Slashdot Mirror


Images of Ocean Floor Show Effects of Tsunami

Iphtashu Fitz writes "This week the UK's Royal Navy presented images taken by the survey ship HMS Scott of the damage to the floor of the Indian Ocean that triggered the tsunami two months ago. The Scott has a high-resolution multi-beam sonar that let it generate highly detailed images of the sea floor, some 200m to 5000m below sea level. An image showing the scale of the damage, and the full presentation made by the Commanding Officer of HMS Scott (38MB PowerPoint) are available. The presentation contains a number of images that have more detail than those available on the websites."

357 comments

  1. Save the server - download through Dijjer by Sanity · · Score: 4, Informative

    Download the Powerpoint through Dijjer by clicking here.

    1. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late.

    2. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by jones77 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I feel that did Slashdot is becoming a collection of broken links ...

    3. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No offense, but why not use Coral Cache, etc where you *dont* have to install some plugin/3rd party app?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    4. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by jones77 · · Score: 1

      Huh? That did? Let me try again: Sometimes I feel like Slashdot is becoming a collection of broken links ...

    5. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because they place a limit on filesize. They have to since at the end of the day, Coral still relies on centralised servers.

      Dijjer has no such limit.

    6. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nobody should ever try to do anything new. They should just sit on their asses and complain, like you do.

    7. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by Nintendork · · Score: 1

      The download stopped moving 1.14MB into it.

    8. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by Sanity · · Score: 1
      Coral Cache is still essentially centralised (it consists of a number of centralised servers), meaning that its bandwidth is finite. This is presumably why they must limit file sizes to 50MB.

      Dijjer has no such limitations.

    9. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      Can someboady please post a link that works, outside ot BitTorrent or dijjer? I'm at work and we're pretty clamped down :(

    10. Re:Save the server - download through Dijjer by kLaNk · · Score: 1

      No worries, it took me a couple times to figure out what the problem with your original post was. :) Error checking in the brain working a little too well....

  2. Down already? by mg2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The tsunami evidently took out the royal-navy's servers as well =\

    1. Re:Down already? by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

      This was no natural disaster. It was the work of the deadly Slashdot torpedo.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:Down already? by Jellybob · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm feeling pedantic, so I'll point out that soc.soton.ac.uk is the Southampton Oceanography Centre.

      And I guess that may explain why my connection is so slow today, since I'm on the same exchange ;)

    3. Re:Down already? by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Recycling a joke from an earlier, non-related thread:

      British Techie sitting next to server room, sipping a cup of tea: Nigel, what's that sudden buzzing sound?

    4. Re:Down already? by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know. Just about all /. users are a part of natural and the natural order of things (I wonder about CmdrTaco sometimes) and we're always responsible for the repeated crashing of unsuspecting web sites, which certainly is a disaster for the web site owner. So, it could probably be considered to be a natural disaster in a way. Now, "act of God" ... well, I know that many of us have major egos, but let's not get too carried away.

      --
      The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
    5. Re:Down already? by Mercedes308 · · Score: 0

      I bet some webmasters must groan when they see a link posted pointing to their site go up on /. "/. torpedo in the water bearing 234"

      --
      And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
    6. Re:Down already? by Mercedes308 · · Score: 0

      I bet some webmasters must audibly groan when they see a link pointing to their site get posted on /. "/. Torpedo in the water!"

      --
      And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
  3. Not very nice by MuckSavage · · Score: 5, Funny

    Linking to a 40meg powerpoint file. I can smell the server burning from here.

    1. Re:Not very nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There needs to be a t-shirt:

      "The Slashdot effect -- comming to a webserver near you"

    2. Re:Not very nice by wordisms · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they will think this is a DDoS? Man, I guess the UK Ministry of Defense is not prepared for cyber-war. I hope we aren't looking for them to be a coalition member. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2737885.stm/

    3. Re:Not very nice by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The Home Office server (where the powerpoint file is hosted) seems to be crawling along. (Dumb of them not to convert the presentation to web pages, though.) But the Southhampton University and Royal Navy web sites are totally Slashdotted. I just hope that Commander Bond doesn't decide that this is a DDOS attack!

    4. Re:Not very nice by ngrier · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad I saw this come across the wire yesterday afternoon and looked at the presentation then!

      I can hear the whooshing sound of bandwidth rushing across the ocean floor. Unfortunately I'm headed _to_ an oceanfront cabin in an hour. Maybe the waves will have subsided by then. (Though given it's Friday, I'm sure just about every /.er will click on that link and sit and wait while it loads...)

      [And judging by the responsiveness of /. it seems like they're all hitting the homepage just about now!]

    5. Re:Not very nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We once hosted an 80MB video that hit the national wires (yes, slashdot included) ... you wouldn't believe how much traffic you can serve if you know how to tune apache correctly. Two virtual servers running an on IBM x335 (P4 xeon, 1.5GB RAM), each VPS serving 750-1000 requests at a time ... Besides, large single files have nothing on, say, large (filesize) sites that hit Oprah. *That* is lots of fun.

    6. Re:Not very nice by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      It would have been much nicer, and more geekish to set up a Bittorrent of it. No real load on the server, and more people can get it at the same time.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Not very nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave up on all this and went to look at porn.

      I'm telling you, I *did* seed!

    8. Re:Not very nice by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      That's not the server--that's the smell of burning trans-atlantic cable...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  4. No Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I followed the links and it said "No Data" or just timed out.

  5. Great Scott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why in the world would some sadistic person put up a 37 MB power point presentation on slashdot. Damn you must hate the home office. Well it still downloading strong for me at about 87KBs

    Timothy

    1. Re:Great Scott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woops just assumed it was the home office website.

    2. Re:Great Scott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why in the world would some sadistic person put up a 37 MB power point presentation on slashdot."

      Not their fault really. There are only 1MB of images, and 36 MB of MS Powerpoint crap wrapped around it.

    3. Re:Great Scott by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Why in the world would some sadistic person put up a 37 MB power point presentation on slashdot."

      People who use PowerPoint don't know what megabytes are...

  6. Oh, they'll like that! by Otter · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...the full presentation made by the Commanding Officer of HMS Scott (38MB PowerPoint) are available.

    I hope the British readers here didn't have any urgent business with the UK Hydrographic Office site!

    1. Re:Oh, they'll like that! by SlayerofGods · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does anyone ever have urgent business at a hydrographic office?

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    2. Re:Oh, they'll like that! by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone ever have urgent business at a hydrographic office?

      Yes actually. I use it frequently to get tide predictions so I know where's safe (or will have good conditions) to go windsurfing. Good job I'm not going sailing tomorrow or I'd be proper pissed at not being able to get that data.

    3. Re:Oh, they'll like that! by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

      Tommy: Proper pissed?
      Turkish: Yes, before Zee Germans get there.

      JerkBoB: I been drinkin' again...

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    4. Re:Oh, they'll like that! by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      This guy might have.

  7. Short attention span by drakethegreat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It would seem other nations do still care for the tragedy that happened to this world. I hope that they do because the attention span of some countries is really short and if you don't keep the Tsunami in the news it means decreased donations to help the victims. I hope the UK is doing a better job with this. All I know is that American media is so worked up about Iran, Iraq, and North Korea right now that the Tsunami was so last week...

    1. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So wait, you're saying that the news media should cease covering all news other than that of the Tsunami until the multi-year long process of rebuilding is over?

      This just in: Poodle soaked! Tsunami still a tragedy! Goth's flock to Sri Lanka for mass suicide, just like lemmings!

      Oh yeah, and some important stuff happened elsewhere too ...

    2. Re:Short attention span by raddan · · Score: 1

      How is this flamebait? It's a good point. The other thing that the American media forgot about, in the wake of the Tsunami, is the current situation in Darfour. The fact is the vast majority of American media is terrible. We talk about this all the time on Slashdot. How is this flamebait?

    3. Re:Short attention span by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you. It seems like only yesterday I was watching images of the tsunami on every cable cha...hey, Condoleezza Rice just returned from her first overseas visit as Secretary of State!

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    4. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you're gonna write "goth's" shouldn't you also write "lemming's", or are apostrophes just added at random these days?

    5. Re:Short attention span by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullshit.

      Didn't you see the news YESTERDAY where Bush tripled his funding request to Congress for tsunami aid to $950 million?

      Oh, wait. You were too busy bashing the U.S. to let a simple thing like hitting news.google.com (where it was a top story in it's category for most of the day) get in your way.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    6. Re:Short attention span by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure the reduced media coverage is why President Bush asked Congress to approve $600 million in new money for tsunami relief. That was... Wednesday: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/09/tsunami.aid/index .html

      The lack of media coverage is just because nothing new is happening. The event has happened, and now the affected areas are entering a long rebuilding process. We're still helping them. It's just not a new story anymore. There's a reason it's called the news.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    7. Re:Short attention span by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      And the U.S. media is responsible for reporting non-stop on the tsunami and that other thing you mentioned because...?

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    8. Re:Short attention span by gaintner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please. The American media may have plenty of problems, but its hardly to blame for the lack of attention being paid to Sudan. It's been going on a long time, and the media occasionally tries to bring it up again. The fact is we just don't care about what happens in Africa. Maybe if a few members of the British media (or someone else we actually relate to) wander in there and get massacred, we'll pay some attention. But the tsunami isn't to blame. If it wasn't the tsunami story that took precedense over the Sudan story, it would have been something else. Perhaps what Britney Spears had for breakfast, for example.

    9. Re:Short attention span by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Besides all the other posts, I seem to remember the US being told to "go home, we don't want you here" by some governmental agencies over there. Makes me wonder why we trippled our aid . . .
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    10. Re:Short attention span by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the aid money will end up going to American companies, so it doesn't go as far as it would if Bush had simply written a check to say Mercy Corp or Oxfam or Doctors w/out Borders or something.

      So compared to bombing Iraq into semi-submission, the $950 mil is pretty damn cheap.

      --
      [o]_O
    11. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you, AC. Marry me.

    12. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely at random. They just fly from my fingers, and no one knows where they will land! Well, they didn't land here anyways. Oh, but for the one in didn't. And that one too.

    13. Re:Short attention span by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      No kidd'ing. He should at least tr'y for consist'ncy.

      Maybe I should rename myself to "gramm'ar fashist."

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    14. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tsunami killed 200,000 and we send $1B.
      The Iraq war and occupation has killed 100,000 and cost $200B.
      Natural distasters are 400 times more efficient!

    15. Re:Short attention span by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but just Wednsday (Ash Wednsday), my Church had a collection for the tsunami victims.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    16. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 0, Troll
      Didn't you see the news YESTERDAY where Bush tripled his funding request to Congress for tsunami aid to $950 million?

      In other news, I tripled the amount I give a fuck about your opinion, from 0.001% to 0.003%.

      $950 million is a pathetic excuse for a donation. So it's triple what is was before. Your point?

      It's hard to find exact numbers, but Bush has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 billion in Iraq already. That's 368 times as much money as this silly little pledge.

      The number of people affected by the tsunami is far, far greater than the number of Iraqis we've killed so far. This means that we're spending literally thousands of times as much money to kill a single Iraqi as to help a single starving tsunami victim.

      Maybe that makes you feel proud, but it makes me feel sick.

    17. Re:Short attention span by jerometremblay · · Score: 1

      Because people need help even (especially?) under a stupid governement.

    18. Re:Short attention span by elint · · Score: 1

      you misspelled gramm'er (er, or mispelt). ;)

    19. Re:Short attention span by WankersRevenge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yo whack-o-jack-o,

      He wasn't bashing the US rather he was being a little critical of the US media which in my opinion, not only needs a little ribbing, but also a full on figure-four-leglock. And maybe a few kicks to the skull for good measure.

      If being critical of the US media makes a person an american agitator , then forward my name to the committee of Un-American Activities.

      btw, i find your username particularly ironic in contrast to the tone of post. back to the quaaludes for you, baby.

    20. Re:Short attention span by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nearly a billion dollars is pathetic?

      How much have you PERSONALLY given to the cause? And then, can we see how much you have spent on other, not-necessary expenses?

      If you want to cast stones, one should be ready for the return volley.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    21. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus christ! Bush just increased govt based aid. The people of the United States gave nearly 1B$. The US military IS STILL THERE. WTF more do you want from us? Are we all to wear black and be in mourning for the next 10 yrs?

      Holy cow, your hatred for the US knows no bounds. If you're a citizen, you make me even sicker.

    22. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Nearly a billion dollars is pathetic?

      Yes, it's fucking pathetic. $5 billion divided by 5 million displaced people = $1000 per person. That has to cover food and temporary housing for the time it takes to construct permanent housing, as well as the cost of the permanent housing itself. Then you have distribution costs, losses due to corruption, etc. Then, you need even more money to float the economy for years while things begin to get back to normal. It just isn't enough money.

      How much have you PERSONALLY given to the cause?

      Stupid question. How do you know if I'm telling the truth?

      If you want to cast stones, one should be ready for the return volley.

      Your "return volley" is what, again? That Bush's pathetic contribution is acceptable because the my contribution is allegedly equally as pathetic? What are you arguing here, that the U.S. is okay because we all suck equally?

    23. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much have you PERSONALLY given to the cause?

      I PERSONALLY gave hundreds of dollars UNWILLINGLY for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    24. Re:Short attention span by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Fine and dandy.

      I'm one of those (underwhelming minority) people wo think that if the world wants us to withdrawl we should. completely. Inclusive of troops, aid, and support. I understand the unpopularity of the moves we made in Iraq. Fair enough. But if we are going to have diplomatic rotten vegtables thrown at us, I'd rather just leave and spend all the money we normally spend on forign aid and bases on fortifying our borders instead.
      I realise that I am probally placing myself to the right of Rush in the political scale, but it's how I feel and I'll stand by it. :x
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    25. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Yes, it's fucking pathetic. $5 billion divided by 5 million displaced people = $1000 per person.

      God, I don't know how that snuck in there. $950 million / 5 million is $190 per person. Not $1000.

    26. Re:Short attention span by magarity · · Score: 1

      $950 million is a pathetic excuse for a donation

      Well then perhaps nothing at all would be just as well. Since when is a 'donation' a requirmed amount or even a requirement in the first place?
      Maybe that makes you feel proud, but it makes me feel sick.

      It makes me sick that a comprehensive tsunami warning system for that entire region of the world costs for a tiny fraction of $950 million. But rather than spend money to better their citizens the corrupt governments line their own pockets and now come crying to us for donations. It also makes me sick that barely a year ago a maylay terrorist blew up almost 300 westerners in a night club. Now we send them whopping loads of money for a natural disaster that some of the mullahs there claim is punishment for them not killing more of us. And people like you want to send more to them?!?

    27. Re:Short attention span by teh_dg · · Score: 1

      They told the US, and every other country who offered it, that their armed forces were not required to maintain law & order.

    28. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 1
      But rather than spend money to better their citizens the corrupt governments line their own pockets and now come crying to us for donations.

      The governments are corrupt, so we should punish the citizens? Nice try.

      It also makes me sick that barely a year ago a maylay terrorist blew up almost 300 westerners in a night club.

      So it only matters to you if white people get killed?

      Now we send them whopping loads of money for a natural disaster that some of the mullahs there claim is punishment for them not killing more of us. And people like you want to send more to them?!?

      You're arguing that because there are psychotics in Asia we should let everyone rot?

      You are one sick fuck.

    29. Re:Short attention span by euxneks · · Score: 1

      There's a reason it's called the news.

      With the latest stories and reports and behaviour of the "news" media, you'd think they would call it the "Sensationals".

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    30. Re:Short attention span by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      And fascist. As someone told me recently though, there's no excuse for correct spelling.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    31. Re:Short attention span by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      As you noted, we are giving $190/person displaced. This, however, is not the entire amount we are giving. We have done other "off budget" donations by diverting resources from military, and other means. If anyone can show me a source with a grand total, I would be interested to hear it.

      Even given your assumption that the outside world should shoulder the burden for this, we have done well. The GDP/person in Indonesia was $970 dollars. (I believe Indonesia was the hardest hit). Our donation would employ the displaced folks for nearly three months to work and rebuild. Our donation covers the GDP/personal killed for about two years. And we are not the only country who is pitching in.

      Another point... simply dumping in more and more money will not help. We could have tons of food for folks... but no means to get it in. The US/Australia (and Japan, I believe) have been working together to build airstrips and other ways to get aid to some of the worst hit places. If memory serves, this $950 million does not include some of these efforts (please correct if I am wrong).

      And another point. The left yelled about Bush's original $350 million pledge, and many argued it should be a billion. Now that it IS a billion, the left has either shut up (and given no credit), or bitched that it still isn't enough.

      And another point: I did NOT vote for Bush in '04.

      And another point: My argument about your personal giving is valid. If someone doesn't but their money/actions where their mouth is, then they are generally not worth listening to.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    32. Re:Short attention span by mobby_6kl · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dubya probably decided to increase his cut

    33. Re:Short attention span by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      I read about Darfort every day. I like the dog. He's funny. And Darfert's co-workers. Scott Adams captures the essence of cubicle life so well.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    34. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As you noted, we are giving $190/person displaced. This, however, is not the entire amount we are giving. We have done other "off budget" donations by diverting resources from military, and other means. If anyone can show me a source with a grand total, I would be interested to hear it.

      Whether or not the money is sufficient, the fact remains that we're willing to spend 1000 times as much money per capita on war as on humanitarian activities. No matter how you slice it, there's something wrong there. Iraq is not like World War II which had to've been won at any cost.

      My argument about your personal giving is valid. If someone doesn't but their money/actions where their mouth is, then they are generally not worth listening to.

      I didn't say it was an invalid argument, merely that it's silly because I could simply lie and tell you I donated $1000 personally and you'd have no way of checking. So what's the point in telling you whether I've donated? You can conveniently claim I'm just making it up.

    35. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1K per person is a lot more than they were seeing on an annual basis. That's a tremendous transfer of capital into a region with little infrastructure and cheap labor. (I would note that they had thoudands of years previous to build sturdy roads like the romans, and largely chose not to.)

      If anything it's too much money. All people did was insure the charities that make their local communities run well are underfunded while contributing to an explosion of graft, and corruption in an already devestated economy. When the mana from heaven dries up they'll be even poorer than before the Tsunami came and only marginally better off had there been no money in the aftermath.

      I made sure to give double to my local charities this year though. Someone has to pick up the slack.

    36. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many Americans choose to give through their churches as well. Check out the amounts donated by religious organizations or private charity organizations based in the USA, before you go making an uninformed, inflammatory statement like that.

    37. Re:Short attention span by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      But you'd know if you were lying. If you are an intellectually honest person, you'd see your hypocrisy. If you are not, then this entire argument is a waste of my time. I generally assume I am dealing with an honest person until I have evidence to prove otherwise.

      It takes hard work to remain this naive.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    38. Re:Short attention span by ifwm · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nice troll, now shut the fuck up.

      I'm so tired of you anti-US types. How much is enough for you? Should we bankrupt our country?

      It could be nothing. If it were up to me, it would be. I have a class full of kids using 15 year old textbooks. I don't hear you claiming to feel sick abou that. Why not?

      .

    39. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not the money is sufficient, the fact remains that we're willing to spend 1000 times as much money per capita on war as on humanitarian activities. No matter how you slice it, there's something wrong there. Iraq is not like World War II which had to've been won at any cost. /heavy-sarcasm
      Yeah... killing people in a war should be much cheaper than giving them humanitarian activities... We should be able to kill 3 people for the same amount of money as keeping 1 alive.

    40. Re:Short attention span by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is rather like Ankh-Morpork. Spelling and punctuation are mostly considered to be optional extras.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    41. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realise that I am probally placing myself to the right of Rush in the political scale, but it's how I feel and I'll stand by it

      The political 'scale' is just used to make people with opinions that are in not in vogue feel like they are radicals. There are plenty of people that are independants that think our money would be better spent at home.

    42. Re:Short attention span by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Whether or not the money is sufficient, the fact remains that we're willing to spend 1000 times as much money per capita on war as on humanitarian activities.

      Most of the money you're wanking about was spent long before the tsunami hit. It's neither fair nor honest to count that, but don't let that stop you if it helps you get your rocks off. The only fair way to compare is how much money we're spending on Iraq now with our spending on the tsunami. Does anybody have those figures?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    43. Re:Short attention span by operagost · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm... more pork.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Short attention span by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's fucking pathetic...

      And how much money has been pledged by other countries?

    45. Re:Short attention span by operagost · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. There are also tens of millions in private donations, if not hundreds by now. Why the hell should the US government keep digging into the public coffers? It has been reported over and over that there is plenty of money right now -- what they need more is workers to help rebuild. Why don't you volunteer?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    46. Re:Short attention span by Mortanius · · Score: 1

      Hey Jackass, there are people in this country too. And guess what, they donate money to the organizations over there too. You know those other big pieces of land around the world we call countries? Yeah, most of them gave money too.

      Why do you expect the American government to foot the bill to care for these people? A product of living one's life having money handed from my paycheck to your pocket, no doubt.

    47. Re:Short attention span by operagost · · Score: 1

      Cite evidence that shows a) where the money is going and b) if it's going to American companies, why they are less efficient than non-American companies.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    48. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Why do you expect the American government to foot the bill to care for these people? A product of living one's life having money handed from my paycheck to your pocket, no doubt.

      Seeing as how the federal government takes $1257 from me every month, I'd say it's far more likely that you benefit from my tax dollars, than I benefit from yours.

      And I'd much rather prefer a large chunk of that $1257 go somewhere beneficial than where it's going now, which is Iraq. As a taxpayer it's my prerogative to express where I want that money spent. Yeah, the government probably won't listen, but that's the great thing about America, I can bitch about it.

      But how did this become a debate about my salary?

    49. Re:Short attention span by raddan · · Score: 1
      OK, so the problem is with the American public? I think this is clearly a problem with a system of news delivery that depends on ad revenue-- whatever is the most popular is what gets the most coverage. Maybe there's no way around the fact that commerical news will cater to the whims of the masses, but it is most certainly their fault that it's not covered. Without the extreme efforts of journalists like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, would we have ever known about Watergate? How can the American public begin to care unless they know. I've never once seen a front-page story about Darfour, but I've seen countless front-page stories about the baseball and football playoffs.

      The worst part is that we already know what will happen if we don't do anything. Nine-hundred-thousand people! Yes, the tsunami was a terrible thing, and sure, it's not the "fault" of the tsunami that no one hears about Darfour, but compared to the human cost in Rwanda the tsunami's damage was relatively small.

    50. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm one of those (underwhelming minority) people wo think that if the world wants us to withdrawl we should. completely. Inclusive of troops, aid, and support.


      I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'd start by removing troops from both Korea and Germany, and then cutting all third world aid.
    51. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I don't see how the comparison is not fair. The money being spent, in both the tsunami regions and Iraq, all came from my pocket. I would have preferred that none of that money flow to Iraq. Had it not, it would have been available for this event.

      People are arguing that I shouldn't bitch if I haven't donated. Leaving the question of whether I have or not aside, it is certainly my right to bitch. The money is MINE. Don't complain to me about not giving enough, when money is being taken from me against my will and given to a purpose I do not support.

      Maybe I could give more if I wasn't taxed so much -- make sense?

    52. Re:Short attention span by magarity · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are one sick fuck.

      Sounds like somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning!

    53. Re:Short attention span by 9-bits.tk · · Score: 1

      You deserve to be shot. You sad bastard.

    54. Re:Short attention span by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      If being critical of the US media makes a person an american agitator , then forward my name to the committee of Un-American Activities.

      Homeland security representatives have been dispatched. Assume the position. :-P
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    55. Re:Short attention span by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Oh, wait. You were too busy bashing the U.S. to let a simple thing like hitting news.google.com (where it was a top story in it's category for most of the day) get in your way."

      Heh. Not sure it was intentional or not, but ya made a point about how there's more news in the world than most are able to keep track of. If the American media SUDDENLY was on top of Sudan, we'd then be criticized for not paying attention to a problem in South America.

      It's been rather fashionable latey for the USA to be bashed by countries that really shouldn't be throwing stones.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    56. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on. The amount that Bush pledges is only a portion of what the U.S. is giving. You must count all the private donations. Oh and let's not forget the costs of sitting an aircraft carrier off the coast and using the U.S. military to provide relief. The same military you Euro-weenies like to critize for liberating the Iraqi people. The costs of those resources are also not included in that $950 million.

      The fundamental problem in these aruments is that European socialists are use to the government taking most of their money and making decisions for them. Thus for them, only government actions matter. Here in the US, the actions of private citizens are far more important. The individual giving by US citizens will far exceed anything the government does. In 2003 individual Americans donated $241 billion to charitable causes.

      Bottom line is, no matter what the US gives in terms of manpower, private and government donations combined, would still not be enough. Europe and many other areas are full of second rate countries that are jealous of our wealth and might - anything that can be done to redistribute that wealth will be persued to the nth degree.

    57. Re:Short attention span by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      The comparison isn't fair, because we've been spending money on Iraq for much longer than on the tsunami. Even if we stopped spening anything on Iraq, it'd be a long time before spending on disaster relief caught up with it. The important question is how does the ammount we're spending on humanitarian causes compare with what we're currently spending in Iraq.

      Whether you like it or not, some of your tax money is going to go to both causes. You certainly have the right to complain if you feel it's being spent on the wrong things.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    58. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He wasn't bashing the US rather he was being a little critical of the US media which in my opinion, not only needs a little ribbing, but also a full on figure-four-leglock. And maybe a few kicks to the skull for good measure.
      That's fine.

      But the Media was still reporting on the Tsunami, as the GP pointed out. Bash the media all you want, but this is not a case where you'd be correct in doing so.
    59. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay Bush. That's what it costs the US to be in Iraq for 4 days. We know where his priorities lie.

    60. Re:Short attention span by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      A pity.

    61. Re:Short attention span by hey! · · Score: 1

      What you say may be true, but it's a time-tested and proven strategy. The Marshall plan worked exactly this way.

      Of course, what might be an even better strategy than going with American companies or international NGOS is to contract with indigenous companies to provide relief and reconstruction services. The multiplier effect would increase the impact of the money, expanding and creatine new enterprises to employ the people who lost so much in the disaster.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    62. Re:Short attention span by ifwm · · Score: 1

      You can't do simple math (or for crying out loud use a fucking calculator) but you expect us to take your post seriously?

      How can we be sure your fact checking on everyting else doesn't suffer the same problems as your math?

    63. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The don't pay your taxes and shut the fuck up.

    64. Re:Short attention span by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You are making a mistake in equating the amount of news coverage an event receives with the depth of feeling people feel for an event.

      For example the last few days there has been a lot of coverage about Prince Charles re-marrying, according to your theory this means everyone cares deeply about the event whereas in fact no one really gives a toss.

      The last we have heard about the Tsunami is that aid is now being delivered and the task of clearing up and rebuilding is beginning, if this changes then I would like to hear about but if the situation remains the same then I do not need daily updates saying the same action is being taken and things are slowly improving as expected.

      I have attended 2 Tsunami fund raising events in the last 2 weeks and there are still donation boxes in most supermarkets which people are still using so it seems we do still care about the disaster and want to help.

    65. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And the distance between "forgot" and "nonstop reporting" is?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    66. Re:Short attention span by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You are suffering from false memory syndrome, I suggest you stop seeing your pyschiatrist immediately.

    67. Re:Short attention span by ssimontis · · Score: 0, Troll

      I agree. One of the biggest problems with the relief efforts is actually the UN. Don't believe me? Check this out. Not sure where its from, my dad e-mailed it to me: Guest Column: No Relief in Sight for the Lincoln By Ed Stanton It has been three weeks since my ship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, arrived off the Sumatran coast to aid the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Dec. 26 tsunami that ravaged their coastline. I'd like to say that this has been a rewarding experience for us, but it has not: Instead, it has been a frustrating and needlessly dangerous exercise made even more difficult by the Indonesian government and a traveling circus of so-called aid workers who have invaded our spaces. What really irritated me was a scene I witnessed in the Lincoln's wardroom a few days ago. I went in for breakfast as I usually do, expecting to see the usual crowd of ship's company officers in khakis and air wing aviators in flight suits, drinking coffee and exchanging rumors about when our ongoing humanitarian mission in Sumatra is going to end. What I saw instead was a mob of civilians sitting around like they owned the place. They wore various colored vests with logos on the back including Save The Children, World Health Organization and the dreaded baby blue vest of the United Nations. Mixed in with this crowd were a bunch of reporters, cameramen and Indonesian military officers in uniform. They all carried cameras, sunglasses and fanny packs like tourists on their way to Disneyland. My warship had been transformed into a floating hotel for a bunch of trifling do-gooders overnight. As I went through the breakfast line, I overheard one of the U.N. strap-hangers, a longhaired guy with a beard, make a sarcastic comment to one of our food servers. He said something along the lines of "Nice china, really makes me feel special," in reference to the fact that we were eating off of paper plates that day. It was all I could do to keep from jerking him off his feet and choking him, because I knew that the reason we were eating off paper plates was to save dishwashing water so that we would have more water to send ashore and save lives. That plus the fact that he had no business being there in the first place. My attitude towards these unwanted no-loads grew steadily worse that day as I learned more from one of our junior officers who was assigned to escort a group of them. It turns out that they had come to Indonesia to "assess the damage" from the Dec. 26 tsunami. Well, they could have turned on any TV in the world and seen that the damage was total devastation. When they got to Sumatra with no plan, no logistics support and no five-star hotels to stay in, they threw themselves on the mercy of the U.S. Navy, which, unfortunately, took them in. I guess our senior brass was hoping for some good PR since this was about the time that the U.N. was calling the United States "stingy" with our relief donations. As a result of having to host these people, our severely over-tasked SH-60 Seahawk helos, which were carrying tons of food and water every day to the most inaccessible places in and around Banda Aceh, are now used in great part to ferry these "relief workers" from place to place every day and bring them back to their guest bedrooms on the Lincoln at night. Despite their avowed dedication to helping the victims, these relief workers will not spend the night in-country, and have made us their guardians by default. When our wardroom treasurer approached the leader of the relief group and asked him who was paying the mess bill for all the meals they ate, the fellow replied, "We aren't paying, you can try to bill the U.N. if you want to." In addition to the relief workers, we routinely get tasked with hauling around reporters and various low-level "VIPs," which further wastes valuable helo lift that could be used to carry supplies. We had to dedicate two helos and a C-2 cargo plane for America-hater Dan Rather and his entourage of door holders and briefcase carriers from CBS News. Another camera crew was from MTV. I doubt if we'l

      --
      Scott Simontis
    68. Re:Short attention span by ifwm · · Score: 0, Troll

      You pathetic, cowardly cocksucker.

      HOW DARE YOU MOD ME DOWN JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE MY POSITION?

      FUCK YOU WHOEVER MODDED ME TROLL. THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL, YOU ASSHOLE.

      I hate you fucking slashbots. If you disagree, you hide like roaches, modding instead of commenting. READ the goddamned post, and TRY to disagree with me.

      What, you think kids SHOULD use 15 year old textbooks?

    69. Re:Short attention span by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      A comprehensive tsunami warning system needs to be maintained. Given that in that region a tsunami hits every century or so, try to calculate the odds that the thing will be operational around 2100 when the next one comes.

    70. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Haven't you seen the news that the country "donations" to tsunami relief were just pledges, which have seen only about 1/3 of the money actually delivered? Though the individual people's contributions have all been coming through promptly. Haven't you seen the news that Bush's $15B pledge to African AIDS has paid only $1B? Aren't you paying attention at all to the fact that Bush routinely promises big handouts, even to the troops, then underfunds them all, in order to save money for his bigger handouts? Like the $750B drug program, the trillions in tax protection for the rich, the hundreds of billions for Iraq, the trillions in Social Security deposits he's handing to Wall Street... Oh, wait, you were too busy Bush worshipping to let a simple thing like *every fact about Bush's budgets* get in your way. It's your money, buddy - why don't you care that Bush is stealing it for his friends, by conning your sympathy?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    71. Re:Short attention span by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      There is a whole lot of news out there - do you think the media is responsible to report every bit of it? Maybe if a person read every newspaper, magazine, news website and watched every tv news in a given day they might be able to get a good portion of world events but highly unlikely - and unrealistic with time frames. The media is not responsible to post everything that happens. To blame them and call them irresponsible is, quite frankly, irresponsible of you.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    72. Re:Short attention span by pclminion · · Score: 1
      There are people like you teaching our children? Frightening.

      I like how you refer to my expression of opinion as a "troll" and then get modded that way yourself for expressing yours. I believe the term "just desserts" is appropriate.

    73. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You've obviously discredited yourself, on that logic, because you replied 2 hours later to his own correction 2 minutes later, on a simple mistake. Not even the "math mistake" you're whining about - he overstated Bush's request to $5B, rather than its $1B. I don't expect them to live by your rules, nor myself - but I expect *you* too. So I expect that your logic is self-serving, and changes the premises to suit your conclusions. Why should we take you seriously?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    74. Re:Short attention span by chill · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Bush worshiper. I didn't vote for him, either election, and think his policies are too heavy-handed in many cases.

      The Executive Branch -- Bush -- doesn't fund squat, Congress does. The $950 million wasn't even a pledge but rather a request to Congress.

      Finally, it BETTER damn well not be all paid thru right now. Those pledges from Nations were for the LONG TERM. In many cases, over a period of a COUPLE YEARS. This was done on purpose not only to spread out the cost impact, but to make sure the money is better managed and not just splurged on crap and in a year, 90% of those affected didn't see any benefit.

      Of course, there is nothing to say this won't happen anyway...

      EVERY President tries to steer funds to their buds. It is the nature of politics. Hell, compared to some term-limitless Senators and Congressman (Robert Byrd of WV comes to mind), Bush is a rank amatuer!

      Do I like it? No. But I'm also realistic about it.

      Just out of curiosity, whom other than Haliburton actually has experience in the type of reconstruction going on in Iraq? Whom would you rather see the money going to?

      If you think graft, cronyism and corruption is bad in the U.S., you need to get out more. The U.S. is a playpen compared to Asia, Africa and Latin America.

      Bush, like EVERY President, promises big money. But Congress is the one that actually holds the purse strings.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    75. Re:Short attention span by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Just to note, $190 US currency goes a lot farther in other countries then it does in the US. My mom and her fiancee were in S. Africa on a safari trip. They got friendly with the guide and ended up finding out that for $100 US dollars he could finish building his home (small yes, but still). My parents gave him $200. What can one do here for $100? Stay at a cheap motel for a week? In SE Asia that $100 is a LOT of money.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    76. Re:Short attention span by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'd start by removing troops from both Korea and Germany, and then cutting all third world aid.

      immagine what Germany would say if we closed our base (which dumps uncounted dollars into their economy).
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    77. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, you didn't. There's a large difference between a pledge to ask congress and actual aid money for the victims.

    78. Re:Short attention span by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      Probably about equal to the distance between "tunnel vision" and "it's a big world out there."

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    79. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "One of the biggest problems with the relief efforts is actually the UN."

      From that screed from a pseudonymous Navy officer annoyed at his humanitarian mission, you get the *UN* is one of the biggest problems? Because of one snide comment about paper plates (without knowing the real context) and another about paying for workers' meals from some random staff? The "dreaded" UN vest comment, the "trifling do-gooders" (from a trained killer on his warship), the "Dan Rather / America-hater" idea... this guy has drunk the right-wing koolaid, and everything he says serves his buzzword agenda. But even his particular bent doesn't add up to "UN is among the biggest problems". You made that one up yourself. Bad enough that you're chiming in with Bush's fake pledges (he hasn't paid even the first $350M pledge). But you're trumping this whole travesty into an unjustified attack on the UN. Nice try.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    80. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Bush's Republican buddies hold the purse strings in Congress. And Bush holds the power to create the budgets, and push his agenda. Congress can stand in the way, but only to get their other priorities. I do know that corruption is bad in the US. And I've been to Asia, Africa and Latin America - and Europe - where it is often worse, though not possibly more expensive. Especially to me, personally, and in my name, and in my democracy. So I don't have any reason to compare to them. Except perhaps in Indonesia, where our tsunami relief is funding our client government to probably finalize its suppression of the Aceh people who stand in Exxon's way as it plunders their countryside for natural gas.

      As for Halliburton, the Iraqis have that kind of experience. They built that country themselves. And the Saudis, too, though I trust them less than even Halliburton - they funnel money directly to bin Laden, especially through his brother's construction company. Not to mention that Halliburton has been paid billions for reconstruction that hasn't been executed, nor will it. We could have had a $15B jobs training program for ghettoes all over Arabia, turning out a corps of people with a vested interest in building modern societies, rather than blowing them up in anger. Courtesy of Uncle Sam, as constantly reminded from every billboard. Instead, we've got a pure illustration of America destroying a country to get paid to rebuild it, without accountability.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    81. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That $190 has to be spent on an area where the infrastructure, including drinking water, has been wiped out. In a regular year, $190 would pay for someone to live for 2 months - without the total scarcity of food, shelter, water, medicine and other necessities driving up the costs. A couple of weeks from now, two months will have passed. And 2/3 of that $190 hasn't even been pledged yet. Even of the $350M pledged, only something like $100M has been paid. And there are, of course, many places other than Indonesia across which that money has to be spread. Consider the condition of places like this, like Africa (where I've been, as well as Indonesia), when they're just normally impoverished, and how much worse it must be now that this catastrophe has occurred. It's going to take a lot more than $190 per person to get through this.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    82. Re:Short attention span by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      What country writes a check to Mercy Corp, Oxfam, or Doctors without borders? None. Do any of the these fine organizations have a two thousand bed hospital ship? A few dozen heavy lift helicopters with support ship and crews? Frankly you comment is just dumb. Those NGO are NGOs for goodness sakes they are supposed to get funding from private individuals not from governments. If they where funded by Governments they would be GOs. When a Government spends money it has to be accounted for. None of the NGOs would want that kind of over site because it would take away there freedom and massively increase the accounting overhead.
      Nice little anti US jab at the end. Right up their with if we can send a man to the moon why can't we..[feed the hungry, save the whales, cure the common cold]

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    83. Re:Short attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how much money has been pledged by other countries?

      Well, Australia (with roughly 1/10 the population) has pledged A$ 1 billion (US$786 million)

    84. Re:Short attention span by ssimontis · · Score: 1

      Um, they basically took over a US ship for their own use! Instead of using the ship for relief operations, it must now also provide a hotel for the UN people. Helicopters and cargo planes that could be used to airlift supplies are now being used to ferry around UN staff.

      --
      Scott Simontis
    85. Re:Short attention span by JVert · · Score: 1

      There was a very famous "indigenous company" funded in this form. Became wildly successfull on efficiency however as their economy spurred their goals changed. Maybe you've heard of them, they go by the name of Al Qaeda.

      Making sure the resources go where you want is very important.

    86. Re:Short attention span by raddan · · Score: 1
      Gimme a break! We're talking about genocide! I'm not asking them to report everything, but you'd think thousands of people dying -- and not just dying, being hacked to pieces -- would take a little fucking precedence over the Crown Prince of England's future wife! If this isn't "news", then "news" is a sham.

      The fact is, a free market economy isn't very good at providing news because it caters to the whims of the consumer. We have to demand coverage and accuracy. So you're telling me that demanding more from our news services is irresponsilbe? I'm sorry, that's just totally fucked.

    87. Re:Short attention span by hey! · · Score: 1

      No that's an excellent case in point. We hired them to fight a war against a superpower, and of course when the job was finished in our eyes, they simply carried on.

      I presume we wouldn't have the any problem with companies continuing to build shelters, distribute food, or provide medical services once the crisis had past.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    88. Re:Short attention span by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, they took over a couple of bedrooms and seats at a dining table. Hardly an entire ship. The helicopters are used for their occasional benefit by the ship's commanders, hoping to get publicity. Which certainly would help - US military images are no credit to us these days. And the UN workers are a tiny fraction of the gaggle of relief workers described in that story. All of whom are supposed to be working together to help the people in that country. Offering shelter and food to the relief workers seems an exemplary role for the US ship; I'm proud my military is playing it. While you so despise the UN, whose workers spend years in nothing but those squalid, desperate conditions, that you exaggerate one pseudonymous, unnacountable critic into an disproportionate attack on the UN as a whole. You'll stop at nothing to further your propaganda agenda.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    89. Re:Short attention span by magarity · · Score: 1

      A comprehensive tsunami warning system needs to be maintained

      True, it needs to be maintained. But see this link describing the total cost of a *worldwide* system as $30 million. Even if you have to replace the thing every 50 years (and you don't, the Hawaiian system is that old and still working with minor maintenance) it's DIRT CHEAP compared to the $1B the USA Federal government is sending in disaster relief.

    90. Re:Short attention span by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

      Naw I wasn't trying to create a flamebait. I was simply trying to figure out why it is that the American Media was such a short attention span for things that should be of bigger concern. I would rather help starving people in India over killing people in the Middle East. Ya I guess thats flamebait. I hope this follow up doesn't qualify...

    91. Re:Short attention span by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

      No thats bullshit. He only does that because hes under pressure. How much was his original donation? Even if he did why the hell is it not anywhere where I can find it? MSNBC, CNN, here... I don't see this article and if it didn't happen they obviously didn't cover it. We aren't talking about what Bush is doing, we are talking about what the american media is doing and its not covering things that matter to me and if my post was flamebait I'm proud to be producing flames!

    92. Re:Short attention span by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Oh definitely. I don't disagree with the cost, it's just that there also needs to be a human infrastructure in place that will get the warning out to the important places. That infrastructure will not be maintained for the necessary time in this case, as people need to be continuously educated on what needs to be done when a tsunami hits. As we're talking about a timespan of several generations here, the final maintainers of the system and the entire population will only have a faint memory of the tsunami that wiped out their great-grandparent's neighbours. Then suddenly the system starts beeping (after possibly a couple of false alarms in the distant past). What will people do? Go out to lunch.

    93. Re:Short attention span by magarity · · Score: 1

      as people need to be continuously educated on what needs to be done when a tsunami hit

      How hard is it to remember 'RUN AWAY!'?

      After possibly a couple of false alarms

      The Hawaiian system has yet to go off falsely. And what to do when it ever does go off is part of the public school curriculum through all 12 grades as well as what happened to cause it to be needed in the first place. Hardly forgettable, go to lunch material.

    94. Re:Short attention span by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      and also think of all the services, where money is not being accounted for. As an example - the military is probably dropping a lot of food off - and I am willing to bet the money being donated does not include the costs of the military.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    95. Re:Short attention span by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Genocide? The tsunami event fails to meet the criteria of being considered genocide.

      The fact is - a free market economy is very good at providing news - there are SO many news venues. So maybe the 11 o'clock news doesn't give the latest update in the tsunami, but maybe the 6 o'clock, or the 7(am) o'clock, or cnn, or some newspaper, or some news website is.

      If you don't think a free market economy news organization is working - do you think it should be a socialist based news group? Say like the ones the Russians had? Or the one Iraq had?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    96. Re:Short attention span by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      troll this you dumbfuck

      Can't make a comment anymore without being called a troll or flamebait because someone doesn't agree with it.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    97. Re:Short attention span by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      Link Please

    98. Re:Short attention span by raddan · · Score: 1
      Man, you're an idiot. This is an old post, but I have to respond.

      First of all, I was talking about Darfour, not the tsunami.

      Sencond: hey free-market fanboy, the opposite of free-market doesn't have to be socialist. Have you ever noticed the government monopoly on road construction and maintenance? Holy shit! Call out the guns! Communism must be taking over!

      Maybe it's because free-market road construction would only pave roads where money could be had paving roads. Now do you get it? I'm trying to point your nimble little brain into seeing why free-market news fails to provide complete news coverage.

    99. Re:Short attention span by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Hold on let me get to your level "I'm rubber your glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."
      Asshole.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    100. Re:Short attention span by raddan · · Score: 1

      Yup.

  8. Other Effects? by StarWreck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what kind of effect this damage has had on things like Coral Reefs and deep ocean habitats surrounding black smokers?

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    1. Re:Other Effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what kind of effect this damage has had on things like Coral Reefs and deep ocean habitats surrounding black smokers?

      I hear the reefs are now heavily mentholated...

      *ducks*

    2. Re:Other Effects? by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      black smokers

      What's this?

    3. Re:Other Effects? by StarWreck · · Score: 2, Informative

      This: is all you need to know. Please get in the loop.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    4. Re:Other Effects? by nbert · · Score: 1

      Tsunamis don't have much effect on the open sea, so deep ocean habitats are pretty save I guess.

    5. Re:Other Effects? by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      The article is saying that most of the undersea "damage" occured at very great depths. I'm worried that some black smoker habitats were wiped out. It would probably take years for them to re-establish. It'll probably be a while before they find out the results of so much land shifting underseas.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    6. Re:Other Effects? by Tongo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe (couldn't RTFA, /.'d), that they were refereing to the section of ocean floor that actually moved, thereby triggering the tsunami. I could be wrong though.

    7. Re:Other Effects? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      Considering these environments are formed around the oceaenic spreading centers, I'm more than certain they're used to this type of activity...Nothing to worry about here...

      --
      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.
    8. Re:Other Effects? by saider · · Score: 1

      I'm worried that some black smoker habitats were wiped out.

      Why are you worried about this? Its not like you had anything to do with this, or could have helped the black smoker worms afterwards. Besides, with the black smoker environments changing constantly, I'm sure they're quite capable of dealing with events like this.

      Folks, we need to accept the fact that this is a changing world and occasionally things happen that have a negative impact on life. Fretting over the fate of some prehistoric lifeform that will probably outlive the human race is silly.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    9. Re:Other Effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sammy Davis Jr.?

    10. Re:Other Effects? by boingyzain · · Score: 0

      Black people live in the ocean?

    11. Re:Other Effects? by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Well, you might check out some of the posts here: Scubaboard

      Divers tend to be concerned with such things.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    12. Re:Other Effects? by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      was I the only one out there who was curious to see if those links traced to tobacco-using minority groups?

      But now I know: black smokers are hydrothermal vents with unnamed predatory snails and armor-cladded mollusks. Sounds like something straight out of magic: the gathering...

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
  9. They killed the RN web site! by Epsillon · · Score: 1

    The bastards!

    Just goes to show how crappy some of the IT projects in this country are when you can /. a military server...

    --
    Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    1. Re:They killed the RN web site! by Celt · · Score: 1

      I don't know, it seems ok to me
      getting 20k/sec off it atm downloading the presentation from http://www.ukho.gov.uk

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    2. Re:They killed the RN web site! by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      Nope, still no joy here and traceroute confirms my DNS and routing is not to blame. ukho.gov.uk (195.92.227.22) is, IIRC a separate site, the UK Home Office server. The RN web site (212.100.236.245) is the one that's /.ed.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    3. Re:They killed the RN web site! by temojen · · Score: 1

      It's a military PR server. I expect their critical systems are still humming along.

    4. Re:They killed the RN web site! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Napolean had through of that before Trafalgar ...

    5. Re:They killed the RN web site! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      In the U.S. the PR server is the critical server.

  10. Does this mean... by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fitz just linked a 38 megabyte file from the front page... does this mean that slashdot just declared war on the U.K.?

    ~UP

    --
    Eat the Path.
    1. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think UK will declare /. a terrorist organization for launching a DDOS attack.

    2. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> does this mean that slashdot just declared war on the U.K.

      Yes. In related news, France has already surrendured.

    3. Re:Does this mean... by nrlightfoot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, and here's a link to an article in the British magazine, New Scientist, which has one picture. Small article with a pic. (the sever may not be in britain though)

      --
      what sig?
  11. thats nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets all slashot the the British Royal Navy...

  12. damage by frieked · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Damage to the floor of the indian ocean?

    How about damage to this poor website after posting a 38MB powerpoint on slashdot!

    --

    I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
    -Xenocrates
  13. 2 Comments and Kablewie... by CygnusXII · · Score: 1

    Two comments posted and this thing is slashed. Very Sad indeed. Thank Goodness we can load up the PPT and read it directly. How long do you think that is going to last? Oh, well... In true slash style, let fly with the comments and speculation a Damn all to the actual story.

    --
    My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
    1. Re:2 Comments and Kablewie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I do whatever my Rice Crispies Tell Me to DO!

      You must be very limber.

  14. In other news... by HTL2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

    the UK Royal Navy website was completly destroyed by the Slashdot Tsunami

    --
    By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
  15. Fake? by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Are those images real or fake? Before anyone posts some proof I will remain skeptical. Slashdot is known for posting lies about tsunami.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your name real or fake? Before anyone posts some proof I will remain skeptical. Google returns no hits with your name.

  16. This must be a first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The first slashdotting of the ocean floor.

  17. ***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    damage to the floor of the Indian Ocean

    BZZZT! The surface of the earth cannot be damaged. Changed, yes, but not damaged. Unless you're suggesting that we need to get back to Pangaea somehow.

    Look, there are natural tectonic processes that have been going on for as long as the earth existed. Volcanoes and earthquakes are CONSTANTLY reshaping the surface of the earth. THIS IS NOT DAMAGE. This is normal behavior for the ecosystem.

    Next we'll be hearing that the predator/prey relationship needs to be banned because it damages animal populations, or that animals need to poop more because the coprophilic bacterial populations are abnormally low.

    1. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by yotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just because it's damaged doesn't mean it's bad. I damage a golf ball every time I strike it with a club. Eventually that ball must be replaced. It's perfectly normal, but it's damage. I didn't see anywhere in the article (And not just because it was slashdotted before I got there) where they were talking about banning earthquakes.

      Earthquakes cause damage. That's all there is to it.

    2. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BZZZT! The surface of the earth cannot be damaged. Changed, yes, but not damaged. Unless you're suggesting that we need to get back to Pangaea somehow.

      So: global warming, oil spills, the destruction of the ozone layer -- these are not damage?

    3. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct- the surface of the Earth has not been damaged. However, a small subsection of the surface of the Earth has been damaged. If, somehow, the tectonic plates carrying North America and Siberia were induced to move towards each other, the pacific ocean would be completely obliterated (and the surface of the earth still wouldn't be damaged).

    4. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      You seem a bit touchy about the casual usage of the word "damage". How about "impact", is that better?

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    5. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by simonecaldana · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not in an absolute meaning. Even total nuclearization is not absolute meaning. The notion of damage is intrinsecally antropocentric. Some can say that "reduction" (of biodiversity, or resources[1]) is always damage, but it is true only on the short term. On the long term, generally you can't say. The Yucatan asteroid did a lot of damage, but the mammals today are what they are _because_ that happened.

      [1] please note that a resource is a resource relatively to how one can use it. Oil is a resource for humans, CO2 is not. For plants, it's the other way around.

    6. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, calm down. Maybe the choice of words wasn't the most scientific, but if you see the effects of a big earthquake or volcano, it's kind of hard not to see it as damage, whether it is a normal occurance or not. I remember as a kid when Mt. St. Helens blew and completely devastated the surroundings. Sure, over time it will be just a little bump in history, but for the people affected, it's damage. Is this a reason to start jumping up and down and calling people ignorant?

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    7. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Funny

      I applaud your pedantry, sir. Let us apply this to different areas.

      BZZZT! The surface of your car cannot be damaged. Changed, yes, but not damaged. Unless you're suggesting that we need to get back to car body perfection.

      Look, there are accidental collisions that have been going on for as long as cars have existed. Cars and trucks are CONSTANTLY reshaping the surface of other vehicles. THIS IS NOT DAMAGE. This is normal behavior for the ecosystem.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    8. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will you sissies please stop arguing over the semantics of a fucking figure of speach!?

    9. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by ikegami · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it's not damage when a tornado or hurricance rips someone's house or town in two? True, it's is natural behaviour. True, it is changed. But the change came around from the previous environment being obliterated.

    10. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Metapsyborg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      BZZZT! The surface of the earth cannot be damaged. Changed, yes, but not damaged. Unless you're suggesting that we need to get back to Pangaea somehow.

      Look, there are natural tectonic processes that have been going on for as long as the earth existed. Volcanoes and earthquakes are CONSTANTLY reshaping the surface of the earth. THIS IS NOT DAMAGE. This is normal behavior for the ecosystem.

      Come on now, you're not even attempting to understand what they are talking about. I don't know how this was modded insightful, but it is damage my friend. Animals died, habitats were destroyed, plant life uprooted/moved/destroyed, rare/endangered species killed (not that I know for a fact, can't see the webpage). This is damage. It doesn't matter that these animals would die eventually anyway, it doesn't matter that in 200,000 years that piece of ocean floor won't exist anymore.

      Your cocky presumptiousness does not bely intelligence, it belies a refusal to understand something. Damaged, changed, modified, whatever it all means the same thing. And gee, the two "ridiculous" examples you list probably already happen somewhere in the world! People hunt to keep animal populations down (those bastard deer come to mind); I'm sure somewhere in the world predators are being kept away from herbavors to "protect" the herbavors from being "damaged". Hmm, maybe we should just ban the word "damaged", because obviously every thing that happens in the universe is due to nature. Therefore everything that happens would have happened eventually anyway, and it can not possibly be considered damage because it is "all in the natural order of things."

      Why don't you use your self-proclaimed knowledge for something useful, like understanding that words can mean multiple things and not everything people write about is a semantic argument?

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
    11. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by gsfprez · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You seem to be some right wing extremeist...

      its obvious that George Bush lied and all the damage because of the tsunami is his fault.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    12. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by kronin · · Score: 1

      Man, give me some of what you're smoking!

      So I can go out and download all the music and movies I want, because in the big picture I'm not doing damage to anyone. It will cause a new distribution mechanism to come out ("the mammals today are what they are _because_ that happened). Very cool!

      Now to just convince the RIAA and MPAA of this, then... profit!!

    13. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can imagine that your train of thought derails completely when you read a typo.

    14. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, man, go rub one off. Your attempt to project intelligence does not impress.

    15. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. He sounded like a revisionist liberal to me.

    16. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      BZZZT! Wrong answer. It is ALTERED, but not DAMAGED. "Damage" implies some sort of breakage, or loss of function, or abnormal behavior. Plate tectonics are none of that.

      When an iceberg calves, the glacier is not damaged. If the glacier melts, the glacier isn't damaged. Gone, yes, but not damaged. When an avalanch occurs, the snowfield is not damaged. When it rains, the clouds are not damaged. When a river floods and changes course, its floodplain is not damaged. All of these are nature's normal behavior. On a geological timescale, these things are happening constantly. They are not damaging to the earth, nor to any part of the earth. The earth rejuvenates itself and will continue to do so as long as the sun shines and radioactive decay heats the earth's interior.

      Again, my point is not to equate NATURAL CHANGE with DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

    17. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by allometry · · Score: 1

      BZZZT! The surface of the earth cannot be damaged.

      Let's take a look at the surface of the Earth right now, and what would happen if a 100+ mile wide asteroid slammed into the plannet... Seems it'd be pretty damaged to me.

      It is possible for "Mother Earth" to harm/damage/hurt herself...

      --
      http://www.allometry.com
    18. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Your first logical error occurs in the first word of your third sentenct. "The floor of the Indian Ocean" is not "Animals, habitats, and plants."

      I won't disagree that changes to the environment can be harmful to species living in the environment. That would be silly. I WILL disagree that natural geological processes acting on the geological environment damage the geological environment, any more than spitting damages your mouth, or sniffling damages your nose.

      Damaged, changed, modified, whatever it all means the same thing
      Permit me to respectfully disagree. I'll grant that "changed" and "modified" are synonyms, and I'll grant that "damage" entails change. But unless you are using your own private dictionary, "change" does not imply "damage." When you comb your hair, you change it, but you don't damage it. When you add gasoline to your car, you change it, but you don't damage it. When you reboot your computer, you change it, but you don't damage it.

      Anyway, my original point stands - not denying that geological changes affect living things, but denying that geological changes damage geological structures. "Damage" is the wrong word to use in that context.

      every thing that happens in the universe is due to nature
      Nope. The word "nature" generally connotes processes that are not attributable to humanity. When I dump 50,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a river, it's not natural - unless you are an extreme right-wing "what's good for business is good for America" capitalist nut job.

      Why don't you use your self-proclaimed knowledge for something useful, like understanding that words can mean multiple things and not everything people write about is a semantic argument?
      I'm rubber, you're glue...have a nice day.

    19. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dillon, see: this post.

    20. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bravo, sir! You have amused me, as well as intelligently disagreeing with me. Truly is it said, "If I can't have a good friend, at least let me have a worthy opponent."

      Now, to refute your refutation.

      The car is a human artifact. It exists solely because human beings created it. It has a purpose to its existence. When any circumstance makes it less fit for its purpose, we call the result "damage." I don't think you can disagree that this is the generally accepted view of things.

      On the other hand, if I take my dented car to an auto-body shop, an old-school one where they still fix things instead of ordering replacement panels, I will find that they dent the car further, and drill holes in it, and scrape it with abrasives. Are these damage? I would suggest not, since these, in the end, make the car more fit for its intended purpose.

      (I think I have here the beginnings of a Theory of Intelligent Design for cars.)

      "Damage to an ecosystem" must not be semantically entwined with "changes to the ecosystem." Human ecological catastrophes must not be confused with natural ecological changes. Otherwise you will get anti-environmentalists excusing human damage to ecosystems as one more example of nature red in claw and fang, humans as the ultimate predator and shaper of their environments. Beaver dams changing the course of a stream? Normal. Humans building a hydroelectric dam that floods hundreds of square miles? Hey, why not? Beavers do it, right?

      Anyway - that's my point (one of them, at least). Start calling natural events damaging...and you've handed the anti-environmentalists a get-out-of-jail-free card. "Sure, we've eradicated 43 species this year - but giant meteors from space have historically done 1,000 times more damage! So it's OK!"

    21. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Sorry. You had me until your last sentence. "Damage to the floor of the Indian Ocean" is a COMPLETELY different concept from "damage to human beings." I would argue that earthquakes CAN NOT cause the former, but they DO cause the latter quite frequently.

      "Damage" includes in its connotation the notion that it is a bad thing. If a woodpecker pokes a hole in your house, is it damage? Absolutely. If you poke a hole in a tree, is it damage? Sure. If a woodpecker pokes a hole in the tree, is it damage? NOW you've got an interesting question. See, woodpeckers have been doing that for millions of years, and trees still seem to be around.

      Maybe the choice of words wasn't the most scientific
      And maybe I shouldn't knock ignorance of words' denotations and connotations here on slashdot, where thinking is optional and grammar is rare.

      Is this a reason to start jumping up and down and calling people ignorant?
      Dude. I'm typing. Do you really think that a sentence is going to persuade me to engage in physical activity? Think again. On the other hand, the display of ignorance is the perfect reason to call people ignorant. What better time is there?

    22. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Yes, I could agree that the earthquake impacted the ocean floor. It could even be called an agent of change. In this situation, I suppose you could go so far as to call seismologists change management experts.

      DINGDINGDING!

      Hey, I've won Buzzword Bingo!

    23. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      A house is not the floor of the Indian Ocean. There is no real basis for comparison of the two; the lowest level of abstraction I can think of that includes both items would be the phrase "Things on the planet earth that can be changed."

      My point was that the natural environment cannot damage itself, although people can damage it, and the it can damage people. The natural environment is a hugely dynamic process. Are we to call all changes damage? I don't think so. Check out the Atlantic ridge - it is constantly undergoing volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Are those damages? I don't think so; I think those are the processes that make the ridge what it is.

      Anyway - damage to people's things and damage to naturally occurring things aren't comparable, IMNSHO. You are free to disagree. Have a nice day.

    24. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Yes. Also a left-wing extremist. We must now finish the work begun by the tsunami so that the human scourge on the planet earth will at last be wiped out, leaving only gentle Gaea and her peaceful animals.

    25. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      You're mistakenly assuming that "damage" in this article meant the same as "damage to the environment". The damage described here is limited to THE INDIAN OCEAN ONLY. Do you think that when one animal attacks and proceeds to eat another, the victim is not damaged? The biosphere is unharmed, and animals attacking each other is a perfectly natural predator-prey relationship, right?

    26. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Even if we Humans blow off all our nuclear weapons and destroyed all life as we know it, it could still be thought of as a natural event. Why? Because we Humans have evolved "naturally" on this planet.

      I guess it all depends on symantecs though...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    27. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      First you allege that an asteroid shatters the planet. Then you say the planet hurt itself. In this theory, the Universe says to the Earth "Baby, why you always gotta make me hit you?"

      Taking your statements seriously, though...if you expand consideration to include the entire solar system, then you've got to include it in your assessment of the damage, and you've got to consider stellar timescales. I would submit that, in this case, the solar system is NOT damaged. Sure, there's not much life left on Earth but bacteria, but according to the biologists, that's no different than it was a couple billion years ago.

      Good comment; I had to think for a while before I could come up with a reason why I wasn't wrong. =)

    28. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      First, it's "semantic" not "symantec". The latter is a made-up word, a brand name that was obviously meant to suggest "semantic."

      Anyway, yes, it does depend on how you define "natural." As I pointed out, though, most people do not consider the word "natural" to include acts inflicted on the earth by humanity. Your suggestion of wiping out all life is, I suppose, natural on a cosmological scale, but not on a planetary one. You have a valid point, but I I declare it to be irrelevant to this discussion, because I'm defining "natural" to mean "not caused by humanity."

      If you like, we could have a different discussion using your definition of "natural."

    29. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      I'm not referring to "damage" in the article. I didn't get past the first sentence in the original posting before I was compelled to respond to the phrase "damage to the floor of the Indian Ocean."

      The damage described here is limited to THE INDIAN OCEAN ONLY.
      Why do you think the Indian Ocean was damaged? I don't think there's ANY geological basis to such a statement. I'll grant (and have elsewhere in this thread) that habitats, structures, etc. were destroyed, but I contend that the floor of the Indian Ocean was not damaged. It's still there, still doing what it always did.

      Do you think that when one animal attacks and proceeds to eat another, the victim is not damaged?
      That's a silly suggestion; of course that individual organism is damaged. Within a few days, it's broken down into its component atoms and reassembled. You are correct, however, that the biosphere IS unharmed by such an event.

    30. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, damaged is always modified, but modified is not always damaged..

    31. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Is this a reason to start jumping up and down and calling people ignorant?

      Hey, this is slashdot. Here, no one needs a reason to call someone else ignorant, you ignorant fool... lololol

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    32. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The changes in the surface of the earth that are caused by the nature of the earth (moving plates, covered with water, etc.) are not damage, but natural changes. NOW, if something NON-earth were to change the shape of the earth, you can start talking damage (nukes erasing small islands, meteors erasing large islands, proto-planets causing a moon to form from earth-material.) Car analogy would be, the car moving from one position to another by the power of the engine included in said car. That'd be natural for the car,and normal. When the car interacts with something else the car wasn't designed to interact with (spraypaint, curb, acid-rain, car-crushing monster-truck, j-walker) then we start to talk damage.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
    33. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love someone ranting like this claiming that a different point of view is ignorance... I might point out, though, that there's no such thing as "herbavors"... perhaps you meant, "herbivores" ????

    34. Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, I agree the earth is not really being damaged, atleast not in a negative sense. ;-)

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  18. tsunami WAS the effect, not the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Images of Ocean Floor Show Effects of Tsunami

    I think people really really like saying "tsunami". Too bad most don't even pronounce it the right way.

    The floor was not the effect of the tsunami, it was the effect of the earthquake, of which the tsunami was also an effect.

    See, I like saying "tsunami" too!

    tsunami. tsunami. tsunami.

    1. Re:tsunami WAS the effect, not the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, except I always say püpli.

      püpli. püpli. püpli. püpli.

      -1 offtopic for me!

    2. Re:tsunami WAS the effect, not the cause by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      I think people really really like saying "tsunami".

      Not me. I liked it better when most people called it a "tidal wave". It just sounds better IMO. Tidal wave is also not significantly more inaccurate than the literal translation of tsunami, "harbor wave"; the wave doesn't have any more to do with harbors than it does with tides.

    3. Re:tsunami WAS the effect, not the cause by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      I think people really really like saying "tsunami". Too bad most don't even pronounce it the right way.

      Especially some of those pompous NPR reporters who insist on pronouncing everything as if they've momentarily forgotten how to speak English. I heard one of those bone-heads pronouncing it "toon-ami". Sounded like he was talking about a disaster at Bikini Bottom.

    4. Re:tsunami WAS the effect, not the cause by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      See, I like saying "tsunami" too!

      tsunami. tsunami. tsunami.

      Mushroom mushroom!
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  19. Sheer unbridled stupidity by KrackHouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For god's sake did anybody running this site really think that a direct link to a 38 meg ppt wouldn't bring down that server?

    Can someone please reply with sites that are like slashdot but not run by monkeys?

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
    1. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      You could always goto fark.
      Hang on, you probably meant further up the evolutionary ladder?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by carpe_noctem · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just read osnews for tech stories that will be published in /. tomorrow (with user comments even more idiotic than those found here, believe it or not), and then hit up boingboing for all the "humor" stories that will be reposted after a 6 hour delay.

      Nothin' to it!

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    3. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by dJCL · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hey I resemble that remark!

      (checks for new links on fark since clicking reply, nope )

      Anyway...

      --
      On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
    4. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by ScruffyScrode · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it was Jimmy Stewart that said:

      "Every time a server burns, a torrent gets its wings."

      I could be wrong.

    5. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      stuck there myself atm.
      Its good to switch off for a while :)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by dJCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ain't Friday great...

      Boss is on vacation, company is running better with him not here, so much so that I have the time on Friday to just waste some time.

      --
      On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
    7. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 0, Troll

      fark?

      feh.. im a totalfarker

      (and ultrafarker but i can't mentio ^%*#$^&*^*^&*^--- CONNECTION CLOSED

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    8. Re:Sheer unbridled stupidity by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 1
      I think it was also Peter Pan that said:

      "Every time you say 'I don't believe in torrents', a server falls down and dies."

      Sadly, the submitter of the story must have reasoned that torrents really do not exist.

  20. Wow... by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thinking about it scientifically, along with the terrible loss of life in this event is incredible.

    To me, this is a huge reminder that the planet in itself is capable of incalculable (in terms of lives affected) violence. And also that there will be in due time, something comparable. Or worse.

    And to think about the squabbles we have, our territorial ambitions, our day to day lives, it really means nothing in the face of these kinds of forces.

    --
    Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
    1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever

    2. Re:Wow... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Like Keanu said in the critically applauded masterpiece "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"

      "All we are, is dust in the wind...dude"

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    3. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to think about the squabbles we have, our territorial ambitions, our day to day lives, it really means nothing in the face of these kinds of forces.

      Shh, don't tell the sheep but you have summed up life in a nutshell, it is basically meaningless in the long term because we won't be around forever. This is entirely a temporary existence we live in.

      Of course the religious wackos still believe they're headed to some mythical afterlife, but let them believe it because once they're dead they aren't going to know the difference anyway.

    4. Re:Wow... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I feel bad for you. That you would trivialize your life because something can kill us in the end. Tomorrow you can die, and it can be because of health related issue, someone killing you, natural disaster, etc.

      I would like to think that every day we live and do something it means something - even if it can be destroyed. As the saying goes (more or less) - life is not about the destination, but the journey itself.

      That or I am a realistic optimist.

      I don't think the planet can comit violence. Violence requires some intent (behavior) - the planet (as far as we know) does not have a conscious self and thusly cannot comit acts of violence.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  21. 38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by CygnusXII · · Score: 3, Funny

    NEWS FLASH
    British Royal Naval Communications brought to a halt today. Somehow a Naval Report on the latest Tsunami damage was linked to Popular IT Community Web Site SlashDot.org. The resulting Bandwith usage rates shot to am alarming rate, and crippled Data Communications to Royal Naval Forces, and forced the Royal Navy to respond, by issuing the following Statement. "Koh! Blimey! We've been knackered by the BOFHs'!"

    --
    My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
    1. Re:38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you you talentless, pig headed, conservative american cunt

    2. Re:38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you fucktard, rats ass, liberal non-american pussy.

    3. Re:38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by CygnusXII · · Score: 1

      You know in actuality this is not meant to be as tasteless as you think. I am writing this tongue in cheek. If you consider the millions of attempts to get this file, and the resultant chaos it will entail, the damage I profess in jest, is actually a possibility. While not on a scale to consider the 'Entire' Naval Forces, this will be a disruption, of a governmental Service, for anything covering this Server.

      So why don't you smile when you say that?

      You gap toothed, oderous wanker. and here I thought the British Anonymous Cowards were supposed to have a sense of humour, and unflappableness. Whatever happened to that Stiff, upper lip, and all that rot? eh?

      --
      My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
    4. Re:38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's "Cor Blimey" mate...

    5. Re:38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by CygnusXII · · Score: 1

      Point taken

      --
      My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
    6. Re:38 Mb File Brings Limey Navy to a Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Koh! Blimey! We've been knackered by the BOFHs'!"

      Can someone please translate that into American?

  22. Earthquake Presentation.ppt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their servers are going to be experiencing an earthquake...

  23. wow what speed batman by PacketScan · · Score: 0

    Wow i'm getting a wopping 5.2KB/sec But hey it's not dropping :-)

    1. Re:wow what speed batman by deuce868 · · Score: 1

      damn 2.2 here....4 hours for a powerpoint presentation. I'm not going to make it.

  24. Not the tsunami... by Sabaki · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not only were the undersea landslides not the result of the tsunami -- they were the result of the causal earthquake -- but there's evidence to show that undersea landslides can be a major cause of tsunami. So these might help explain why the tsunami was/were so devastating.

    1. Re:Not the tsunami... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      This month's Scientific American had a blurb claiming that the net uplift in the ocean floor displaced enought water to raise sea level by 1 millimeter. If my decimal shifting is correct, that's 335,258,000 sq km x 1 mm = 335 km^3 of uplift. This sounds way too big. Is this even possible?

    2. Re:Not the tsunami... by Sabaki · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to remember that everything up here (earth's crust, the oceans, twinkies) is just riding around on a massive sea of magma, so yeah, probably.

      Disclaimer: I'm not actually a geologist, I only play one on the net.

  25. Article text by Swamii · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 40 MB file on the front page. Way to go douchebags, thanks for taking our server out. Here's the text of the article:

    The Royal Navy's survey ship HMS Scott has collected unique images of the Indian Ocean seabed in the vicinity of the devastating tsunami earthquake epicentre.

    The work, announced last month by the Ministry of Defence, is being carried out in order to further the understanding of earthquakes and assist prediction of such events in the future. It will be of considerable benefit to the Asia region as a whole and potentially give a global perspective.

    HMS Scott's tasking is a non-military role that will provide bathymetric ( measuring the depth of water ) and geological assessment of the Asian earthquake epicentre and extended fracture zone. To assist with this, scientists from the Southampton Oceanography Centre and the British Geological Survey have embarked in the ship.

    The depth of water in the vicinity of the epicentre varies between 200m to 5000m which is well within HMS Scott's capability using her high-resolution multi-beam sonar.

    The epicentre lies within the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone, and the survey itself follows discussions with the Indonesian Government about HMS Scott's potential value in furthering the understanding of the earthquake and future risk prediction. The survey falls under the definition of Marine Scientific Research under United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

    Survey imagesHMS Scott's survey will provide the 'base map' for future extensive research into the process of how earthquakes work; this is a crucial moment to conduct such research.

    While HMS Scott is not directly involved in the humanitarian relief effort, her survey work in the vicinity of the epicentre is of significance to the scientific community in furthering the understanding of the tsunami.

    HMS Scott deployed from the UK in November 2004 in order to undertake a programme of work in the North Atlantic, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean and is scheduled to return to the UK in June 2005.

    --
    Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
  26. triggered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This week the UK's Royal Navy presented images taken by the survey ship HMS Scott of the damage to the floor of the Indian Ocean that triggered the tsunami two months ago.

    Wait, so the damage caused the tsunami? Or was it the Inidan Ocean? Or could it have been the images?

  27. 1500m??? by justforaday · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TF(/.d)A:
    The collision has forced up spectacular large thrust ridges up to 1500 m high...

    New ridges nearly a mile high?!? Well, that certainly explains the little wave it made...

    --
    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:1500m??? by doublem · · Score: 0

      1500 m

      Meters.

      Not Miles.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    2. Re:1500m??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again tardo.

    3. Re:1500m??? by HisMother · · Score: 1

      Yes, and 1500m -> ~4500 ft -> nearly a mile, as the poster said.

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    4. Re:1500m??? by gordyf · · Score: 1

      OP said:
      up to 1500 m high...
      New ridges nearly a mile high?!? [emph. added]

      You said:
      1500 m. Meters. Not Miles.

      Google says:
      1 500 meters = 0.932056788 miles

      Reading comprehension. It's a Good Thing(tm).

    5. Re:1500m??? by Merlyn+MacGreine · · Score: 0

      Right, 1500 meters = .93 miles (roughly). The parent poster said "nearly a mile high".

      --
      ~Merlyn
    6. Re:1500m??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1500 meters in a few minutes? Wouldn't that have caused a wave over 1000 meters high?

      I believe the article means a "collision" occurring over many thousands of years.

    7. Re:1500m??? by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      1500m = 1.5km =~ 1 mile

    8. Re:1500m??? by demonbug · · Score: 1
      New ridges nearly a mile high?!? Well, that certainly explains the little wave it made...


      Depends on your definition of "new"; these ridges have probably been developing for many many thousands (the collision has been ongoing for several million years at least) of years. There was nowhere near 1500m of displacement during this earthquake; more like 10-20m tops (and that is a hell of a lot). Many such events over the last few million years (or even few hundred thousand) are probably responsible.
      Still pretty amazing though.

    9. Re:1500m??? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that have caused a wave over 1000 meters high?

      I am not a marine biologist or physicist, but (IANAMBOP?):

      No because you have to remember that there is a huge amount of water over that new ridge, water that has weight and exerts pressure. What happens is that the energy instead of being directed upwards gets directed sideways as water near the top of the column "falls" downwards due to gravity, and a tidal wave is created. A tidal wave is basically a wave that is not all that high (maybe 0.5 m) but has a HUGE wavelength, it's basically an area of water that can be a hundred miles wide. The net movement of the water is not much out at sea (just like in any wave - the molecules transmit energy to their neightbor but they don't suffer much displacement), but the energy gets transmitted all the same.

      Most of the energy of a wave is moving underwater.

      Once it gets close to shore the scale of the tidal wave becomes apparent since there is less "underwater" to transmit the energy, the water near the surface has to take up the slack, and what you get is a huge mass of water moving towards the shore. Because it has so much energy it doesn't stop at the shoreline but rather the water level rises because there is still energy coming in from the sea, which causes the water further out to basically pile up on the water that is further inland.

      Dunno if I explained it properly, but that's how _I_ understand it...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:1500m??? by clheiny · · Score: 1

      The ridges are not "new" in the sense that they were thrust up 1500m on Dec 26. They are the product of the plate collision which has been going on for some millions of years, and have been slowly pushed up duing that time. The eastern part of the ridge is probably only a few 10s of thousands of years old, and in that sense it is "new".

      --
      Racing is an addiction that makes heroin look like a vague hankering for something crunchy.
  28. this is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is getting ridiculous. Why does Slashdot continue to post stories with direct links to massive files that are hosted on sites that will obviously be killed instantly, once users start clicking the link? Would it be too much to ask to begin mirroring the files, or provide a torrent?

    These stories that reference some outside source are useless half of the time, because the source instantly becomes unavailable for a few hours until some new story comes up. It's getting really old.

    1. Re:this is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is getting ridiculous. Why does Slashdot continue to post stories with direct links to massive files that are hosted on sites that will obviously be killed instantly, once users start clicking the link? Would it be too much to ask to begin mirroring the files, or provide a torrent?

      What if the (person|company|organization) receiving the /.ing took it as a targeted DOS attack and tried to sue? Or claim it's a cyberattack from cyberterrorists?

      /just sayin'

    2. Re:this is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was posting this on my Hurricane Tracker, but only got 10% of the file before their server melted down. :/

    3. Re:this is stupid by smeenz · · Score: 1
      the source instantly becomes unavailable for a few hours until some new story comes up.

      heh heh.. I read that as "until the same story comes up".. I thought you were referring to slashdot's tendency to post duplicates...

    4. Re:this is stupid by RealUlli · · Score: 1
      What if the (person|company|organization) receiving the /.ing took it as a targeted DOS attack and tried to sue? Or claim it's a cyberattack from cyberterrorists?

      The suit would probably fail, because it should not be too difficult for /. to show that all those hits come from real, genuine human users. If they come from human users, it might be distributed, but it's not denial of service, rather than simple overload.

      You might as well call the traffic jams caused by some rock concert a DDOS on the road system... ;-)

      Cheers, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    5. Re:this is stupid by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      because that would require the editors to actually do the job of setting up the mirrors first and adding appropriate links to them in the body of the story that's been submitted...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    6. Re:this is stupid by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      This seems like something someone would have the brains to automate. OSDN does have some computer nerds on its staff, doesn't it?

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  29. Cause and Effect by irhtfp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It should be pointed out that the headline of this /. story is misleading. (Yeah, I know, what else is new?)

    Images of Ocean Floor Show Effects of Tsunami

    The damage to the ocean floor was a result of the cause of the tsunami - not the effect thereof. Tsunamis do not damage the ocean floor until they get into very shallow water (i.e. the coastline).

    --
    I've made up my mind and now I've got to lie in it.
    1. Re:Cause and Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. Posting something with a title like this on a self-processed nerd site is simply scandalous, especially when the blurb following it actually does get it right.

  30. Her Majesty.. by slashmojo · · Score: 1

    Has dispatched the fleet already.. tally ho!

  31. Major slip by JJ · · Score: 4, Informative

    The India tectonic plate, one of the most mobile in recent geologic time, slipped underneath the southeast asia one causing a major uplifting, which caused the tsunami. A relatively unusual geologic cause of a tsunami. Original reports where that some areas fell by 2000 ft, which would be quite remarkable and a bit of an exageration.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    1. Re:Major slip by Ajent420 · · Score: 1

      So, if the India tectonic plate had gone over instead of under, would the "Wave" have gone the other way?

      --
      Your lame saying here.
    2. Re:Major slip by JJ · · Score: 1

      Changing the geometry of the seismic event would have affected the tsunami's shape and directionality. There still would have been an effect in the direction of the main affected region however. The India plate has been taking a dive for some time however.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    3. Re:Major slip by demonbug · · Score: 1
      The India plate has been taking a dive for some time however.


      Yes; something like 40 million years, IIRC.

    4. Re:Major slip by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The India tectonic plate, one of the most mobile in recent geologic time, slipped underneath the southeast asia one causing a major uplifting, which caused the tsunami."

      Not to mention the Himalayas...

    5. Re:Major slip by JJ · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the Himalayas!!!

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  32. Ooops. Our bad... by halivar · · Score: 1

    Dammit. I knew we should of signed the Kyoto Protocol.

  33. We Sank Their Battleship! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Fitz just linked a 38 megabyte file from the front page... does this mean that slashdot just declared war on the U.K.?

    Slashdotters' guns were aimed and requests were comin' fast,
    The first link hit the website, they knew she couldn't last,
    That mighty Naval server room is just a memory,
    "Avenge the Bismarck" was the battle cry, sent over TCP.

    We found the freakin' powerpoint that's makin' such a fuss!
    We slashdotted the website 'cause the world depends on us!
    It hit the front page runnin, when we spun our browsers 'round,
    Yeah, we found the Royal Navy, and then we shut 'er down!

    With apologies to Johnny Horton's Sink the Bismarck, 1960, and those who served aboard both the Hood and the Bismarck.)

    1. Re:We Sank Their Battleship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      that was fucking beautiful.. well done, chap.

    2. Re:We Sank Their Battleship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word. Great post.

  34. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool stuff.

    Ned

  35. NEWSFLASH!!! by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    A tsunami has been detected approaching the coasts of Greenland and Iceland from the East. Geologists suspect this tsunami is due to the plunging of the entire uk.gov webserver complex into the atlantic ocean and a very high velocity.

    Did anyone happen to get the entire presentation and have a torrent up somewhere?

  36. Torrent? by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    If anyone managed to grab the ppt, please either post a torrent or let me have it and I will.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  37. 'Damage' is a loaded term by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    These are geological changes, not Grandma's china getting broken.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:'Damage' is a loaded term by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      These are geological changes, not Grandma's china getting broken.

      Heh.. I was going to make the same comment but you got it first.

      When a tree grows out of the ground, it pushes soil aside -- would you then describe the ground as "damaged?" Is the moon damaged because it has craters?

      The word "damage" is only meaningful in the context of human activities. As you succinctly stated, this is change, not damage.

  38. Donations? by temojen · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many Canadian charities havce stopped accepting tsunami relief donations. The Canadian Red Cross claims to have enough money to sustain their activities in the region for ten years.

    1. Re:Donations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that's only because their activities in the region merely involve setting up a card table with some coffee and a box of Tim Horton's donuts.

    2. Re:Donations? by MrEd · · Score: 1

      oooh, burn! Wouldn't it be timbits though? Then you could feed a crowd of 80 with one box...

      At least they're not trying to convert people by withholding food and aid...

      --

      Wah!

    3. Re:Donations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that's only because their activities in the region merely involve setting up a card table with some coffee and a box of Tim Horton's donuts.

      After a hurricane in Flordia their relief centers serve cold poptarts and Folgers coffee.

      Tim Horton's would be paradise!

    4. Re:Donations? by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      shut up eh.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
  39. Follow up story by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Funny

    Today the British Navy abandoned the gulf and turned its ships and nuclear submarines onto the Slashdot editing team. An initial force of Special Boat Service (SBS) forces was expected to take out the chain of command before a period of continual bombardment by artillery, missle and aircraft.

    A spokesman from the British Navy said "right that's it, we've left the buggers alone since 1812 but that does it."

    In related news Slashdot is being re-hosted from Camp Delta, along with any remaining members of the editing team.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Follow up story by N3Bruce · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them get through the Great Lakes to bomb Michigan. Of course, they would have to go through the locks at Niagara to get into Lakes Michigan or Huron, which would require complicity on the part of the US and Canadian governments. The British Navy of course would also need to send icebreakers this time of year as well.

    2. Re:Follow up story by vrai · · Score: 1

      Or they could just use those Trident II ICBMs the US Government sold them. Luckly for Michigan the US designed targetting systems will probably get confused and hit a Canadian target instead.

    3. Re:Follow up story by N3Bruce · · Score: 1

      Nukes would be overkill, but perhaps a nice long range cruise missile would take out the Geek Compound without starting World War 3. Nukes would cripple the internet and cause a few more nasty side effects.

      Perhaps complete destruction of the Geek Compound and the possible destruction of modern civilization can be averted by Slashdot implementing the cyberspace version of Abraham's Sacrifice in the spirit of the movie Fail Safe by publicly announcing and hosting a 1 minute high-resolution 10,000 FPS MPEG of a nuclear detonation. That should be sufficient to cause Slashdot's servers to go critical.

    4. Re:Follow up story by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      when we finish, there won't be enough left for them to paint it white again...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  40. mirrordot to the rescue :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.mirrordot.org/

  41. damage to sea floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the tsunami did not damage the sea floor

    a rapid change in sea floor topology caused the tsunami

    the new sea floor state is hardly damage as it's now more stable, a change for the better, not the worse

    morons!

  42. Fallacy tolerance overload by fm6 · · Score: 1
    That's a silly quibble. This cause of the damage may be natural, but you still have natural structures destroyed, habitats disrupted, etc. Presumably natural forces will repair the damage eventually, but calling it anything except "damage" is just dumb.

    I have some issues with your other statements. but I don't feel like a nitpick war. Instead, I'll just address what I perceive to be your basic argument. It's a common one: "Change and evolution are a part of nature. Nature is capable of fixing itself. Let's leave it to do that, and get on with business." It's true that nature will respond somehow to all the changes being forced on it -- extinct species eventually replaced by new speciation, destroyed environments eventually get replace by new environments, etc. But the key word here is "eventually". As the species that does more than any other species (or natural force) to change the environment, we can't afford to sit back and wait for Nature to strike a new balance. Aside from the sheer waste of watching thousands of species slide into extinction, we have to consider our own survival. Which requires keeping an eye on the total environment, in addition to mitigating the damage we do ourselves.

    1. Re:Fallacy tolerance overload by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Re-read the sentence I objected to. It's the FLOOR OF THE INDIAN OCEAN that I claimed wasn't damaged. Not once did I say that neither habitats nor structures were destroyed. I think that much is obvious. What wasn't obvious to the original writer is that the floor of the ocean, though changed, was not damaged. Many living things died or were disrupted, but the geological structure we call "THE FLOOR OF THE INDIAN OCEAN" was not damaged.

      I like your ssecond paragraph. Hmmm...where to begin...ya know, I don't think I can disagree with you. Changes WE cause are by definition damage (at least in my opinion). Building a house to live in damages the habitat I'm building on. We MUST minimize and mitigate the damage we cause.

      However, I don't think we should be too concerned about damage to the environment CAUSED by the environment. When a lion eats an antelope, that's natural. When the desert drifts and destroys an oasis, that's natural. When the ocean floor drops several meters, that's natural. To make the planetary environment static and unchanging over the centuries would be the greatest natural disaster of all.

    2. Re:Fallacy tolerance overload by fm6 · · Score: 1
      When a lion eats an antelope, that's natural. When the desert drifts and destroys an oasis, that's natural.
      Is the implication that we shouldn't worry about dead antelopes and dying osases? Not true. In general, you do want natural processes to take their course. But very often natural processes have been so distorted by human intervention that you can't count on the result.

      Let's talk about predators and prey, like your lion and antelope. In an untouched wilderness, there's a nice balance between predators and prey. But no wilderness is completely untouched. Obviously you should rely on natural predation as much as possible. But suppose you have too many predators and not enough prey? (Usually the problem is the other way around, since humans tend to look at predators as threats and/or competition. But we're talking general principles here.) And suppose that the prey species is on the verge of extinction?

      You might argue that the prey species has just run out of time and we should let nature take its course. But it's probably not nature that pushed the prey species to the brink. More likely it's loss of habitat to human uses, or some other artificial thing. The loss of this species is anything but natural, even if the final event happens to be natural predation.

      Now let's look at your oasis example. Suppose that particular oases has a species that you're likely to lose if you let the oasis disappear? Again, you can argue that this extinction is natural and shouldn't be interfered with. But again there are probably unnatural factors in the species decline: construction on other oases, climate change, exhaustion of subterranean water sources, etc.

      I've avoided specifics because I'm no ecological expert, and I can't claim to have all the answers. But I do think that "Let nature take its course" is an answer that ignores how much we've changed nature.

    3. Re:Fallacy tolerance overload by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      But very often natural processes have been so distorted by human intervention that you can't count on the result.
      A valid and important point, and you support it well; I don't substantially disagree with you. However, it has nothing to do with the effect of an earthquake on the floor of the Indian Ocean.

      And suppose that the prey species is on the verge of extinction?
      Ah, there's the rub. Obviously, if we're responsible for the loss of habitat or depletion of the numbers, then we bear the responsibility for preserving the species. If the species, when discovered, lives only in one spring in one cave, then I'm not too concerned about preserving it. For purely selfish reasons, it might be worthwhile to preserve frozen samples of it, but its loss will have no great effect on the ecosystem, and I won't worry if the cave collapses.

    4. Re:Fallacy tolerance overload by fm6 · · Score: 1
      However, it has nothing to do with the effect of an earthquake on the floor of the Indian Ocean.
      I can think of a few connection. The most obvious one is that you cited this kind of issue when you alleged misuse of the word "distruction".
  43. In Other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    France Surrenders.

  44. I propose an early detection system by saskboy · · Score: 1

    Not a system to detect tsunamis approaching, but a system that detects a stupid editor that doesn't edit out a link to a 38MB Powerpoint presentation on the front page of slashdot.org

    The Royal Navy could have been saved. They haven't known this kind of pounding since they tangled with the Spanish Armada or the U-boats.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  45. Fast .ppt download still available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save this link as a .ppt file, and use a hex editor to remove the HTML from the beginning and end:

  46. Ocean Floor Survey? by marcus · · Score: 1

    Hey, perhaps after they've finished with the Indian Ocean, they could go and survey the Pacific floor where that SSN crashed a few months ago...

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
  47. It's still "damage" by dustmite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't say it's not damage, I would rather say that it's this type of damage is just a normal part of the Earth's processes. It's still damage, although I understand your point that that is probably too abstract for Joe Public to grasp by him/herself, and so the term is misleading to the public, who only think of damage in purely negative terms.

    Next we'll be hearing that the predator/prey relationship needs to be banned because it damages animal populations

    Similar but true: For a long time people thought that forests and other ecosystems such as grasslands and vynbos should be "protected" from fires, because it "obviously causes damage", or so people intuitively thought. This causes problems such as excessive amounts of flammable material building up on forest floors, making fires far worse when they do occur, and complicating necessary natural decomposition processes. More importantly, fires have been burning in these ecosystems for so long that the plants and animals have evolved to in some cases require them to occur, for example some types of seeds will only germinate once they have been burned or smoked. Nowadays the focus is usually on better management through controlled burnings so as to avoid the burnings causing problems for human activities.

    As with all complex systems, the natural world is not always intuitive. Also, wanting to protect nature and *understanding* nature are two different things. The problems stem from incomplete knowledge (as with global climate change). The answer is always more knowledge.

    1. Re:It's still "damage" by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      I will nitpick your usage of the word "damage", but I agree substantially with your post.

      "Damage" suggests to me that something becomes less fit for its intended purpose. What is the purpose of the floor of the Indian Ocean? That's a significant question, as "purpose" implies an intelligent intent. My body may become damaged, because, from my point of view, it no longer does what I think it should. My house can be damaged, my yard can be damaged, my ecosystem can be damaged. I'm not sure the floor of an ocean can be damaged. (Unless there's a gargantuan leak into the earth's hollow interior - but that's a story for a less skeptical audience =)

  48. Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- they were the result of the causal earthquake --

    did you mean causal or casual?

  49. BitTorrent by Nahor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hopefully it works, it's my first. Max upload (30KB/s)

    https://orby.orb.com/~jehan/Earthquake%20present at ion.torrent

    1. Re:BitTorrent by Nahor · · Score: 2, Informative

      preview, preview, preview!!!!

      Torrent here

    2. Re:BitTorrent by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Thanks! It works, and does so very well actually. Downloading at about 100kb/s, which is the close to the realistic maximum of my 1mb line.

    3. Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works a treat. You must have done it right ;-).

    4. Re:BitTorrent by Nahor · · Score: 1

      It didn't work for the first 10-15 minutes.
      Then it was a bit slow for the next 20 minutes or so.

      Now there quite a few seeds, so the upload is a lot better

    5. Re:BitTorrent by mwilli · · Score: 1

      Very nice. 10 minutes at 35kb/s is much better than an hour through the official website.

      --
      My sig beat up your sig.
  50. Oh, and one more thing... by DLWormwood · · Score: 1
    "Tootie"

    I just love saying.... "Tootie"

    --
    Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
  51. Re:America, it's time to come home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you're right, you're right.

  52. In related news... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny
    Recent images of the ocean floor in the tsunami area found traces of an ancient city, temptativelly named "R'lyeh".

    Also, a big monster with a head like an squid is walking from there to Tokio. Press there don't know if call it Godzilla, or if they must call Godzilla to save them.

  53. Distance also a factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a folk psychology measurement that shows how the closer something is to you, the more of note it seems.

    If 1 person in your town was killed, it's news.
    If 10 people in your state were killed, it's news.
    If 100 people in the country were killed, it's news.

    The Indian Ocean earthquakes and the tsunami, for most readers, happened on the far side of the world. Why should we care?

    Here in Wisconsin, for example, a local story about a soldier's death in Iraq (Michelle Witmer) gets about the same degree of hits in the local news media as the keyword "tsunami."

    That's one death being reported on about the same as ~300,000.

  54. ./ -ed by yarook · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... not even the royal navy can handle ./ effect ;-)

  55. I felt a great disturbance in the Force... by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...as if millions of slashdotters all posted the same joke about the Royal Navy's web server going down. I fear something terrible has happened.

  56. Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How in hell can the concept of "damage" apply to natural phenomena?

    The ocean floor is changed. The Earth has been changing for billions of years. Why should two months ago be taken as "perfect and now it's "damaged"? If perfect was one billion years ago, the planet is positively totalled by now.

    The concept of "damaged" only applies to artifacts, things made for a purpose, which have changed in a manner that interferes with that purpose. The Earth is not an artifact, creationists and envirocultists notwithstanding.

    No wonder the Enlightenment was abandoned.

  57. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you don't agree with his point of view, that doesn't make it invalid.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing, opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and they all stink.

      But seriously, this is a forum for discussion. Posting flamebait (which I consider to be anything inflammatory without the slightest bit of backing or research)warrants declaring his point invalid until evidence is produced.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But seriously, this is a forum for discussion.

      Was he not bringing up for discussion US foreign policy?

      Posting flamebait (which I consider to be anything inflammatory without the slightest bit of backing or research)warrants declaring his point invalid until evidence is produced.

      You need backing and research to realize that most of the world has negative views of America?

  58. NOAA Bulletins from the Scott by X_Bones · · Score: 4, Informative

    More information and pretty pictures available from NOAA's Web site: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/indo20041226/hms_ scott.htm

  59. The poster is right by fredrated · · Score: 0

    damage:
    1.loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation.
    2.Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness

    I don't think the ocean floor lost value or usefulness.

  60. How much have you given? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its so pathetic how much have you donated to the relief effort? Would you prefer that my tax money is given back to me? or that we send it to the victims?

    I must say... $190/person for 5million people is rather substantial.

    And it's alot better than a 3rd of that!
    yes the Iraq war cost alot more... and yes it is money that could've been spent more wisely. BUT, this world isn't perfect and humans are greedy.

    For $190 they can fly one of the victims to my house and I'll put them up...

  61. Nothing is artificial then. by pyth · · Score: 1

    After all, the entirety of human progress has proceeded completely naturally.

    1. Re:Nothing is artificial then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to naturally pound in your face, rip out your spine, and rape your mother.

  62. Powerpoint mirror by smoker2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those without a torrent client there is a mirror of the powerpoint file here.

  63. It was three times larger than first thought! by antdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    LiveScience report that a new analysis of the December earthquake that caused disastrous tsunami waves to strike Asia and Africa. The report finds it was three times more powerful than earlier measurements suggested. This would make it the second largest earthquake ever instrumentally recorded...

    From AQFL.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  64. Some would say every possible solution is wrong. by gimpboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I too did not vote for Bush. In fact, you could say that I voted against Bush. This doesn't mean I believe everything he does is wrong. In regard to the tsunami relief effort, I feel we are doing a good job. Now this isn't one of those "America is the most generous countries in the world" posts. We had our soldiers flying in on relief missions and we stayed around providing drinkable water and food to people. We've also worked with other countries to help with the long term reconstruction.

    Some people will say we are not spending enough no matter how much we spend. Sure Iraq was a war of choice -- it was also a war I opposed. Once we made a commitment there as a nation we had no choice to follow through with that commitment. Iraq is our obligation at this point.

    What happened to the people effected by the tsunami is tragic. Of this there is no question. However, our obligation there is not the same as our obligation in Iraq. In many ways it is pointless to compare the two situations.

    When peole bash Bush, just to bash Bush they loose a lot of credability. If you want to criticize his private social security accounts thing, hey there is a lot to support your critizism. Fell free to criticize how he handled the occupation of Iraq. I personally think he fucked that one up. However, if you think everything he touches turns to poo, you're just going to be considered a left leaning extremeist.

    --
    -- john
  65. mod parent up - fact vs rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thank you.

  66. Here ya go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  67. So what about.... by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Southampton University, one of the other sites linked to and slashdotted off the face of the Earth? Ok, so the Royal Navy has special forces, nukes and really, really bad food. But the University has bad food, too, and the bar has more than just rum.


    The Joint Academic Network also pays per unit of data transferred over the transatlantic link. You've just bankrupted them!


    On a slightly more serious note, I think the fact that Slashdot can bring down some fairly beefy servers demonstrates that there is a fundamental flaw in the architecture of the Internet. Slashdot is "popular", but not overwhelmingly so. I don't think I've ever seen a topic go above a few thousand posts and it's very likely many people posted more than once. Slashdot's total circulation is probably in the 5,000 - 7,500 bracket. In comparison, a typical British broadsheet might be read by 175,000 people. Give Slashdot 30 times the readership, and admins of even the most powerful sites would cower in terror.


    Network overload is not confined to the realms of Slashdot, however. The tsunami early warning system is to be placed in a highly active region. There may not be many real tsunamis, but there will be a great deal of information flooding in. Unless those monitoring and administrating the system have a reliable and effective means of filtering out what is useful and what isn't, they'll either be causing a panic on a daily basis, or blithely ignore the next catastrophe as it unfolds.


    Raw information is like raw chicken - hazardous in that state, but beneficial when correctly processed.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:So what about.... by Otter · · Score: 1

      I think you're wildly overestimating the ratio of posts to readers (and to followed front page links). Taco has said a number of times that the vast majority of /. readers never go past the front page. They get far, far more than 5000 unique vistors per day.

    2. Re:So what about.... by Sinus0idal · · Score: 1

      Hehe I'd imagine with Southampton slashdot have overloaded the hosting server rather than the network links. I'd like to see the 10 gig links of Janet get slashdotted... even with the entire academic load of the country they are only usually a couple of percent utilised...

  68. is there a "before" image? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was a before image of this area, perhaps an interesting animation could be produced.

  69. Download HERE!! by ostermayer · · Score: 1

    I have the link hosted here: danostermayer.info

  70. Only india did that... by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

    I think that was only for India, who typically don't accept external aid.

    Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Indonesia are happily accepting our aid

    --


    Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
  71. Re:Ocean Floor Survey?- I'm sure someone has. by cyberguyd · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the someone has. It's just classified right now. A few years will go by and if we did it someone will get under the Freeom of Information Act.

  72. Stopped at 98% - OH JOY by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

    What a great fucking system, stops downloading when it's 98% done.

    What are that chances this thing resumes? I'm guessing not good.

    Trash bin for this thing

    --


    Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    1. Re:Stopped at 98% - OH JOY by Sanity · · Score: 1
      What are that chances this thing resumes? I'm guessing not good.
      Actually, it does.
  73. MOD PARENT UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod PARENT up...and that dijjer shit down (doesn't work). Parent works. I'm downloading at 120 KiB/s 84% done and 40 seconds left. hoooyah.

  74. What's that site running? by swamysk · · Score: 1

    Its slashdotted alright but look what its running and you won't be surprised why

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=ukho.g ov .uk

    IIS on NT4 - surely someone should have checked it out before putting the link on /.

    1. Re:What's that site running? by smeenz · · Score: 1
      Their server sends its private IP address out in the header too..
      HEAD / HTTP/1.0

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
      Content-Location: http://172.31.227.22/index.html
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:44:57 GMT
      Content-Type: text/html
      Accept-Ranges: bytes
      Last-Modified: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:00:53 GMT
      ETag: "c8629888c0ec51:5b2f"
      Content-Length: 50021
  75. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could be some people took the great grandparent post too seriously.

  76. New moderation code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a new slashdot moderation code, (+1, Funny Slashdot Effect Joke), to satisfy all the newbies with mod points who crack up at the sight of "Looks like the tsunami took out the server! W00t!". That way, we could crank it down in our preferences. (I had originally thought that the new mod code should be "-1, Slashdot effect joke", but then the people currently modding this crap up wouldn't use it.

    Posting A/C because I just modded a /.-effect joke Redundant.

  77. Didn't a navy sub hit someting in that area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this be related to the report a few weeks after the Tsunami that a Navy sub ran into something underwater in the Indian Ocean?? http://rantburg.com/popArticle.asp?ID=54863

  78. holding up well by capt.mellow · · Score: 1

    ~512kps on that .ppt file, in the midst of a /.'ing, not bad at all!

  79. Re:Short attention span (OT: Iraq) by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    I hope that they do because the attention span of some countries is really short and if you don't keep the Tsunami in the news it means decreased donations to help the victims.

    Roughly the same number of people have died in Iraq (+-50%) -- Thing about Iraq is that it is a man-made tragedy (and reasonably predictable), it has occured much more slowly and we don't have thousands of rich people who like to vacation there.

    Not that I want any less help to go to the Indian Ocean, but if the US had put as much work into the first few weeks of recovering Iraq as they did into the first few weeks of the Tsunami relief, chances are that they'd be doing a lot less bomb-dodging right now.
    (Not quite fully off-topic. More like tangental).

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  80. A Mathematical model for the Tsunami by adeydas · · Score: 1

    Here's a simple mathematical model to help you understand the effects better.

  81. [Off Topic] +1 Priggishness by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

    Such emotion. Wear the mod as a badge of honor against group think!

    I tried to have a discussion with you previously (diffent article altogether) and you attempted to turn things around playing silly games and twisted context. (Nicely done too by the way, props!)

    Personally I do not think your a troll. A little too pompous and arrogant for my taste but I do find you entertaining to watch regardless, specifically your debating style. Creepy - does this constitute a /. stalker? ::snicker::

    A quick note: I obviously did not mod you or otherwise the moderations would have been deleted responding to your post, so please do not attempt to go down that road with me. Think of this as an abrasive compliment; without foul language.

    To try to be somewhat on topic with your previous post: No, I don't think outdated textbooks are a good idea, especially if the material dates quickly. Shame that some domestic needs take backseat to foreign policy needs that often seem ungrateful about the actions anyway. But what do I know, I think water is wet...::shrugs::

    --
    BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs