep gorges that go all the way to the shore. While the banks will protect the shore, the average depth is deep enough for the wave to reach the shore in plenty of places and actually get focused by the gorges in others to way above the 10m average.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  198. 3 microseconds per what unit? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    So the Earth's rotation is theorized by one NASA geophysicist to have sped up by 3 microseconds.

    Is that 3 microseconds per minute? Per hour? Per day? Per month? Per year? Per century? The importance of this figure depends on the unit by which we divide.

    If it's 3 microsec/minute, then that's 525,600 microsec/year *faster* that we rotate to reach 1 year, or, 525.6milliseconds/year, or 0.5256 seconds/year, or 52.56 seconds/century (ignoring leap-years).

    But if it's 3 microsec/century, well -- clearly that's of far less significance. Still arguably important, but not nearly as much so. Personally, I wouldn't lose sleep over it even if it is 3 microsec/minute, but for timing purposes in physics, and quite possibly for keeping time in-sync in world financial markets, among other examples of relevance, that could be well worth considering.

    My gripe in all this is as follows: this is Slashdot, not USA Today. I expect at least a fundamental grasp of science and math here - is that asking too much? We learned about the importance of units in elementary school; have we already forgotten that lesson?

    1. Re:3 microseconds per what unit? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Oh @#%@#%98@!#!!! Nevermind, I totally mis-thought this problem out. 1 rotation = 24 hours, duh.

      So it goes for being on less than 3 hours' sleep.

      My apologies to the poster and those wasting their time reading these 2 posts.

    2. Re:3 microseconds per what unit? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      There you go, the impact of the shorter days being felt already...

  199. Human nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    Tsunamis: Darwin in action.
  200. Re:You Bush haters needs to kill yourselves by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    Nah. I'm sorry. You're wrong. The only real worthless people around here are ones that find it OK to waste money--that could be spent on aid--to intentionaly do things that waste human lives.
    Surely you can see the irony of the whole situation?

  201. Natical Chart Problems by Lotharjade · · Score: 1

    I would think a big concern is that marine maps and charts of the area are probably all off. Not only from the movement of the plates and position of where stuff sits on that plate, but quite often the quake causes underground sluffing and rock slides where there were once cliffs to essentially underground hills (mountains) will change position. So where a deep draft vessel could once run... They saw a lot of this in Alaska after the 1964 quake here.

    Has this issue been addressed by anyone? This big of a quake could affect things thousands of miles away.

    --
    Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
  202. Land deforms for 100's of kms by just+someone · · Score: 1

    Deformation is being modeled with techniques recently developed. Maximum of 20 meters of slip on the fault plane. They did not mention the dimensions of the plane yet, but it is likely to be 100's km long, but 10's wide along the subduction zone.

    I would expect that some portions of the Indonesian coast went down, and will be permanently flooded. Other portions went up.

    These will be the portions where navigation is effected (get out those proposals to to hydrographic surveying ;)

    In Alaska and Peru, the subsidence was 2-3 meters in places, and the uplift was up to 10 at faults with surface rupture.

  203. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if it would be too hard to program a missile to land 55 feet/year to the right of the GPS target :) Even adjusting for latitude would be trivial. The point of GPS is to have a KNOWN reference point. After that you can calculate whatever you need it to do.

    -AC

  204. 'Help' is all in the terminology by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves.

    Define 'help'. Reducing the total bodycount? Maybe the net effect of warnings would not budge this statistic. Increasing the Darwinian fairness by letting smart people out of harm's way while letting people with smaller frontal lobes take their place by jockeying for a front seat? I call that helpful.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  205. Bush Lied! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we all knew this was coming...

    1. Re:Bush Lied! by phillipd998 · · Score: 1

      Dude, lighten up. Maybe you lied about having a sense of humor. :)

  206. It's easy to get phone numbers. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    You didn't read my post, or try to get phone numbers, using Google. It's very easy. Every hotel has a phone number. Put Phuket into Google.

    It's shocking how easily the people who have replied in this thread accept the death of tens of thousands of other people.

  207. Maps by Detritus · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how they update all the maps when a large earthquake moves a big chunk of the Earth's crust by many meters. With modern navigation systems like GPS, it's a significant change. If you were an airline pilot landing in bad weather, you might want to know if the runway had moved 10 meters to the left and down.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  208. Millions of phones? Use Google to find numbers. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Great research, finding out that there are millions of phones in Sri Lanka. Just use Google to find a hundred or so.

    WELCOME TO THE GALADARI HOTEL
    The Businessman's Home in Sri Lanka
    64, Lotus Road,
    Colombo 1.
    Sri Lanka.
    Tel : 94-1-544544
    Fax : 94-1-449875
    E-Mail : galadari@sri.lanka.net

    "The Galadari Hotel is in the heart of the city in Colombo, over looking the beautiful Indian ocean."

    Presumably there is a staff of at least 200. Tell one, everyone else will know soon. They don't want their friends and neighbors to die, and they know how to reach them.

  209. You Ass. by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    You ass. Are you honestly saying that me organizing a volcano eruption party would be a bad idea? Just because we plan to camp on the side of Mount Saint Helens and watch it erupt, doesn't mean we're stupid. After all, we'll have plenty of time to get out of the was of the blast.

    It's people like you who ruin all the best social activities. House-fire parties, mudslide-surfing, blasting-cap biting. Suck lemons, ass.

  210. Nathan, you tend to whinge a lot... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...and be defensive to the detriment of the strength of your arguments, but I have to agree with you on that last point.

    Billy Boy's pet drug company has also acted (based on patent claims) to completely block proposed donations of low-cost generic anti-AIDS drugs to Africa from Brasil.

    Paul Allen doesn't overtly fight as dirty as Bill does, and in fact in many ways he's the Compleat Modern Gentleman, yet his donations still reflect his ideology. I wouldn't be able to make much sense of the situation if they didn't.

    And now for something completely different.

    It may be coincidence, but I only know of two organisations which routinely ship 100% of public donations to the front lines, and they're both Christian. I had a chat with a local who collects donations for Retinosis Pigmentosa research, and because he collects a lot he personally got to keep 45% of whatever he collects.

    I imagine that by promising to pass 100% through, Amazon has considerably upped their own donation referrals. Perhaps they should consider making that feature a permanent fixture?

    And perhaps a few secular organisations could try asking separately for donations from secular humanists (or whoever, really) to support the organisation itself, so that they too can guarantee to pass 100% of what is donated on through. It might help to remove one more excuse for stinginess from the equation.

    Do you have enough of your own background/contacts to comment creatively?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  211. Thank Kim Beazley for that one by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Pork-barrelling (to win an election in SA, in that case) is never pretty.

    They've got an Oberon stuck up in the dry at Fremantle, if you want to see a sub that used to work. In fact, the Yanks borrowed them a few times when their own subs weren't up to snuff.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  212. Christian fundamentalists were on the ground 1st by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine who works for ADRA was relaying first-hand reports to me from there. 100% of what you donate to them goes to the front lines, no matter what your religion, or the religion(s) of the disaster victims.

    I don't know of any Atheistic organisation which can come close to that. Christian donors just seem to be more generous. Moderate Islam ain't so bad, either, but tends to fatalism.

    Madalyn and her grand-daughter (nice girl, used to chat with her on FIDO and our last conversation went unfinished because of that) were murdered by their manager over a matter of a few tens of thousands of $. If that's the leaders, even the "television evilangelists" aren't so bad. I guess it helps to have a future focus.

    As an Atheist, you're either responsible for just yourself, or for everybody depending upon your viewpoint. I'm very glad to hear that you're shooting for "everybody" because in practice very few do.

    The only logical ground I can see for being an Atheist, as I once was, was if evolution actually worked. But it doesn't and it can't. Reknowned ex-Atheist Antony Flew hasn't quite gone so far as top profess anything resembling Christianity, but to his credit he is following observations to their logical conclusion.

    OK, I guess we can let the flamewar rage, now. It's been months since I was modded anything but up anyway. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  213. Leon, you tend to be too personal... by nathanh · · Score: 1

    ... seeing as I've never met you, I'd rather you didn't address me by first name. Use my nick as is the custom for blogs.

    ...and be defensive to the detriment of the strength of your arguments

    That is true, but it really annoys me when Yanks get this holier-than-thou attitude. It's so entirely undeserved almost all of the time.

    In this case I think the evidence is pretty clear cut. The US isn't living up to their ODA obligation. Yet instead of admitting this simple indisputable fact we get a bunch of apologists making excuses. Is it so difficult for a single Yank to say "yeah, you're right, our government doesn't do enough to help other countries". What is the big deal to Americans?

    I'd criticise my government in a heartbeat. I think you'd do the same. That's the Australian way :-)

    Do you have enough of your own background/contacts to comment creatively?

    My only comment is that I don't donate to charities based on their secular or religious backgrounds. I think any charity that proclaims its ideology is doing so for political reasons and I find that distasteful.

    1. Re:Leon, you tend to be too personal... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      My only comment is that I don't donate to charities based on their secular or religious backgrounds. I think any charity that proclaims its ideology is doing so for political reasons and I find that distasteful.

      What charities do you donate to, then? Every charity has an ideology, of one sort or another.

      I'd criticise my government in a heartbeat. I think you'd do the same. That's the Australian way

      and not the American way? You must read very little American media, internet or otherwise. We recently had this hotly contested election...

      As someone above pointed out, this debate is pointless. Those who can and want to, will contribute. The private contributions will likely be close to what governments everywhere contribute. So what? Who gives a flying fuck where they come from as long as they are? Bickering like this is what keeps us from entering an adult stage as a species.

      Yeesh.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Leon, you tend to be too personal... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      What charities do you donate to, then? Every charity has an ideology, of one sort or another.

      I still donate to those charities. I just find the extolment of their ideology to be distasteful. I consider it a form of opportunism. I don't let that turn me off the charity, though. It does turn me off the ideology.

    3. Re:Leon, you tend to be too personal... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I think that probably insults those who dedicate their lives to helping others, whatever "ideology" they follow (remember, we all have our own).

      I have to confess tho that I can't see any point to what you are arguing. Does it matter so much to you that you have a wear it on your sleeve?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:Leon, you tend to be too personal... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      I think that probably insults those who dedicate their lives to helping others, whatever "ideology" they follow (remember, we all have our own).

      What is "that'? How does "that" insult them? Spell it out for me.

      I have to confess tho that I can't see any point to what you are arguing. Does it matter so much to you that you have a wear it on your sleeve?

      What do you think I am arguing? What do you think I am wearing on my sleeve?

    5. Re:Leon, you tend to be too personal... by hesiod · · Score: 1
      it really annoys me when Yanks get this holier-than-thou attitude
      Isn't saying "my country is better because it donated more than your country" a "holier-than-thou" attitude?
      Is it so difficult for a single Yank to say "yeah, you're right, our government doesn't do enough to help other countries"
      It's not difficult, but we don't say it because that is not what our government was created to do. Is it so difficult for others to say "yeah, but the private donations more than offset the perceived lack of federal donations?"
      seeing as I've never met you, I'd rather you didn't address me by first name
      So, if you have never been face-to-face with someone, you can't call them by their first name, even if you know it? If you don't want him calling you that, don't reveal it, or at least don't make it your nick! If someone addressed me by "David" I'd wonder where they got the info, but to be insulted or annoyed at it is to claim that someone doesn't have the right to address me by name. It makes you sound pretentious and childish, like a PhD-holder demanding that people call him "Doctor" outside his professional career.
    6. Re:Leon, you tend to be too personal... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Isn't saying "my country is better because it donated more than your country" a "holier-than-thou" attitude?

      Well France and the Netherlands aren't my country. I was only responding to somebody who was claiming the US donated the most. I was responding to point out they did not. That's right, I didn't start this thread, I'm just responding to dickheads who keep claiming "U-S-A, WE ARE THE BEST".

      Is it so difficult for others to say "yeah, but the private donations more than offset the perceived lack of federal donations?"

      What you've just written is the official US government explanation of their failure to meet ODA obligations. I linked to an essay pointing out the flaws with private donations:

      • international charities often declare income from the entire world as originating from the US
      • tend to go to a few "sexy" causes like "save the whales", neglecting other causes with real needs
      • aren't always beneficial (eg, the Gates Foundation is often criticised for big spending with little actual benefit)
      • often have ulterior motives (eg, the Gates donation of $400 million in Microsoft software to India)
      • often came in the form of loans and bonds; the 1998 figures showed that over 70% of "private donations" would have to be repaid by the recipients!

      Now those aren't points I've invented here to further the "anti-American hatred". Those are points taken from the essay, from the OECD, from UNICEF, and from the UN.

      And ultimately the private donations are plain irrelevant. In 1970 there was an agreement that certain countries would meet an ODA obligation of 0.7% of GDP. Only 4 countries currently meet that obligation. The US is not one of them. To explain away their failure to meet their obligation the US government invents spin like "private donations" and "but we are so much bigger so we give so much more". The sheeple repeat the US government mantra and apparently believe it! Surely you are more wary of anything the US government says, especially given their recent comments on WMD.

      So, if you have never been face-to-face with someone, you can't call them by their first name, even if you know it?

      This is Leon. He's a fundamentalist and a creationist and he's been following me around Slashdot for ages. He doesn't use my first name to be friendly. If you don't know the background here then I advise you BUTT OUT.

  214. FIELD REPORT FROM CHENNAI, INDIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    For those of you who would like to know about what is required and how it is spent, this is a field report for Chennai from Balaji Sampath.

    (Request to mods: please mod this up so that people may read it. Thank you.)

    (Information: 1 lakh = 1e5
    1 crore = 1e7
    India country code: 91)

    ======

    Dear Friends,

    After the initial shock and chaos, we are now quite well organized to handle the relief efforts. A number of organizations have started working together to handle the relief work - AID, TNSF, Pondicherry Science Forum, DYFI, Vidyarambam, Pratham and the PHM Organizations. We have formed a quick informal coalition to coordinate this work. As of now the state level coordination is being done from the AID-India office in Gopalapuram Chennai. We are together working on relief efforts in Chennai, Cuddalore and Pondicherry, Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari. The relief work is planned in 3 phases:

    (1)Immediate Relief - food, clothing, blankets, temporary shelter, medicines and health camps for emergencies and epidemics.
    (2)Second Level Relief - Construction of huts and houses and health needs.
    (3)Third Level Relief - Livelihood needs for the families affected.

    Right now all our focus in on the first phase.

    In Chennai - we have divided ourselves into 3 teams:

    1.Collection and Information Team: This team will handle calls, receive donations of money, clothes, medicines, blankets and vessels and send receipts, give information on the current status of relief work. This team will also give out press releases, send out email reports and call for further donations based on the needs. This is the team that people from outside must contact. The people to contact:

    Bharati/Manohar/Hari (AID office) (44-28350403),
    Ravishankar (IIT Prof) (94440-84910),
    Chandra Anil (93823-30752, 44-28350403)
    Smitha Kalyani (98401-73800)
    Vibha Ravindran (98402-63275)
    Balaji Sampath (94440-61033, 44-28350403(Office))

    (I - Balaji - may not be available for the next 4 days as I am going to Nagai and Cuddalore to help with the field coordination.)

    2.Allocation and Distribution: This team will get the needs from various field locations, sort the materials collected, divide it up for different locations based on the need and send it to the field coordinators for distribution.

    3.Field Team: In each area we have a team of volunteers who will be coordinating the relief efforts and distribution of materials.

    In Chennai we have started the relief work in 5 areas:
    Pattinampakkam (Foreshore Estate)
    Tiruvanmiyur and Olcott Kuppam
    Kottivakkam
    Royapuram

    In each area we have allocated 2 people to coordinate with the distribution. These 2 people are taking down names of people, family survey, needs survey
    and what is being distributed. The idea is that this individual rapport that is built will be useful in working with the people over the next few months - ensuring rehabilitation and livelihood as well. Every day as the collections are being done, the field coordinators will go to the relief camps to provide the people with what they need.

    This is the plan everywhere - we work with a community, get a rapport during the initial relief phase and then work with them on the house constructions
    and livelihood rehab phase.

    In Nagapattinam district - which is the worst hit in Tamilnadu - we have 3 organizations on the field working: Tamilnadu Science Forum, Vidyarambam
    and DYFI. We are also trying to get other orgns and the dist administration into a joint coordination effort. Many of our volunteers of who are from fishing villages have died and so have many of the children studying in the support centers. Ranganathan from Vidyarambam left yesterday from Chennai with a van load of clothes and relief materials. Locally DYFI and TNSF have collected some materials and started the distribution. We have sent them some immediate funds and I will be taking more funds and r

  215. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by MotorNeuron11 · · Score: 1

    GPS satellites are constantly monitored from ground observation stations (Navstar's land segment). These observations are used to create and later update the ephemeris information. Your GPS receiver uses its most recent ephemeris to convert ranges to the satellites into a geodetic coordinate (lat/lon).

    Really, GPS should be able to deal with a minor change in rotation speed without any glitch. The land-based observations are used to adjust the ephemeris for the sat's actual position relative to ground control -this is typical. This information is then sent to the receivers from the satellites.

    What we will see is that datums that people have been equating with their GPS obervations (ie: the WGS 84 ellipsoid) may become obsolete more quickly. Software developers are going to have to make the jump to a more correct GPS datum (ITRF?).

    Of course, for the geosychonous satellites (of which, GPS is not) there may be issues.
    /geodesy geek

  216. Sounds fair by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    "sunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves" -Article

    Sounds like a fair way to clear out the gene pool.

  217. Tsunami BitTorrent by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Look for torrents on isoHunt. Search for tsunami.

  218. Yes and no by magicianuk · · Score: 1

    ... donors can state where they want the money used. The Red Cross has rules about how it uses the money it receives.

    And the 9/11 victims families are already millionaries.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F 60 F1EF63B580C7A8CDDA80994DC404482&incamp=archive:sea rch
    families or loved ones of civilians killed on Sept 11 received, on average, $3.1 million in government and charitable awards; families of uniformed personnel received average of $4.2 million

    The Red Cross says
    Between September 11 and November 9, the Red Cross has provided direct assistance amounting to $143.4 million.

    All money that Americans have donated to the Liberty Fund is being used for its intended purpose: to help everyone across the country touched and impacted by these tragedies. Millions of dollars in financial assistance is going to families who lost a precious breadwinner. Facilities that are open 24 hours a day are helping the rescue workers with important needs such as food, shelter and emotional support. As well, countless volunteers are helping thousands of individuals and families who lost their living environment.
    http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/donation wo rk/myths.html

  219. Rotation by webview · · Score: 1

    I feel older already.

  220. Ships at sea by Lotharjade · · Score: 2

    Yes, in Anchorge, Alaska there is a park called earthquake park (which my sister lives near) and the effects of the quake are quite apparent. For example my sister lives in a house that is say maybe 500 feet from the ocean. Before the quake it was half a mile or more from ocean. What happened is that say 300 feet from her place all the land past that point dropped down and everything past 500 feet now is under the inlet. When the tide is out, you can still see debri from the concrete houses that were destroyed (foundations even).

    I also have to wonder what happened to ships at sea. True, the waves of Tsunami are supposed to be quite a bit less due to no shallow water, but still it would have been a big (rouge) wave from and unexpected direction. How many ships in that ocean out at sea saw damage or were destroyed?

    --
    Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
  221. The mathematical explanation by trigggl · · Score: 1
    Here is what they are telling us.

    1 rotation ~= 24 hours + 3 microseconds

    My apologies for not being able to find a proper aproximation sign. I'm also having trouble copy and pasting symbols I have stored elsewhere.

    Does this mean we'll be having a leap second in 333,333 years? That will throw my schedule all off.

    --
    Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
  222. Now I screwed up by trigggl · · Score: 1

    That would be a leap second every 333,333 days.

    --
    Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
  223. Re:Christian fundamentalists were on the ground 1s by Severious · · Score: 1

    I do not now, nor will I ever care what you think.

    --
    Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
  224. Er... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...then why did you reply? You obviously care that somebody knows that you supposedly do not care what I think... or something like that. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  225. No worries, mate... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    I'd rather you didn't address me by first name. Use my nick as is the custom for blogs.
    Si, Bwana NathanH! As you wish. Beautiful clear blue skies over here today. What's the weather like on the other end of the lucky country?

    it really annoys me when Yanks get this holier-than-thou attitude
    Hmmm. I wonder how annoyed they are by your own HTTA? (-: Or my own overwhelming self-righteousness, for that matter; welcome to the wonderful world of human nature :-)

    I think any charity that proclaims its ideology is doing so for political reasons and I find that distasteful.
    How about the ones who are doing so to help people avoid making mistakes?
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  226. Nothing here to see by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    > This week's deadly Asian Quake and Tsunami may have been so powerful, that it changed the rate of Earth's rotation. In a Reuters article, a NASA geophysicist theorizes that the quake compacted the Earth enough to speed up the planet's rotation by 3 microseconds.

    This is nothing more than media sensationalization; it is not significant in any way, shape or form other than passing as news to the average joe, in turn selling more newspapers/products/ads. Nothing here to see, please move along (maybe to redcross.org?).

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
  227. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    GPS does not use geosync orbits - they are in a fairly low orbit, and a given satellite probably is only overhead for maybe an hour or something like that. The important thing is that the satellite knows where it is at all times, and it transmits that info which GPS receivers use in their calculations. All satellites drift naturally due to tides, etc, therefore there was already a need to periodically reassess the GPS satellite orbits and update the satellites idea of where it is located...

  228. Re:Another estimate and what that means for Satali by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the confusion. He originally had questions about both GPS and geosynchronous satellites. I answered both in the same paragraph, but should have been more clear that I was answering two different questions.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  229. Re:Christian fundamentalists were on the ground 1s by boots@work · · Score: 1

    I don't know of any specifically Atheist relief organizations, nor do I see why any organization would want to exclude people with religious beliefs who are otherwise suitable. There are *non-religious* organizations who do great work, such as MSF.

    What you seem to miss is that disbelief in supernatural beings does not imply an absence of ethics.

    The only logical ground I can see for being an Atheist

    Here's one: if God exists, he's a total bastard.

  230. Yeah, well, I can't name God's mother either... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...so technically, you're correct.

    Speaking to your point rather than your words, the known alternative is much worse.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Yeah, well, I can't name God's mother either... by boots@work · · Score: 1

      Tragedies happen, such as the recent tsumani. Any omnipotent being with a shred of decency would prevented them.

      The options are: God exists and is cruel (or uncaring, or impotent, or asleep, etc); or God does not exist and it is mere senseless matter that is being cruel. I don't see how the second is any worse -- it removes only a false hope -- and it has the advantage of being true.

      I am aware that an enormous number of theologians have tried to dance around the issue. Word games such as your wilful misconstrual of "bastard" are a favourite technique, and do you no credit.

  231. Utterly, utterly wrong. by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    You need to do a bit more research before putting up straw-men. If objections seem too easy to knock down, perhaps it's because they're not real targets, did you think of that?

    Do you have kids? If so, has there ever been a time when they simply Will Not Be Told? When you have to go ahead and let them hurt themselves in some degree, in order to prevent them from totalling themselves and/or hurting others? What you're looking at here is in part a scenario like that.

    Have you ever run across a military situation in which a few troops had to go through absolute hell in order to spare many troops and/or civilians a bad experience? You're also looking at a situation like that.

    If God had created a set of automata, completely incapable of doing anything wrong, we would not have these problems, or anything like them. We would also be essentially unaware of ourselves in any way that mattered. Why does God need self-aware creatures? I haven't been told. Certainly not to - you should pardon the phrase - lord it over them. But stop and imagine for a while, would you rather have responsive children or a house full of machinery? If your SO doesn't always do what you want, do you destroy them on the spot? Would you want to?

    RT.org, BTW, are reknowned more for their flexibility than for any attachment to logical rigour.

    But we digress. If Atheism exists, and it does, it must see Theism as an abberation. Agreed? You're certainly reacting like that so far.

    Given a responsible Atheism ("since I am essentially the ultimate authority I am also ultimately responsible for what happens around me and after me") - call it Altrusitic Atheism even though that's not really correct - such an Atheist is duty-bound to promote their position in order that the people around him react in a way which (s)he sees as most responsible. Which is a long-winded way of saying that a responsible Atheist would work to most completely undermine the assertion "only Theists operate charities" where the opportunity existed, by operating or contributing an Atheist-bannered charity. Any problems with that so far?

    The other, sadly popular pole of Atheism could be typified by the assertion "since there is no afterlife, no accounting, I should grab for as much as I can get out of this life, and damn anyone else" (or possibly, "apres moi, le deluge") - call it Selfish Atheism - couldn't care less about charity unless it needed some itself, and therefore has no rational motivation to operate or contribute to charities. Yes? No?

    The vast majority of real-life Atheists exist somewhere along that spectrum. This picture is muddied by labelling issues: the practical observation that many who think of themselves as Christian (this applies to members of other religions, but I address Western society) are for all practical purposes Atheist, and many who call themselves Atheist are really Agnostic.

    However, the vast majority of Atheists, effective or declared, hew to the Selfish Atheism end of the spectrum. What you are living amongst is a society driven by Selfish Atheists with some echoes of what might be called "habitual Protestantism" and a sprinkling of Altruistic Atheists and others to give it a veneer of responsibility.

    Take away that echo and the dilution by others and what you're left with looks very much like the French Revolution. Babies being passed from pike-head to pike-head and the kind of stuff you read about in the Jesuit Oath (plough through all of the Black Masses to the core of the Black Pope's army and what you'll find is - surprise - more Selfish Atheism and might-makes-right).

    Now we pass again from observation to speculation, but it bears upon one of many possible existential options beyond the two you posited.

    If you want the whole planet to look like that, just wait, it's scheduled to happen. When it does happen, remember this conversation. This tsunami is but an apertif of disasters to follow, and an faint echo of disasters which have already been.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Utterly, utterly wrong. by boots@work · · Score: 1

      There was a tsumani a couple of weeks ago that killed more than 150000 people and harmed millions more. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is just a much larger version of a child drowning in a swimming pool.

      What would a responsible and loving parent do? Firstly, they might prevent the hazard: gate the pool / supervise the child; not permit such a large earthquake. Note that this does not intrude on free will at all; it could be accomplished merely by manipulating the geology.

      Human parents "can't be everywhere at once" and can perhaps be forgiven for not anticipating the hazard. This excuse is not available to an omnipotent/omniscient god. Whatever happened must have either been willed or at least permitted.

      If the parent could have prevented the drowning but did not, then they are morally and legally culpable -- even if they say the kids were naughty.

      Did the victims deserve it? There must, at least, have been many thousands of people killed who did not deserve an agonizing death, being under the age of reason or having lived blameless lives. Perhaps it was some form of collective punishment? How were the people killed supposed to know what they were supposed to do to avoid it? There was no clear ultimatum or warning.

      Doubtless people are making the argument that unless Israel is removed from Palestine, similar disasters will happen. Multiply this by the thousands of different belief systems in the world. How do we know you are right and they are wrong?

      To say "if you don't do X, bad things will happen" is mere superstition. One can always invent random X that happens to match events. I walked under a ladder and stubbed my toe; people didn't accept Christ and there was a tsumani.

      Was this enormous tragedy with a purpose? I hold that no purpose could justify such a holocaust. I could not condone a parent drowning their child as punishment. What purpose could it serve that would not be served by, say, the appearance of angels above major cities?

      Both professed atheists and professed christians lie on a scale from altruistic and selfish behaviour. In my experience there is not much correlation between religious belief and common decency. (And this is to say nothing of the many decent deists, agnostics, catholics, liberal christians, pagans, etc.)

      This tsunami is but an apertif of disasters to follow, and an faint echo of disasters which have already been.

      That is likely true, and evidence for my point: enormous human suffering is inconsistent with a omnipotent loving God. I would find it easier to accept a purely old-testament jealous vengeful god, or a good/evil balanced duality (as in some branches of Zoroastrianism and Wicca).

      Predictions of the end of the world are a dime a dozen.