Slashdot Mirror


Earthquake off Northern California

merger writes "A 7.0 earthquake (7.4 according to NOAA) occured off of the northern California coast occured at 7:50 p.m. PST triggering a tsunami warning (which was then downgraded to a tsunami bulletin). While searching Google News for information I learned about an earthquake preparedness study for the area which was just published today."

373 comments

  1. Anyone know how many hurt? by HG2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyone?!?!?! I have family that live there... I am going to call them now.

    1. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Sure, go ahead and tie up the phone system.

    2. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by krautcanman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      None. The earthquake was approx 80 miles offshore from Crescent City, about 300 miles NW of San Francisco. The Tsunami warning was retracted within an hour of the quake.

    3. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, did I just think that, or post it?

    4. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn, even the earthquakes go offshore now.

    5. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by VolcomPimp · · Score: 0

      ZERO... The 7.0 was offshore... There was a 3.0-4.0 in Eureka

    6. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      In the 60s, a tsunami caused by a quake off of Alaska killed a dozen or so people in Crescent City.

      So, some initial concern is definitely warranted.

    7. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least now we don't have to hold our breath waiting on the rest of the world to send aid to the "great SATAN" that is the USA. Effers would be dancing in the streets if we had anything as remotely devastating as the Sumatra tsunami.

    8. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by FCKGW · · Score: 1

      The earthquake was very small here in Eureka (1.5 hours south of Crescent City, 2 hours south of Oregon), to the point where some people didn't even feel it. It made my big metal shelves sqeak a little and I could feel a little shaking (it felt more like a slight swinging), but that's it. There was a tsunami warning, but it was short lived and no wave came. Go back to your lives; nothing even remotely important happened. I'm very surprised to see this show up on Slashdot.

      --
      It's an operating system, not a religion.
    9. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figures too, I got kicked out of work early and missed my bus because of that warning. It's funny how when something like this happens, you actually get so worked up that you kinda wish something did happen.

    10. Re:Anyone know how many hurt? by CINodras · · Score: 1

      My roommates and I pretty much wrote the quake off as our upstairs neighbors playing tag again. We live in a fairly old, and as such, flexible building. (Eureka, California here as well). The Tsunami warning was a little paranoid, I thought. Yeah, me too. I'm absolutely in shock at finding anything having to do with Humboldt County here on slashdot. Seriously, where have people's standards for gauging good news gone? ;)

  2. Undersea Cables? by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

    There was a 2+ hour Adelphia cable (tv+internet) outage after the earthquake. Friend who are in the bay area say they didn't feel any shaking. Were any undersea cables severed?

    1. Re:Undersea Cables? by helioquake · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, probably someone spilled the bottle of beer on console and short-circuited it.

    2. Re:Undersea Cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or, knowing adelphia, someone stuck too many GBICs up their ass, and couldn't get them out quickly enough when a production unit failed...

    3. Re:Undersea Cables? by Infinityis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Am I the only one who finds it amusing that an EARTHQUAKE occured, human lives are put in danger, and one of the first questions posted asks about if the internet connection survived?

      The Matrix has you, parent poster.

    4. Re:Undersea Cables? by Forbman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the amusement is in realizing that if the earthquake caused a break underwater, that it's not going to be fixed in ~2 hrs, thus indicating the cluelessness of the question pondered.

    5. Re:Undersea Cables? by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. But 2h is roughly the time it takes to get alternative capacity running on a friend of mine basis. Been there, done that, hate fishermen.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:Undersea Cables? by anubi · · Score: 1
      When I lived up in the Bay Area / San Francisco, my pet fear was the BART subway that went under the bay . I was afraid that if the integrity of the tunnel ever got breached, the trains would lose electricity and stop, while the tunnels flooded with water.

      Nightmares and bad movies are made of stuff like this.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    7. Re:Undersea Cables? by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      You could definitely get either Vin Diesel or Ben Affleck to star in it. That, or Bruce Willis. Er... wait. I guess Stallone already did.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    8. Re:Undersea Cables? by aslate · · Score: 1

      We'd better make sure there are plenty of copies of "Ally McNiel" for 1000 year's time!

    9. Re:Undersea Cables? by Zzootnik · · Score: 1

      Wow-- I don't believe I actually understood that obscure reference... then again, this IS /.

      I hope I saved room in my brain for more important things... CRAP- I just purged 3rd grade...

      --
      Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
    10. Re:Undersea Cables? by aslate · · Score: 1

      Futurama - When Aliens Attack.

      When Fry spilled beer on a TV control panel, taking the "Ally McNiel" final off air, the Omicronians invaded 1000 years later (It happened to take 1000 years for the signal to reach them) to demand the final episode.

    11. Re:Undersea Cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, except the program in question was called "Single Female Lawyer," the main character of which was "Jenny McNeal." Lrrr should devour your for your failure to correctly describe his favorite show.

    12. Re:Undersea Cables? by stanleypane · · Score: 1

      Sure, but Adelphia -- with their oh so technological deep sea cable repair kit -- was able to handle this one in a couple hours.

    13. Re:Undersea Cables? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      The tunnels do not touch water, they are buried in the sea floor BELOW the level of the water. It would suck to get stuck down there, but trust me, the engineers planned for earthquakes and you probably wouldn't die.

      --
      My other car is first.
    14. Re:Undersea Cables? by anubi · · Score: 1
      Yeh, with my luck, the earth would decide to crack under the bay, intersecting the tunnel... with the water subsequently flowing down the crack, into the breached tunnel, and setting up a "mini-tsunami" in the submerged subway system by means of the inertial energy stored in thousands of tons of water moving with substantial velocity as it filled the tubes.

      I know these thinge were planned and engineered. I am an engineer, so I feel I know as well as anyone else that things don't always go as planned. Due diligence tilts the odds in our favor, but there is always the laws of probability that come back and bite us sometimes when we least expect it.

      From what I could see, such a scenario is not likely at all, and my own analysis suggests I would be far more likely to meet my demise in a car accident driving surface routes than riding the subway. I think my fear is more founded on the idea that in a car, I have at least some control over my car, whereas in the subway, I felt once in the thing, I had no control whatsoever - and everything would play out the same no matter what I could do in the event of a freak of nature like that. Now why can't I get such an irrational fear of something like the drive shaft connection to the car transmission failing and having the driveshaft drop onto the freeway at freeway speeds? It is possible for such a thing to happen, but not probable. Such an unlikely event could easily result in some spectacular ( and highly fatal ) car gymnastics.

      I get the idea you are an engineer too and probably have the same mindset as I where I feel I can do anything if I know how it works and can control it. As long as I know exactly how it works - I feel pretty damm safe... when I do not know how it works, I am skittery as a cat in a strange dark alley. I don't think anyone knows exactly how earthquakes pick where they are gonna hit yet. Neither do I think we can ever know. It boils down to statistics. And that is what scares me.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  3. East Bay Check In by obsol33t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nothing felt here, most people will not even know about it until tomorrow in our area.

    1. Re:East Bay Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't feel anything here in Sacramento either. Only reason I found out about it was the tsunami alert warning on TV when I was watching the NBA Finals.

    2. Re:East Bay Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a 7.9 quake in Chile just three days ago, with atleast 12 casualties.
      I'm surprised noone has mentioned it yet.

    3. Re:East Bay Check In by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Hey, there was a 7.9 quake in Chile a few days ago. 12 casualties I heard.

      Happy now ?

  4. This wasn't anything major. by FireballX301 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Link to CNN article.

    Plates shifted, relatively high richter scale, but keep in mind the Richter scale is *not* a linear scale. Nothing like the big tsunami a few months back.

    Hell, I live in San Diego, I felt a 5.6 a few days ago. Shook my bed a bit, that was more of an event than this.

    1. Re:This wasn't anything major. by helioquake · · Score: 1

      Plates shifted, relatively high richter scale, but keep in mind the Richter scale is *not* a linear scale.

      It's logarithmic. So even a small difference can make a greater difference in its energy output. In this case, much smaller than the Sumatra earthquake.

      What matters here is the distance and depth of the epicenter, perhaps. The farther away you are, the better off you'd be (sans tsunami) as far as a quake goes.

    2. Re:This wasn't anything major. by d474 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was a major earthquake (7.0), but as far as the tsunami goes, since this latest one was a strike-slip movement, there was practically no tsunami at all. That means the plates moved horizontally against eachother. It's the vertical moving dip-slip fault earthquakes you need to worry about for tsunami's.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    3. Re:This wasn't anything major. by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Ok, so, draw a logarithmic chart and you should get a nice line ;-)

    4. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Pyrion · · Score: 0
      The Richter scale is practically useless. You know what it ultimately comes down to? The number given is the number of centimeters the highest wave rises on the seismograph. 5.6 centimeters? Magnitude 5.6. Whoopie. Most of the damage produced by an earthquake comes not with the P wave but with the S and L waves.

      The number to pay attention to is the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating. That's really what people should be paying attention to as it rates actual damage. That 5.2 that hit Anza was only about a 3 (out of 12) on the MMI scale by the time it hit San Diego.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    5. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Pyrion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, epicenters have no depth. The epicenter is the surface point above where the quake hit. Generally the deeper the quake is, the less damage will be incurred (quake-wise) even right at the epicenter.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    6. Re:This wasn't anything major. by ozbon · · Score: 1

      The epicentre itself has no depth. However, so far as I understand it, there is a depth at which the earthquake occurs.

      For example, the quake that caused the Tsunami on Boxing Day was right on the surface (of the crust, not at sea-level) but others (more often the land-based ones, in fairness) occur further below the surface (land-level)

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    7. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      The word you're looking for is "focus" or "hypocenter."

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    8. Re: This wasn't anything major. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > Shook my bed a bit, that was more of an event than this.

      Most slashdotters have never had their beds shaken, so you might want to explain what it's like.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Max+von+H. · · Score: 1

      How much is it in destroyed libraries of congress? ;)

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
    10. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 1

      link to earthquake info

      From the tensor that does look like a strike slip fault to me, so you are to some degree right.

      But this thing would still release enough energy to trigger a major underwater mud-slide and that way releasing the energy for a major tsunami if the slide occurs in the wrong position.
      From classes (I study geophysics) I seem to remember there being some pretty steep slopes where these mud-slides could occur.

    11. Re:This wasn't anything major. by 3waygeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, the epicenter is a baseball stadium.

    12. Re:This wasn't anything major. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be destroyed Libraries of Alexandria?

    13. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this or similiar problems would be the reason for the warning, and then the downgrade

    14. Re:This wasn't anything major. by CTho9305 · · Score: 2, Informative

      7.0 is definitely a pretty big quake. The Northridge Earthquake killed more than 50 people in the Los Angeles area and it was "only" 6.7. There was some pretty significant damage . Of course, its epicenter was in an urban area..

    15. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > The number to pay attention to is the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating.

      Sorry, this is Hollywood. "It's a 4 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating!" just doesn't have the dramatic impact of "It's an 8 point oh on the Richter scale!"

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but keep in mind the Richter scale is *not* a linear scale.

      How is Andy supposed to properly weigh himself without a linear scale?

    17. Re:This wasn't anything major. by mikerich · · Score: 1
      The epicentre itself has no depth. However, so far as I understand it, there is a depth at which the earthquake occurs.

      You're thinking of the focus.

    18. Re:This wasn't anything major. by daeley · · Score: 1

      I go to games there -- it's a great single-A ballpark.

      And IIRC the dancing girls are known as the Shakes, so it's got that going for it, too. ;D

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    19. Re:This wasn't anything major. by Patik · · Score: 1
      In 1989, the epicenter was this baseball stadium.

  5. Tsunami info from a former park ranger by bjackrian · · Score: 5, Informative
    I worked as a Park Ranger at Redwood National Park a few years ago, and this is one of their nightmare scenarios. My housemate was a geology major, and the area right off of the coach is very susceptible to huge earthquakes (8.0+)--one happens every 200 or so years on average. The last one happened around 1700, so another one is fairly likely in the near future.

    Towns like Crescent City are at huge risk, and the city and state are trying to compensate with warning systems (that have been improved since the tsunami in the Indian Ocean). While some buildings have been constructed to withstand tsunamis (the national park headquarters was designed as a "flow through" building so tsunami waves will just break out the first floor windows and flow through the building), the best advice is to climb. Get to high ground as soon as you feel the earth shake. Don't wait for a tsunami warning--just climb!

    Also, don't go back to the ocean until you know for sure that it's safe to do so. Apparently, many of the deaths in the 1960s tsunami were a result of the mayor and several other people going down onto a pier to suvery the damage. Because tsunamis are really sets of high waves and sea levle changes, the next set of waves washed them away.

    One more interesting tidbit--most tsunami deaths aren't caused by the water itself. Instead, what happens is that the water crashes into buildings destroying them. Additional waves then take all of that debris and use it like battering rams to destroy more buildings. It's the debris that most often causes human deaths and damage in the city. Perhaps a good case for building more tsnuami-safe buildings?

    1. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      The natural argument is of course that it inevitably costs more to demolish old, not-to-code buildings and rebuild from scratch than it takes to just wait for a tsunami or earthquake to hit and do it for you for free. Mainly as insurance likely doesn't cover intentional demolishing of your own property.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by jrumney · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Mainly as insurance likely doesn't cover intentional demolishing of your own property.

      Insurance likely doesn't cover "acts of god" either.

    3. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... the area right off of the coach is very susceptible to huge earthquakes (8.0+)

      Might I ask how much you weigh?

    4. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by potat0man · · Score: 1

      the area right off of the coach is very susceptible to huge earthquakes

      Thank god I volunteer asst. coach on Saturday's for the local H.S. soccer team.

    5. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      the area right off of the coach is very susceptible to huge earthquakes (8.0+)--one happens every 200 or so years on average. The last one happened around 1700, so another one is fairly likely in the near future.

      The fault line in question is the Cascadia Subduction Zone off the coast of Oregon, which produces large tsunamis on a fairly regular basis--geologically speaking, that is. And there's the problem. Nobody on this side of the Pacific Rim remembers the last damaging Cascadia quake. The Japanese do, however. The 1700 quake produced a 10-foot wave there, though the damage was exceedingly mild compared to the recent catastrophe in the Indian Ocean.

      Nevertheless, the Cascadia fault is a major threat that coastal communities have failed to factor into their planning while building all of those low-lying structures. Geological evidence, as well as seismologists' own calculations, suggest surges of as much as 60 feet in height for the coastal areas closest to the Cascadia zone.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    6. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Insurance likely doesn't cover "acts of god" either.

      Ah - but does it cover earthquakes?

    7. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by saider · · Score: 1

      Insurance likely doesn't cover "acts of god" either.

      How does an athiest deal with this clause in the insurance? Do they get into theological debates with the insurance adjuster?

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    8. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Insurance likely doesn't cover "acts of god" either.

      Except for things like hail, lightning, windstorm...

      Many so-called "acts of god" are covered by your insurance. Many aren't. The ones that aren't are often things like overland flooding, where local and/or federal disaster relief will kick in.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    9. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Hence the importance of finding an agnostic insurance agency..

    10. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      Earth sheltered, steel reinforced concrete dome homes would be probably a better choice. Equip them with hatches like those on naval vessels and emergency steel shutter systems over the windows and they'd ride it out till the water receeded.

      Except in a Deep Impact scenario in which case the land underneath them itself might be washed away and the debris deposited somewhere in the Rockies. In that case lightweight superstrong composites used to make water tight buildings on stilt piers with break-away connections would just bounce like beach balls.

      Such things might actually be a good idea for tsunamis like that in Asia. Make them spherical, seat four to twelve like an amusement park ride, water tight, seatbelts and pads, with a GPS and radio transponders to locate them afterwards in case they end up out to sea. They could be put all over the coastal areas.

      Of course, they'd need sufficient warning to get to them.

      Let's hope that we keep up this war on terror and don't end up with some Bond film level bad guys getting it in their head to depth charge an area with weak undersea cliffs to create a massive landslide triggering tsunamis. Such acts of nature in the past have devestated areas around the North Sea and other places.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    11. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by DamienNightbane · · Score: 1

      ...Say, would you happen to know where I can get my hands on a few large depth charges and a good map of the seafloor?

    12. Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      I read an eye witness reports about the tidal wave in Asia and the guy said what saved him was the fact that he was *close* to the shore. Most people were actually killed by being stuck by rubble that was carried by the wave. As the wave travels inland it picks up more rubble.

  6. Re:first subduction by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Actually the quake was not in the proximity of a subduction zone, hence why no tsunami resulted.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  7. timely article by fearanddread · · Score: 4, Funny

    Interesting that this happened. Here is an article that was published just yesterday talking about exactly this topic. I guess the subduction zone reads the Chronicle.

  8. The Map didn't forcast it by tod_miller · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/step/

    If you look now though, there are two areas of fairly high risk.

    Don't use this map for anything important, like planning picnics.

    Still, I check this every day, and I am suprised that I was given a reference to test its accuracy so soon.

    Still, it has updated today in light of the events.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    1. Re:The Map didn't forcast it by origamy · · Score: 1

      Did you read how the map works? It bases itself on what happened recently to predict the near future. It's not a crystal ball telling you where "not" to be tomorrow.

      Follow the How do we do this map? link and you'll get to an explanation of how the map is made. Or you can go directly here: http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/eqprob.html

      Here in San Francisco there's a 50% chance of a 5.0 quake in the next five years, but it doesn't mean it will happen or not. It's statistics based on previous events.

    2. Re:The Map didn't forcast it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earthquake wasn't even in California though; it was in the ocean.

    3. Re:The Map didn't forcast it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I know, I am not stupid. I was just generalising the point, but thank you captain obvious, you can take the stick out of your ass now.

    4. Re:The Map didn't forcast it by kjfitz · · Score: 1

      If you read the fine print associated with the map you'll see that this map uses previous recent earthquakes as predictors for future earthquakes. It is primarily used to predict the probability of aftershocks. So for the BIG ONE your house will probably be gone before the map shows that the probability of an earthquake is high.

    5. Re:The Map didn't forcast it by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      No, I realise that it does, but if you read about things such as grouping and chaining of quakes, you will notice how an earthquake in chile might cause a quake in calif, later.

      Plus, various orders of quakes may sway location of probability.

      But yes, we are aware that earthquake prediction isn't good. We can barely know when the next bus is coming.

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  9. Slashdot should not be my primary news source :(. by saurik · · Score: 2, Funny

    So earlier, when this was first breaking news, my roommate got a phone call from her friend Erin about a possible tsunami warning. My first thought? "I'll check slashdot; if it's actually going to kill us (especially as we're in Southern California) slashdot will have an article on it".

  10. your family will be very appreciative by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    that you had to post to slashdot before calling them to see if they were ok.

    1. Re:your family will be very appreciative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'd think just giving a shout upstairs would be enough anyway.

    2. Re:your family will be very appreciative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mom and step-dad were at a meeting at the Coast Guard Station along the S. Oregon coast at the time. They were evac'd to higher ground for about an hour as a precaution.

      Of course all the phone circuits were SLAMMED when I tried to call to see if they felt anything. Nothing was felt there (North Bend Oregon area) from what they said.

  11. Sarge is out?! Someone pinch me. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Funny

    The earthquake was caused by the impact of the news that Sarge is finally out. (It took several days before that news truly sank in.)

    1. Re:Sarge is out?! Someone pinch me. by xmgl · · Score: 1

      it actually took a week.

    2. Re:Sarge is out?! Someone pinch me. by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      turns out a week is actually several days (seven, to be exact)

    3. Re:Sarge is out?! Someone pinch me. by xmgl · · Score: 1

      and it also turns out that seven days is actually 168 hours.

    4. Re:Sarge is out?! Someone pinch me. by MattWhitworth · · Score: 0

      and it also turns out that Slashdotters like to nit-pick every single joke :)

  12. False Alarm by amcox · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to a friend who is a geologist, the quake was on a slip fault, not a thrust falt, and therefore could not produce a tsunami. And, since it was something like 70 miles offshore, the shaking itself didn't do any real damage, either.

    1. Re:False Alarm by Punboy · · Score: 1

      Well, he's slightly wrong about that. There wouldn't have been an upheaval of landmass, and so it wouldn't have caused a huge tsunami like we saw in december. However, the shaking back and forth itself can cause tsunamis... or would they call that a tidal wave? Either way it doesn't have t be a thrust fault in order to cause a tsunami, it just has to be a thrust fault in order to cause a rise of the ocean floor, which would cause a huge one.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    2. Re:False Alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From this USGS map, the centre of the earthquake is closest to a subduction zone, not a slip fault, so theoretically the displacement of landmass could have caused a tsunami, had the magnitude been sufficient.

      However, the shaking back and forth itself can cause tsunamis... or would they call that a tidal wave?

      Tidal wave is the common (and incorrect) way of referring to a Tsunami. It's misleading, though, as the wave produced is not a product of tides at all and must be - by definition- the product of tectonic activity.

    3. Re:False Alarm by Pyrion · · Score: 1
      The issue is that even on strike-slip faults there is often a mixture of lateral and vertical movement.

      And no, the proper term is tsunami, only the media and the uneducated call it a "tidal wave", as tsunamis have absolutely nothing to do with the tides.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    4. Re:False Alarm by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      You know, I had something similar happen with my ex girlfriend.... we were making the bed shake, I suddenly slid down a bit on the covers, and, well... I tried to tell her it was a slip fault, not a thrust fault, and therefore it didn't do any real damage, but she said her south coast was not an area that gave her tsunamis, and if I ever wanted to get near her epicentre again, I'd better stay as far offshore as possible from the aforementioned south coast...

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  13. Re:zzzzzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not 'off topic'

    The article is not 'news for nerds' and isn't 'news' because it's over 5 hours old.

  14. Shrug, by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    too bad a tsunami can't hit places like Utah or Tennessee.

    1. Re:Shrug, by Mahou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that's what tornados are for

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
  15. South Bay Check In by kagelump · · Score: 1

    Nothing here either

  16. weird alert by sarcast · · Score: 1

    Living in good 'ol so cal, I have never heard of a tsunami warning, so that was fun to see flash across my screen while I was watching TV.

  17. Santa Rosa here.... by Eatmorecake · · Score: 0

    Was hoping to hear that Petaluma was washed several miles east, but no such luck.

    --
    Don't you mean.. BIZZARO! ..Signature?
  18. Hollywood Check In by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    Well it was pretty intense here. It felt like the whole world was shaking. There were all kinds of noises and objects flying around. Everything turned different colors too. And there were naked women everywhere....

    What's that? the quake was up north you say?

    That's it. No more LSD on weeknights.

    1. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd actually done LSD you'd know that you don't see objects flying around.

    2. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah well, he who felt it dealt it.

    3. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's LSD floating around down there? I could really go for a hit or ten.

    4. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd actually done LSD you'd know that you don't see objects flying around.

      If you had actually ever done LSD, you would know that it completely depends on dosage. Given a large enough dose, yes, you will see objects flying about although they will likely be completely unrecognizable.

      You won't see naked women either. At least not naked human women.

    5. Re:Hollywood Check In by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself, I have often seen helicopters and UFO's flying around. Later it has become apparent I was just standing by air conditioning units which can sound a little bit like things flying around in the air and imagined the rest.

      Also, whilst not flying around especially I have seen fields full of large Christmas Trees which on later inspection turn out not to have any trees in them at all, let alone Christmas Trees.

    6. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He who spoke the ryhme committed the crime.

    7. Re:Hollywood Check In by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      You won't see naked women either.

      Yes you will. But it only works if you take the acid at a strip club.

    8. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have done LSD and mushrooms, thanks, and in suitably large doses. If you take enough you may see non-existent object flying around, but you won't see real objects flying around. Real objects may writhe, pulse, creep, ooze, grow fur, grow legs, distort, colourise, etc., but not fly around.

    9. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't see any real objects flying around, only imaginary ones.

    10. Re:Hollywood Check In by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that under the influence of LSD you will never see any flying objects e.g. planes, birds, balls being thrown around even if they are really there and your friends not on LSD can see them clearly ?

    11. Re:Hollywood Check In by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The original poster in this thread only said he saw objects flying around, he didn't mention whether they were real or not.

    12. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So are you saying that under the influence of LSD you will never see any flying objects e.g. planes, birds, balls being thrown around even if they are really there and your friends not on LSD can see them clearly ?
      Now you're just being silly.
    13. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dammit!

      where are you finding LSD!

      I can't find it for less than $3 a hit.

    14. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rightly or wrongly, I took his post to mean real objects. Have you finished nitpicking now? Some of us have work to do.

    15. Re:Hollywood Check In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have any more smarmy comments about how experienced you are with LSD? I didn't know LSD did that much damage to the ego.

  19. here is another good site for seeing all of our by downsize · · Score: 2, Informative

    quakes: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

    you can see this big one off to the upper left, but 'quakes are no big thing around these parts - just look, we get ~hundreds a day; similar to /. geting 2-300 500 server errors a day.

    --
    do you have shinyfeet?
    1. Re:here is another good site for seeing all of our by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at that! One close to Yucca Mountain in the last week.

  20. Silicon Valley's sinkin', man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...an' I don't wanna swim. /cue_guitar_solo

  21. Cowabunga! by chillmost · · Score: 3, Funny
    which was then downgraded to a tsunami bulletin

    Surf's Up, Dude!!

    1. Re:Cowabunga! by troc · · Score: 1

      So I wasn't the only one who thought that the Californians would react in exactly the opposite way to everyone else to a tsunami warning.

      Everywhere else people would run away and get to high ground etc. On teh Californian coast, thousands of people would flock to the beaches clutching surfboards, yelling "dude" and "like totally rad, man" and maybe I'll catch my first tube today". Except the ones mumbling about 50 year storms of course. They'd be booking flights to Australia.

      You mean Point Break isn't a documentary?

      Troc.

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    2. Re:Cowabunga! by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Other reasons to hit the surf:

      Huricane's a'commin, east coast phenom.

      Dino killin asteroids, or comets for LN/JP fans.

      Just remember to bring that old longboard.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  22. Uhh? by xmgl · · Score: 1

    It's just another day in California :) Truly there was nothing major about it.

  23. Link to Realtime Earthquake List by ahodgkinson · · Score: 2, Informative
    The USGS runs a good site that lists all earthquakes, worldwide, with magnitude greater than 2.5. I monitored the list after the tsunami of last December, and it was interesting to see the aftershocks in the following weeks.

    In this case the same thing is happening. You'll note in the list that there have already been a number of aftershocks over the past few hours.

    They also have a RSS feed, so presumably you could create your own tsunami warning system.

    --
    ---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
    1. Re:Link to Realtime Earthquake List by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I subscribed to the USGS bigquake mailing list after the 26 Dec 2004 Tsunami. This is probably the same information as the RSS feed but the USGS cautions that it is not a warning system.

      I have been getting emails about 50 minutes after the quake and I think there is a manual review process before the mail is sent out.

      I think this would be too slow for a warning system.

    2. Re:Link to Realtime Earthquake List by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      There are a couple other mailing lists there, though probably not as much interest to you as the bigquake one. Mainly >3.5 in California/Nevada, and >4.5 in the United States. About three minutes after the 5.6 (later downgraded to 5.2) hit Anza I got a message from CISN.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  24. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah, it always good to joke about events that can and do kill hundreds of thousands. It's even better if you can do it as soon as the story is published because some kindred spirit with mod points might even spend one on your comment, thereby giving you your 15 minutes of fame.

    I hope that you're as keen to repeat your hilarous gag when death and destruction on the scale of last year's Asian tsunami hits closer to where you live.

    Sorry, but I hardly think that this is the sort of thing that you make light of, especially as we've all had a recent reminder of just how deadly offshore (and even onshore) earthquakes can be.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  25. Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dolphins living off the Pacific coast don't have phones. But one in captivity somewhere appearently has internet access and learned english.

    1. Re:Newsflash! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      But one in captivity somewhere appearently has internet access and learned english.

      But he disappeared after sending an e-mail to the human race that only contained one line: "So long, and Thanks for All the Fish."

      Unfortunately due to the number of recipients his message was almost universally classified as SPAM and never received by most of the human race who now only had hours to live....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  26. The big one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Uh-oh? Is this a prelude to the big one?

    Time to pack your bags and move to Kansas?

    1. Re:The big one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kansas? Planning on a twister visit to Oz? I'd rather do the Tsunami thing and live on the coast.

    2. Re:The big one? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      I agree. Those Great Plains thunderstorms are fucking scary.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  27. We Really Aren't Prepared by Soloact · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This earthquake didn't really rattle us very much locally (Eureka CA area), but it triggered the tsunami warning from 2001 to 2113 PDT, and was fully lifted at 2155 PDT. The warning came via email to those of us who subscribe to the Tsunami Warning Center emails. However, the email wasn't sent out until about 10 minutes after the quake, and didn't set off the Emergency Broadcast System on the radio for about another 5 minutes after the emails. Folks, in 15 minutes, a Tsunami could have already happened locally. Even though the watch/warning was broadcast, most locals just shrugged it off, or didn't even hear about it until I mentioned it to them over an hour later. The local supermarket has been promoting Emergency Awareness lately, but in view of the reaction of the people, we really aren't prepared should the epicenter of a 7+ quake happen under our feet, or should a Tsunami actually hit. Fortunately, I live inland far enough and high enough to be above a wave line similar to that of the Indian Ocean tsunami of last December. But I don't live far enough away to not have to clean up bodies of non-prepared apathetic persons who become victims should one occur. I did live right on the beach, previously, and had an evacuation package and procedure ready. Others along the Coast were ready, but not enough of them. Everyone should really do a self-preparedness check to see if they are indeed ready for such an emergency. This includes those who live in earthquake, tornado, flooding, mountains (slides and fires), and hurricane areas. Prepare yourself and your neighbors today, should you have to help each other tomorrow.

  28. You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by thedogcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Okay, its "tornadoes" and Utah doesn't get tornadoes as the Convective Available Potential Energy is not enough.

    CAPE is measure in J/kg... A redistribution of energy per unit mass. Any geek would know that.

    Helicity is not also high enough. Measure in m^2/s^2. The tendency for fluid to travel in a helicial flow... i.e. shit that be inportant to tornadogenesis.

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    1. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that some of us have knowledge that is useful in every-day situations that you're completely ignorant of? All the while you're memorizing facts and formulas that will be useful to one in fifty million people, and calling others idiots for not knowing them - when parent was only making a joke. Get a life.

    2. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by thedogcow · · Score: 0, Troll

      I find it ironic that you're telling me to get a life when I am talking about true fluid dynamics on Slashdot.

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    3. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what's the ironic part? that you still don't get it? or is this some kind of SNL "dumb asshole" sketch?

    4. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by thedogcow · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, this is not some banal sketch.

      Claim: Tornadoes can occur in Utah.

      Fact: Storm Relative Helicity is not strong enough. I am a meteorologist you fucktard. I also have a minor in mathematics. I fucking worship Navier-Stokes. The very basis and somewhat primitive segue into the equations of motion that describe the atmosphere. SRH (as eluded to above) is not strong enough. Utah does not get tornadoes. Don't fuck with me or I'll summon Zeus and shove a lightening bold up your ass. You do understand lightening do you? Faraday? Electric polarity.

      God I fucking hate you.

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    5. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig: Is Speedcore available on the web?

    6. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by mvdw · · Score: 1

      Understand Lightening? I can't even spell it!

    7. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unlike tornadoes in Utah, a lightning bolt cannot exist in that guy's ass. No matter what your ancient pagan religion tells you.

      Zeus is a tard. Bring the lightning!

    8. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      If Utah doesn't get tornadoes, then explain the F3 tornado that hit downtown Salt Lake City a couple of years ago? Nice damage to the Delta Center and other fun stuff, and a couple of homes totally destroyed. I'm sure their insurance companies (of the home owners) would like to have scientific confirmation that it is impossible to occur so a claim couldn't be made.

      And local TV stations routinely (about once every month or so in the summer) show pictures of an F1 somewhere... sometimes as a waterspout in the Great Salt Lake (where it is somewhat common to be seen... not as common as Kansas, but it does happen). I guess that is just Photoshop, right?

      I used to live in Southern Minnesota, and I will admit that tornadoes are much more common there. And in Utah (where I am living now), not only do you have problems with relative energies to produce tornadoes, you also have mountains that tend to muck up any consistant rainfall patterns. It is common for a major storm to dump 2" to 4" of rain in one area and just a trace 10 miles to the north or south. Wind going around a mountain range has similar distortions, all which contribute to breaking up systems that might produce tornadoes.

      All that said, and to get this more on topic, I would hate to be near large bodies of water like the Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake, or Lake Powell if an earthquake was triggered underneath. It could certainly produce Tsumai-like effects in a localized area. Or imagine a major earthquake under Lake Michigan and what damage it could do to shoreline properties around that lake. That would be billions of dollars in damage at a minimum.

      Still, it is more likely that something would happen in the Pacific (due to "Ring of Fire" combined with the extraordinarly large size of the Pacific Ocean), and why the money is being dumped into warnings for that area of the USA, and not the Rustbelt of the Great Lakes region.

    9. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightning. Lightning. Worst. Meteorologist. Ever.

    10. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you've sure got my vote for biggest retard on /. - well done, sir!

    11. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by thedogcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Pedantics. I am not up for it.

      I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    12. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by thedogcow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Thanks. Single?

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    13. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "...a lightning bolt cannot exist in that guy's ass."

      Where there's thunder there's lightning!

    14. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Okay, its "tornadoes" and Utah doesn't get tornadoes

      All righty! That that big swirling thing in aug 1999 that hit my hotel an hour or so after checkout time wasn't tornado?

      I guess I was just lucky to be in Salt Lake when they had an F2 class tornado.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City_Tornad o

      I remember that day well, the tornado hit the hotel just as I was leaving on my way to pickup my sister in Ogden. Had I not had a wedding to go to, I would have hung around and got some shots.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    15. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      If Utah doesn't get tornadoes, then explain the F3 tornado that hit downtown Salt Lake City a couple of years ago?

      I can... my sister was there. She's got very bad luck.

      It was Aug 1999. And I'm pretty sure it was an F2. The mid 80s buick wagon I was driving was hardly lifted off the ground and I didn't have to dodge flying cars. Come to think about it it was lots of fun.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    16. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by welsh+git · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Pedantics. I am not up for it.

      That's PEDANTS

      HTH

      --
      Sig out of date
    17. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad, because nobody else knows what the fuck you're raving about.

      Now fuck off, retard, and leave this stuff to the people who can actually spell, mmkay?

    18. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at your previous comments and their ratings (-1, troll), you obviously don't know what the fsck you're talking about. Please leave scientific obeservations to people with real degrees, and watch the profanity in your language. Using the f word in every sentenc doesn't really help you get credibility, neither does it make you look as cool on Slashdot, as it does on your highschool playground. I bet you believe in the IntelliDesign theory as well ;) (pun intended)

    19. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Good grief... I suggest you drop the gain a bit on the emotional feedback loop.

      You've gotta couple of poles getting in the right hand side...

    20. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I guess it was "downgraded" to an F2 tornado. The weather forecasters at KSL and KTVX were saying at the time it was F3.

      Links to relevant info about this tornado:

      http://edition.cnn.com/WEATHER/9908/11/salt.lake.t ornado.04/
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/418042.s tm (with some cool pictures of the tornado itself)

      It did do more than rock cars, but that doesn't matter. The point was that this was a real tornado and hit in Utah.

    21. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I guess it was "downgraded" to an F2 tornado. The weather forecasters at KSL and KTVX were saying at the time it was F3.

      I can understand the error. Utah doesn't get very many serious tornados, and it's hard to tell when it hits if the car it picked up was a Honda or Buick.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    22. Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. by Mahou · · Score: 1

      it was jokingly said, so i didn't look up whether utah gets tornados. and yes it's tornados OR tornadoes you asshat

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
  29. I was distracted by my masturbating by macslut · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was distracted by my masturbating when it happened, so I didn't notice the earthquake. Damn, why does this always happen...oh wait, never mind.

    1. Re: I was distracted by my masturbating by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I was distracted by my masturbating when it happened

      Hemingway says the earth only moves for you three times in your whole life.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  30. Japan by JanneM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here in Japan they have the very sensible system of reporting not only (and not even mostly) the energy released at the epicenter, but most prominently the expected effects at any area affected by the earthquake.

    They have a seven-point scale, with 1 being that you only just feel the quake if you are lying down or otherwise sensitive; to 7 being that nonhardened buildings collapse, and many expected injuries and deaths. Quake reports are usually in the form of maps with this info overlayed.

    For most of the public, that is the kind of info you want when an earthquake has occurred, rather than the intensity at the origin. It tells you much clearer if it's time to worry about friends and relatives or not.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Japan by quake74 · · Score: 1

      I guess it's some kind of modified Mercalli scale (which BTW it's older than the Richter scale).

    2. Re:Japan by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is (modulo spurious spelling errors :). It's pretty much the same idea - measuring surface accelleration - and adapted the scale and consequence descriptions to local conditions.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Japan by Bootard · · Score: 1

      modulo spurious spelling errors That is a brilliant expresion and you, sir, should be awarded a prize of some sort. I am totally stealing your expression, and I'll be sure to cite you if it ever makes it into print. That will be all.

      --
      exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
  31. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah, it always good to joke about events that can and do kill hundreds of thousands.

    Slashdotters seem to think so, as long is it doesn't affect Americans. every "foreign" disaster eleicts a bunch of ethnic/outsourcing (if in Asia or particularly India) jokes, all modded "Funny". Make similar jokes about American deaths and it's an instant flamebait/troll mod. He might get away with it here since no one seems to have died.

  32. Alaska Got Some Big Ones, Too by kingofalaska · · Score: 4, Informative
    I know many people think Alaska is off the coast of California, but I noticed we got a few large ones, too.

    " Aleutians rocked by series of big quakes

    The countless quakes started short after midnight. The biggest one, with a preliminary magnitude of 6.9, struck at 9:10 a.m. Tuesday. There were reports of items falling off shelves in Adak, about 175 miles from the epicenter.

    The series of quakes occurred where the Pacific and North American plates collide. Most were in the range of 4.5 and 5.7."

    Seems to be a relation.

    KoA

    Eagle crashes into living room of a Ketchikan home

    1. Re:Alaska Got Some Big Ones, Too by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      No, Its just south of Hawaii right? Although sometimes its closer to Cuba...

      I think those map makers need to get their act together because I don't think that It keeps moving around...

  33. MJ! by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Funny

    God is angry over the Michael Jackson verdict!

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    1. Re:MJ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      What retard modded this as informative? Funny, maybe, but INFORMATIVE?

      Wow.

    2. Re:MJ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear AC

      I did it, you got a problem with that?

      God

    3. Re:MJ! by Mard · · Score: 1, Informative

      Informative AND Insightful! This is the result of having a religious president. :\

      --
      DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
    4. Re:MJ! by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now that's insightful.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    5. Re:MJ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, wait until he sees you've stolen his title!

    6. Re:MJ! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well YOU got the funny mod at least. However he's up to +3 Insightfull now.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    7. Re:MJ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Indeed.

      The God of What? Which God?

      Seth

    8. Re:MJ! by xtracto · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      OMFG! INSIGTHFUL?? lmao hahaahah
      MOD PARENT'S MODERATOR +5 FUNNY

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:MJ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mod was in fact funnier than the post.

    10. Re:MJ! by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      For a Supreme Being, God has pretty bad aim -- the epicenter is about 500 miles from the site of the MJ trial.

    11. Re:MJ! by MouseR · · Score: 1

      I think more about the Apple Intel switch.

      I was at the keynote and dangit! I would have loved for a quake to hit right there.

    12. Re:MJ! by clintp · · Score: 1

      First he hit Chile, then northern California. He's a little rusty, and is just homing in...

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    13. Re:MJ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe the MJ supporters were most concentrated in Chile and NorCal. God works in mysterious ways.

  34. Re:Offtopic response to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a rare case. Knives should NOT go near penises.

  35. South West UK check in by rjshields · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing felt here. Roger.

    --
    In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    1. Re:South West UK check in by madaxe42 · · Score: 0

      Nothing felt here either. Just plaid!

    2. Re:South West UK check in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what she said

    3. Re:South West UK check in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like your mama.

  36. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    I don't think that the person who's comment I replied to is American (as in USA) but rather Brazilian, given the .br TLD of his website. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that joking about this topic is in poor taste, given recent events.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  37. LIGO noticed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Although it wasn't nearly large enough to cause any damage, the shaking was signifigant enough to disturb the Hanford LIGO site. Took about 3-4 hours for ground motion to calm down enough that the mirrors could be used again. Most of the people working on the Interferometers decided it was a good time to head out and grab dinner.

    And for those that don't know what LIGO is, look at http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ And check out the Einstein@home project while you're there.

  38. Quake Porn by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Courtesy of the US Geological Survey right here. Plenty of info that I don't understand, plus pretty maps!

  39. Re:Offtopic response to sig by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    The objection is to unnecessary circumcision, not those that are needed. Circumcision is the only prophylactic surgery that's not regarded as medically unethical. Are we to cut off every body part that's not immediately useful on the off-chance it might become diseased? How about automatic mastectomies for all post-menopausal women? It'll prevent lots of breast cancers. No?

    Fact is, routine circumcision was instituted for a completely spurious reason, and one that most people would not now even consider desirable. (It was believed to reduce masturbation. The opposite is in fact true.) Modern rationalization for continuing the practice are different, but the only reason they exist is because there's this huge population of mutilated men to study. No doubt if for some reason female circumcision were to become common you could find plenty of justification for continuing it long after whatever initial stupid reason you had for doing it in the first place fell out of favor.

    The US is the only industrialized nation where routine circumcisions are performed at birth. It is a surgery, and there are risks associated, especially when they're performed by doctors. (Jewish mohels are typically better at it, with lower complication rates and less pain to the recipient.) The benefits, such as they are, simply do not justify the risks or the undesirable side effects.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  40. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    fact that joking about this topic is in poor taste

    That's not a "fact", but I share the opinion. I was just pointing out the double standard that usually applies here. For instance, the bushfire in Canberra got a lot of "barbecue" jokes. Despite dozens being burnt alive few seemed to think this was inappropriate.

  41. East bay by VolcomPimp · · Score: 0

    Nothin here either (Newark, CA)... My mom yelled at me from downstairs. My friend who lives a few doors down said a bunch of people called him freakin out tellin him to get out of the house. A lot of people I know were disappointed that nothing happened. I live about a mile from water, maybe less. Oddly the only thing on my mind at the time was how bad it was gonna suck for the rest of the country if a tsunami took out all of our democrats and tech companies.

  42. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
    Sorry but that his how the media works too. If someone kills 100 people in China or Africa, there might be a little story at the bottom of CNN's web page, or a little 3 second segment on TV about it. But if someone captures a cute blond-haired girl from the American suburbs, all the media outlets will jump on the story, make it front page, people will start having candle light vigils, it will be the topic of the week on Oprah and all that stuff.

    I am wondering if an African American little girl would be kidnapped would that make front page news? Or are lives of the people in Darfur somehow worth less? Anyway just a thought, probably will get modded as a troll or offtopic ...

  43. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Well, the Asian tsunami that killed more than half a million people wasn't even six months ago. To use your example, how tasteless would it have been to make light of planes hitting buildings six months after September 11th, 2001?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  44. Re:Offtopic response to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am aware of young boy that didn't have his small toe amputated at birth, and when he was 13 he cut his toe on a rusty piece of metal and almost died from an infection. Clearly children should have their small toe amputated.

  45. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

    I don't know what your point is. I said I thought making jokes aout disasters was tasteless.

  46. Re:Slashdot should not be my primary news source : by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't go panic tomorrow if you read a "new" tsunami warning here.

  47. Here in Santa Cruz... by wyldeone · · Score: 1

    Here in Santa Cruz (central coast) we didn't feel anything (heck, I didn't know there had been an earthquake until reading the story), so the epicenter was far enough from the coast to do any real damage. Despite this, an earthquake that's a 7 on the richter scale is scary--most of Santa Cruz was destroyed in the loma prieta 15 years ago, and that was a 7.1.

    --
    In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
  48. i felt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i'm in crescent city...just 90 miles from the san andreas fault...they said if there were to be a tsunami to take out our city it'd be at that fault and a "bump" earthquake or something, instead of the slip 'n slide quake that occured. part of our town evacuated. same thing happend in 1964...'cept a tsunami actually happend here.

  49. Timing by vyrus128 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot's getting better at posting news while it's new... this one's only about 3 or 4 hours out of date. Meanwhile Fark, a comedy site, had the newsflash up while the tsunami warning was still in effect. I know where I'm going for my news...

    1. Re:Timing by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

      I submitted a flash story here at 8:26 Pacific Time (still over a half an hour the quake, but at least while the warning was still in effect). It languished in the queue and was eventually rejected.

      If SlashDot wants to take itself seriously as a media company it needs to provide service to its customers (yes, I am a customer, I pay for a subscription). ne of those services is warning of impending death if warning has a chance of preventing that death. Given the number of Pacific Coast SlashDotters, and that many Slashdotters are unlikely to be getting any other media input while here, maybe SlashDot itself should subscribe to the Tsunami alert email list and add it to its RSS feed?

      Does either the USGS or NOAA provide quake/tsunami alerts via RSS feed? If not maybe some slashdotters can donate their time to setting one up for them?

    2. Re:Timing by SComps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to be too overly critical here, but when did Slashdot become a part of the Emergency Broadcast System? Folks, it's a website not your weather radio, TV, or other accepted form of emergency notification.

    3. Re:Timing by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile Fark, a comedy site, had the newsflash up while the tsunami warning was still in effect.

      What, you don't think slashdot is a comedy site? I'm *still* laughing over the Apple switching to Intel story.

  50. Northern California Coast??? by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

    Am I geographically lost, living in Atlanta, GA? I thought California had coasts facing mostly West and South. I think "in the Pacific ocean West of Northern California" would be a bit clearer. California, to my knowledge, has no Northern Coast. So watch out for them land-bound tsunamis or the terrorists have won.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    1. Re:Northern California Coast??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if someone said something happened off the "georgia coast", would it be clear to you what that meant?

      guess what? "northern california" is also a place, and the "northern california coast" means the coast of northern california.

    2. Re:Northern California Coast??? by vought · · Score: 3, Informative
      California, to my knowledge, has no Northern Coast. So watch out for them land-bound tsunamis or the terrorists have won.



      California has about 840 miles of coastline.

      You bet we've got a north (Oregon sorth to roughly the Golden Gate), central (Godlen Gate south to Santa Barbara) and south (Santa Barbara on down) coast. North, central, and southern sections represent the general north-south location of that west-facing coastline.


      While the coastline in southern california faces southwest and Los Angeles is east of Reno (the state is distinctly boomerang-shaped), most Californians think of the coast as a westerly-facing one.

    3. Re:Northern California Coast??? by kfg · · Score: 1

      California has about 840 miles of coastline.

      Some of which, as it was not laid out with a straightedge, faces north.

      While the coastline in southern california faces southwest and Los Angeles is east of Reno (the state is distinctly boomerang-shaped), most Californians think of the coast as a westerly-facing one.

      I used to live on the Pacific coast. I've never been west of Dodge City, Kansas. The coast faced due south.

      KFG

  51. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by cduffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ya know, there do exist Americans who think that folks who get up in arms over jokes about (say) the Twin Towers are largely uptight assholes. Quite a few of us, actually (though I'd avoid such jokes were I visiting New York, just to avoid offending local sensibilities).

    Don't judge the group by the vocal (readily offended) minority. There are plenty of Americans who don't mind jokes about our own tragedies -- what better way to get it behind than with humor?

  52. earthquake/tsunami insurance? by JimBobJoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to joke that insurance companies didn't care about the very imminent geological dangers that face California, because, they reckon, once the big one hits, there won't be anyone left in California to make any claims.

    On the other hand, it's been pointed out to me, semi-recently, that most Californians do not have earthquake insurance.

    I dunno about you, but that, with the combination of homes which average $509k, is a source of worry for me. Any Californians able to comment on earthquake/tsunami insurance?

    1. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Pyrion · · Score: 1
      Consider, if you will, that so many people live on active fault zones in California, especially north of San Diego county. Temecula, for instance, is a death trap when it comes to this, but nobody cares because the housing is so cheap.

      If they don't have earthquake insurance, they're idiots, but you can't expect much in the way of a simple majority of firing neurons in the heads of people that choose to live on active fault zones in the first place.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by iKillCellphones · · Score: 1

      Move to New Zealand: we're built on a plate boundary, and our government kindly provides us with natural disaster insurance for earthquakes.

    3. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by HyperBlazer · · Score: 2, Funny
      Move to New Zealand: we're built on a plate boundary, and our government kindly provides us with natural disaster insurance for earthquakes.

      Right. So I'm going to move somewhere because after the quake hits and destroys all my stuff, I'll be able to collect insurance (if I didn't killed killed in the disaster).

      No thanks, I think I'll stick with my original plan, and move somewhere where I'll be safe from earthquakes altogether. That's why I'm starting grad school next year at Berkeley.

      Oh shit. You got any good schools down there in NZ?

    4. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Council · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_insurance

      Earthquake insurance in California is very expensive and hard to get. For some reason, insurers don't like the thought of a million people suddenly needing to replace the main joists* in their houses. And so they set the premiums extremely high or refuse to offer coverage altogether.

      * I have no idea what a "joist" is.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    5. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by punxking · · Score: 1

      As a San Diego home owner, I can tell you that getting earthquake insurance here is virtually impossible. Even if you can find a company that is willing to cover you, it's very expensive, the premiums are insanely high and the coverage is nowhere near the property value.

      It's fairly telling that mortgage lenders which require home owner's insurance which includes fire coverage (and in many cases require mortgage insurance as well) do not typically require earthquake coverage. I don't work for a lending company, but I'm fairly certain that the reason it's not required is that it's so difficult to obtain. It would probably hold up or prevent the majority of loans being successfully processed.

      --
      You can have my cynical agnosticism when you pry it from my cold, dead logic.
    6. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Bootard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The best part of it is that the Hayward fault that runs under UC Berkeley is the most likely fault to be the source of the next major quake in N.Cal. While I was there(class of '03), seismologists estimated that there was a 30% chance the next big one in N.Cal would come from that fault, although I think that percentange may have been downgraded since. That fault runs right through the middle of the football stadium, so when they built it, they had to put in expansion joints in the stadium so that the stadium would be ok(the west side is moving north and the east side is moving south). If you go to the stadium and check it out, you'll see that the fault has caused the 2 halves of the stadium to shift probably 24 inches from each other. They also have to flatten out the turf every so often, because the fault causes the field to lose its flatness. If you go to the stadium towards the end of the season, you can usually see where the fault runs on the field. It's well worth checking out one day. Go Bears!

      --
      exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
    7. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by bryanp · · Score: 1

      * I have no idea what a "joist" is.

      Joists are horizontal or near-horizontal structural members of smaller dimensions than beams. Floor joists are the principal element of a wooden floor; the flooring is nailed to the top of the joists and, if the room below has a finished ceiling, the ceiling material is nailed to the bottoms of the joists. Flat and very low-slope roofs have roof joists in place of rafters.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    8. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by today · · Score: 1

      Houses in CA are built extremely cheaply. In Santa Barbara, a $500k home costs under $100k to rebuild (not including contents). A $900k home costs about $250k to rebuild. It's all about the property and the right to build on that property with sewer and water hookups, not the house itself. Going without earthquake insurance can be an easily acceptable risk for many people, especially if you bought it 5-10 years ago. So long as your property doesn't catch on fire as a result of the earthquake and you don't have an expensive Huml collection, you could make out okay.

    9. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      our government kindly provides us with natural disaster insurance for earthquakes.

      Um... doesn't that really just equate to everyone who lives there buys the insurance through taxes, and thus you've got not a benefit, but a mandatory service you have to buy? Doesn't mean you wouldn't want it, but since it's handled by the government, doesn't that imply an additional overhead/bureaucracy load that would be more efficiently handled through the private sector?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean you wouldn't want it, but since it's handled by the government, doesn't that imply an additional overhead/bureaucracy load that would be more efficiently handled through the private sector?

      If you have read other posts in this thread you would see that private sector does not handle earthquake insurance in Calfornia at all, let along more efficiently.

    11. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If you have read other posts in this thread you would see that private sector does not handle earthquake insurance in Calfornia at all, let along more efficiently.

      Right. But if you read the post I'm actually responding to, you'd see that we're talking about New Zealand.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking that if a large number of homes in CA were destroyed, you guys would just rebuild. There would be an interesting impact on the rest of the country too: Californians wouldn't be selling 500k+ homes and moving to other parts of the country. That could put the brakes on escalating real estate prices nationwide. I know a lot of people in DC have cited the fact that people from high priced areas, namely CA and NY, are moving here and willing to pay $500k or stuff that sold for $200k just 3 years ago. It's really annoying to me because I'm half owner of a 4 bed house that's being sold, and for half the money I can't even get a very good condo because it's all about location not the building.

    13. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, it's like people in Florida not having hurricane insurance. They figure when it happens they'll just declare it a disaster and get money from the government. Why they let people rebuild without insurance is beyond me. In the midwest, you can get coverage for tornados. In my area, many people have to get flood insurance because they live near a river that occasionally overflows.

      I don't mind if people want to build in high risk areas. What I don't want is my tax dollars rebuilding their house 3 times (Mississippi river flood plane idiots).

    14. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by khallow · · Score: 1
      Houses in CA are built extremely cheaply. In Santa Barbara, a $500k home costs under $100k to rebuild (not including contents). A $900k home costs about $250k to rebuild. It's all about the property and the right to build on that property with sewer and water hookups, not the house itself. Going without earthquake insurance can be an easily acceptable risk for many people, especially if you bought it 5-10 years ago. So long as your property doesn't catch on fire as a result of the earthquake and you don't have an expensive Huml collection, you could make out okay.

      I don't know. My take is that if there really is widespread building destruction from an earthquake, those buildings may be a lot more expensive to replace simply because everyone would try to rebuild at the same time. The man-power is probably doable, just import workers from all over the states (I assume a state license would become easy to get). The materials might get quite expensive especially since buildings will need to satisfy earthquake codes.

    15. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by systemBuilder · · Score: 1

      I am one of those californias with a $600k+ house. It's a $140k house and a $500k piece of land. I'd actually welcome an excuse to rebuild !! Most of us Californians live daily with the fact that the house built on our lot, costs less per square foot, than the dirt's value per square foot over the entire lot's surface area !!

    16. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the point you make is that state provided insurance is inefficient. The point is that some insurance is better than no insurance regardless of its inefficiency.

    17. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by khallow · · Score: 1
      As a San Diego home owner, I can tell you that getting earthquake insurance here is virtually impossible. Even if you can find a company that is willing to cover you, it's very expensive, the premiums are insanely high and the coverage is nowhere near the property value.

      OTOH, the insanity of premiums is relative. It may be that the current level of premiums on your home is too low, ie, your home is due to get totaled by an earthquake in the near future, in which case the insurance company will lose money. What was the price of insurance per insured $ of home? I looked around and saw 0.4% for some high risk areas (ie, roughly $400 per $100k of home) for new homes.

    18. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, my real point is that if the law of the land is that you have to have a particular form of insurance, then make that the law of the land. But let competitive private sector people provide the service. This is how car insurance works in the US, for example. I'm glad, myself, that I don't have to "buy" my car insurance from my state government. I understand the reason why the state law says that you have to carry it, but they leave it up to me to buy it from the most competitive place I can find.

      In the case of earthquake insurance, the real issue is that some people build houses, or live in areas where the risk is intrinsicly higher for ultimately making a claim. If everyone is taxed so that that subset of people can have "government provided" earthquake coverage, then it's just a scheme to obscure the true costs, and to obscure the inequity in providing it. In private insurance arrangements, the provider has to compete with other providers (which forces the rates as low as they can go), but they also get to set rates differently for people who are, through their actions (like choosing to build a house on a fault line, or choosing to get speeding tickets every 3 months, or choosing to smoke), riskier.

      If everyone has to have the insurance, that's a known X number of insurance accounts that competitors can gun for. It's a captive audience, but an audience provided with choices is going to force margins down as far as they can go. If the situation is that no insurance company could stay afloat selling earthquake insurance, then you have to question the overall fiscal sanity of the concept in the first place. As it is, it's probably a money loser, so they're just sticking it to the taxpayers of New Zealand.

      At least in the US, flood insurance is optional - though it's handled through a government brokerage-type agency. The point is that a lot of people don't need (or want) it, and you have to pay for it yourself if you think you do. It's not the most optimal situation (since the feds are part of the equation), because it artifically encourages people to keep rebuilding right where the river is inevitably going to flood them right back out again in few years anyway.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      Insurers offer earthquake insurance because the government forces them to. The state also subsidizes the coverage. Considering the bounty of excess cash we're rolling around in, one can only wonder where they will find the money to pay claims if a big one hits.

      The earthquake insurance is very expensive, and very crappy. Unless you know there will be a major earthquake in a year or two, then it's not worth paying the insurance (my estimation, your mileage may vary).

      As for the $500k on up houses, pshaw. You're looking at a $100k replacement cost. The rest is the land the house sits on. In my case, that land will still be there after the big one, it will just be covered in rubble. I'm gonna roll the dice, and if I lose I'll take my 100k low interest FEMA loan and rebuild, better and sronger, just like Lee Majors. Hell, I could build a $200k mansion on my property and come out way ahead of the game.

    20. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California earthquake insurance is a joke--insanely high premiums, huge deductible, and the possibility of a second premium if payouts go high enough after a quake. This "insurance policy" was put into place by Quackenbush, who later left the state in disgrace after being caught taking millions from insurance companies who had stiffed homeowners after the Northridge quake.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quackenbush+i nsurance&btnG=Google+Search

      Thanks, Quackenbush.

    21. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Oniko · · Score: 1
      Heh... you might as well ask why folks in the Hollywood Hills and other areas throughout the Valley build houses on stilts off the side of hills.

      Every time I drive by those things (which is fairly often), I can't help but wonder at the neurons or lack thereof that choose "OMG look at that view" over their house not in a position to tumble down the mountain.

      I like living in the Valley, but between the fires, the quakes, the West Nile virus, the smog (which has improved, but the surrounding hills are still shaped to trap it), the rain this year (when the 405/101 interchange is flooded, something's wrong), and the fashionistas with yapping mutts in handbags...

      A'course, I've now spent two winters in PA. I must say, CA has at least *something* going for it.

    22. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by daeley · · Score: 1

      * I have no idea what a "joist" is.

      Someone who worships Nancy McKeon of Facts of Life fame.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    23. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A number of posters have mentioned cost and availability.

      Another problem is that the deductible for earthquake insurance tends to be very high -- a significant fraction of the cost to rebuild the house. If the house "merely" shifts off the foundation or cracks in half, the cost to repair is less than the deductible. Unless the earthquake totally destroys your house so that you're looking at nothing but a field of debris, it's all out of pocket anyway.

    24. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by plampione · · Score: 1
      No problem at all.

      What is expensive is the land, not the building per se. If my house was razed by fire or earthquake, I would lose at most 30% of what it costed me - the rest is the price of the land. This also means that banks would have no problems using the land as collateral to finance my rebuilding the house.

      So you see, high house prices are actually a kind of self-insurance! I am speaking from the SF Bay area.

    25. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by dsyu · · Score: 1

      What is expensive is the land, not the building per se. If my house was razed by fire or earthquake, I would lose at most 30% of what it costed me - the rest is the price of the land. This also means that banks would have no problems using the land as collateral to finance my rebuilding the house.

      I guess I don't really understand this. I'm not a home-owner, so I'm probably missing something. However, if you owned a $500K house in California where the cost to rebuild was "only" $100K, you'll still be out $100K, whereas if you had earthquake insurance, you would be out less. That is, of course, assuming the earthquake insurance was less than $100K over the time you've owned the house until the earthquake.

      I guess it just seems weird to shrug off costs due to their low percentage of the total value. It's still $100K that you'll still owe, bank loans or not. The only way I see to make back the cost is to sell after rebuilding for what you paid + cost of rebuilding (+ as much extra as you can get).

    26. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by plampione · · Score: 1
      Sure, you are still out of 100K, but if you could afford (say) a 500K house, you most likely can afford again a mortgage for 100K.

      Earthquake insurance is expensive, and this is why it is not incredibly foolish not to have one. If you bought the house, you can usually also afford to rebuild. On the other hand, if you lost most of the value of the property, so that nobody would lend you money to rebuild, you would be in far more trouble.

      Weird, but true. There is an advantage in paying a lot for the land: it's harder to destroy than the house!

    27. Re:earthquake/tsunami insurance? by Josuah · · Score: 1

      My home's been around about 30 years. It's perfectly fine after all the previous earthquakes in this area. I expect it to be fine in the next one.

      I live in San Jose.
      1984: 6.2 in Morgan Hill about 20m away
      1989: 6.9 in Loma Prieta about 20m away

      Of course, a _really_ big earthquake hasn't been near my location in while.

  53. Must be more "intelligent design" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... at "work". :)

  54. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    My point was that whether or not it is tasteless isn't even up for discussion.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  55. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People, mod this one up! You're wasting your mod points.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They're busy blowing their mod points on MJ posts and shit that does not matter. Thank you to the OP for providing something informative and worthy of discussion.

      "Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 13 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

      Firstly, I'm not a cowboy.

      Who touched my ass?

      Second, what part of 13 minutes is 2 minutes?

      Did YOU touch my ass? Is that legal in this country?

  56. Re:first subduction by iKillCellphones · · Score: 1

    The USGS map referenced in this "False Alarm" comment suggests that the earthquake was relatively near a subduction zone. Is there a geologist in the house?

  57. Re:Slashdot should not be my primary news source : by BJH · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just wait for the dupe...

  58. Late Breaking News... by greylingrover · · Score: 0

    [Dateline: So Yesterday - Boyland, CA] Scientists at CalTech are now saying that the 7.0 off the Northern California coast was caused by the collective 2.0's that happened throughout the state, in the pants of those hearing the Michael Jackson verdict.

    --
    --- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
  59. Crusaders visibly shaken by Allah's might. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Earthquake off Northern California

    Hear, hear Allah is knocking on your door Gitmo torturer-dogs! Even Mother Earth cannot tolerate the sins of crusaders any longer and wants yankee to be shaken off its surface!

    1. Re:Crusaders visibly shaken by Allah's might. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great--an Islamic troll. And I thought GNAA was a bit much.

  60. And your point is? by stretch0611 · · Score: 2
    I don't mean to be heartless, but this is slashdot. Why are you posting this news here?

    Slashdot is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."

    • This article has no nerd factor.
    • While it may matter to a few people in CA, It doesn't matter to me. Slashdot is a global community, not just California.

    Reporting on Tsunamis is nothing more than sensationalism for a site like this. This article should definately be moderated as off-topic.

    Which brings up a point. We moderate posts, we even moderate how other people moderate. Let's get the ability to moderate articles. This way we will stop getting "News for non-nerds. Stuff that doesn't matter."

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    1. Re:And your point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly !

      Plus the earthquake on Monday was far more important.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4090388. stm

    2. Re:And your point is? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tsunami can strike hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles away from where the related earthquake happens. The potential for a tsunami truly has global scope (at least as much global scope as the Xbox 360, which much of Africa has little interest in, for example).

      A tsunami warning system is both a technological and sociological device, as discussed by the last linked article. While it was certainly a bit thin on details, it is probably of interest to at least some nerds, even if you personally don't give a rat's ass.

    3. Re:And your point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is "news for nerds". Northern California -> Silicon Valley. Fortunately, the quake was far enough into the sea but had it been strong enough to get, say, Google offline... then would it be "news for nerds" enough for you?

    4. Re:And your point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it may matter to a few people in CA, It doesn't matter to me. Slashdot is a global community, not just California.

      Hah! Apparently you are completly ignorant to the global impacts of natural disasters.

    5. Re:And your point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mean to be heartless, but this is slashdot. Why are you posting this news here?

      Slashdot is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."

      * This article has no nerd factor.


      Do you think deep-ocean seawater is cold enough to cool a Xeon processor?

    6. Re:And your point is? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      A significant disruption in the Bay Area would have a real, tangible impact on many of the businesses and services that make the 'net work. Yes, it's decentralized, but it would be ugly. If nothing else, just having Cisco headquarters dissappear from the map would make a lot of ongoing network implementation projects, well, a lot more annoying.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re: And your point is? by gidds · · Score: 1
      Slashdot is a global community, not just California.

      What, you mean it covers the rest of the US as well???

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    8. Re:And your point is? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Slashdot is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."

      We're nerds, and this is news. Condition one met. This probably matters to a lot of people. Condition two met. Slashdot has never been limited to technology news (see also: politics.slashdot.org).

      Slashdot had, bar none, the best 9/11 coverage in the world. Seriously. I learned far more from eyewitnesses who posted to the site than I ever did from corporate news sources. If there had really been a tsunami, you'd probably be reading the best newsfeed around.

      "News for nerds" doesn't have to mean "nerd news".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:And your point is? by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      I agree. Disaster is where /dot shines. The threads for New York blackout and Indian Ocean tsunami coverage were also exceptional.

    10. Re:And your point is? by Lbda213 · · Score: 1

      this should be on slashdot...it is science with the plates shifting and all.

    11. Re:And your point is? by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

      *Obscure Quote*
      This article has no nerd factor.

      While it may matter to a few people in CA, It doesn't matter to me. Slashdot is a global community, not just California.

      Reporting on Tsunamis is nothing more than sensationalism for a site like this. This article should definately be moderated as off-topic.

      */End Obscure Quote*

      So I guess a Tidal Tsunami wave washing up on Silicon Valley wouldn't impact you much, now would it? Balderdash, indeed.

      Regardless, my curiosities are in how the tsunami warning system works. Aside from obscure and inacurate television updates, no one seemed to know if there was a tsunami generated. I thought we had an early warning system in place that could detect a potential tsunami instead of scaring everyone.

      --
      Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
    12. Re:And your point is? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      first: geology is a science.
      second: there are geology nerds.
      third: tsunami is news
      forth: I do not want the same moderators who don't know the difference between "gunny" and "troll" to moderate articals
      Fifth: Geek != Nerd.

      Since you had know Idea what a nerd is, you are probably a geek, so go back to talking about Star Wars and mis-using hardware designed by nerds.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  61. Fucking media and their scare tactics by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1, Troll

    http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/quakes/eq_chron. htm

    Since the 1700s, not a single earthquake in California that was over 6.5 has caused a tsunami there.

    The media is so shit, scare scare scare scare scare, controlling US citizens with a blanket of fear :(

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    1. Re:Fucking media and their scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the warning was by the National Weather Service, a govt agency. I suppose you have things to say about them too, eh?

    2. Re:Fucking media and their scare tactics by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 0, Troll

      i think you just helped make my point :o

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    3. Re:Fucking media and their scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So naturally that means it couldn't happen. What? :P

    4. Re:Fucking media and their scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his point was that the USGS was putting out a tsunami warning soon after this quake occured, not the media.

    5. Re:Fucking media and their scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In 1964 a tsunami hit California killing 11 people in Crescent City. It was triggered by an earthquake in Alaska. Earthquakes anywhere in the Pacific can generate tsunamis dangerous to California.

      The Alaska and West Coast Tsunami Warning Center (US govt. agency) issued a tsunami warning for the entire west coast that lasted for over an hour. That's the most serious warning they issue. If anything, the media didn't cover it enough.

  62. IANA Geologist, But.... by ChipMonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Something I noticed after the 5.2 quake in southern California, is that there was a tremendous number of temblors immediately following, but they were all focused around the site of the original quake. I had to wonder how much stress was building up along the fault line, to the north and south.

    As I type this, I see >800 quakes on the California/Nevada quake map, and I wonder how much more stress is building up around Silicon Valley. (Yes, I live and work in the Valley.)

    I suspect that big slips north and south increase the odds of a slip in between. Are there any geologists out there who can verify this?

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

      oh for the love of god, why is this being modded up as interesting?

      1-- have you ever heard of the concept of 'aftershocks'? why is it so surprising that there are minor quakes after a large quake?

      2--fault slips don't CAUSE stress on plates; they RELIEVE stress.

    2. Re:IANA Geologist, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY are you USians so self centered?!?!!

      SHHH - It's tsunamialic [what'cha say Dick "OK bomb 'Em"

  63. Earthquakes in India too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two seperate mild tremors felt near Mumbai and North-east India.
    http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jun/14quake.htm

  64. Re:Offtopic response to sig by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    I am aware of a young boy who developed a what could have been a life threatening infection due to the parents' failure to have circumcision performed.
    No you aren't. You're aware of a little boy [who|whose parents] didn't wash "under the farmer's hat".
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  65. Tsunami all over... by KiroDude · · Score: 1

    While I'm not trying to minimize the effects an erthquake would have anywhere in the world, why is it that since the last tsunami every single earthquake may trigger a tsunami too??? Hey, you might as well get a Tsunami in Kansas pretty soon!! Come on! ... or is it more like a "ass-covering" thing.. you know "Well, i hate to say I told you so"

    1. Re:Tsunami all over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how many major earthquakes hit the coast?

  66. Parent is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me that you were really kidding.

    In case you were serious: the "logarithmic" in the Richter scale *does not* mean that the function increases as the logarithm. It means that the *scale* increases proportionally to the logarithm.

    That is, a Richter magnitude of 6.0 is approximately equivalent to the explosion of a megaton of TNT, whereas a magnitude of 7.0 is roughly like *32* megaton. Another datum: a magnitude of 8.0 is about as much as 1 *gigaton*

    Do you see the pattern here? Small changes in the Richter scale mean huge changes in the intensity of the earthquake.

  67. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a perfectly good observation, it's just pointless. There's a lot of shit goes on in the world and you can't get emotionally involved in the suffering of every person. How much people are insterested depends how relevant things are to them. Either because it's in their area and there's a risk to them or it's in the local area and it's plausible that they could make a difference.

  68. Beernami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a tsunami in my beer.. damn earthquakes...

  69. Re:Offtopic response to sig by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Fact is, routine circumcision was instituted for a completely spurious reason, and one that most people would not now even consider desirable.
    I thought it was because, if you live in the desert[1], it's not easy to wash as often as you should.

    Oh and re not eating shellfish: we have fridges now, thanks.

    [1] Consider where the two main cocksnipping religions originated.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  70. Local warning systems pathetic by Ankle · · Score: 1

    I live on the west coast of Vancouver island, Ucluelet, one of the areas that fell under the warning and we go absolutely no notice of it. They recently installed a new warning siren for the township but we didn't hear a thing. We didn't see any broadcasts about it on the local news channel either. Not until one hour after the warning was canceled did we recieve a phone call telling us about the warning. I messaged some of my friends to see if they heard anything about it and none of them heard about it. Its great knowing that when one really happens, they'll try and warn us after we are all dead.

    1. Re:Local warning systems pathetic by Vitamin+P · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely correct. I live in the midwest and the National Weather Service puts out so many Tornado Warnings that people are getting accustomed to ignoring them. i.e. Radar has shown that the clouds are doing funky stuff so we have to issue a warning. I don't care for this untill a person has seen a Tornado on the ground then don't sound the sirens. I live close to Lincoln Nebraska and we had a regional baseball game here. The NWS issued a warning for Lancaster County (which is probably 1000 sq miles and they had 8,000 people gathered in one place. But the sun was shining at the ballpark (only later when thunderstorms appeared in area did they postpone game.) But according to NWS guidelines the 8,000 people should have ran for shelter because there was a radar indicated tornado 25-30 miles away. There was no visual siteing of tornado just a radar indication that there "could" be a tornado. I thought that "could be" only deserved a watch.

  71. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    You need to lighten up, people die all the time in all sorts of circumstances and there is nothing wrong in treating such events with humour.

  72. I don't know about you guys.... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 2, Informative
    But if I were living near 'The Geysers', I'd be a little concerned

    The area is a caldera, from what I can tell, and it looks like it's ready to blow !!!!!!

    1.9 2005/06/14 21:19:08 38.803N 122.814W 2.9 1 km ( 1 mi) NW of The Geysers, CA

    3.9 2005/06/14 19:57:00 38.848N 122.823W 3.6 6 km ( 4 mi) NNW of The Geysers, CA

    1.7 2005/06/14 18:46:08 38.832N 122.799W 1.3 4 km ( 2 mi) N of The Geysers, CA

    1.6 2005/06/14 09:30:10 38.814N 122.809W 4.1 2 km ( 1 mi) N of The Geysers, CA

    2.3 2005/06/14 07:32:45 38.822N 122.810W 4.6 3 km ( 2 mi) N of The Geysers, CA

    1.0 2005/06/14 03:45:04 37.249N 122.009W 5.8 2 km ( 1 mi) NW of Monte Sereno, CA

    1.9 2005/06/13 18:38:38 37.647N 122.043W 5.6 3 km ( 2 mi) E of Hayward, CA

    1.2 2005/06/13 14:58:03 37.926N 122.297W 5.1 1 km ( 1 mi) NNE of El Cerrito, CA

    1.9 2005/06/13 14:48:43 38.830N 122.808W 2.8 4 km ( 2 mi) N of The Geysers, CA

    1.3 2005/06/13 06:56:32 38.176N 121.979W 5.0 8 km ( 5 mi) SSE of Suisun City, CA

    1.7 2005/06/13 06:13:25 38.819N 122.798W 3.8 2 km ( 1 mi) NNE of The Geysers, CA

    2.4 2005/06/13 06:09:21 38.819N 122.797W 4.0 2 km ( 2 mi) NNE of The Geysers, CA

    1.5 2005/06/13 03:55:00 38.720N 122.339W 7.4 19 km (12 mi) NNE of Angwin, CA

    1.4 2005/06/13 03:11:26 38.795N 122.829W 3.0 2 km ( 1 mi) W of The Geysers, CA

    1.7 2005/06/12 19:41:58 38.810N 122.790W 2.1 2 km ( 1 mi) NE of The Geysers, CA

    1.9 2005/06/12 16:55:24 37.303N 122.096W 5.9 5 km ( 3 mi) WSW of Cupertino, CA

    2.0 2005/06/12 14:25:53 38.792N 122.749W 4.4 5 km ( 3 mi) E of The Geysers, CA

    1.7 2005/06/12 11:23:44 38.827N 122.799W 3.4 3 km ( 2 mi) NNE of The Geysers, CA

    1.7 2005/06/12 11:21:42 38.823N 122.828W 3.3 3 km ( 2 mi) NW of The Geysers, CA

    1.4 2005/06/12 07:19:53 38.788N 122.970W 4.8 4 km ( 3 mi) ESE of Cloverdale, CA

    1.5 2005/06/12 02:35:46 38.706N 122.362W 2.1 16 km (10 mi) NNE of Angwin, CA

    1.9 2005/06/12 00:28:32 38.804N 122.809W 3.0 1 km ( 0 mi) NNW of The Geysers, CA

    1.7 2005/06/11 18:33:55 38.796N 122.754W 1.6 5 km ( 3 mi) E of The Geysers, CA

    2.6 2005/06/11 10:22:38 38.825N 122.825W 2.7 3 km ( 2 mi) NNW of The Geysers, CA

    2.1 2005/06/11 08:18:13 38.821N 122.793W 3.8 3 km ( 2 mi) NNE of The Geysers, CA

    1.9 2005/06/11 08:03:00 38.823N 122.800W 3.9 3 km ( 2 mi) NNE of The Geysers, CA

    1. Re:I don't know about you guys.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 18 years I've lived by the Geysers, I can count the number of Earthquakes I've felt from the Geysers on one hand. None of them have been harmful. And hey.... the geothermal power from the place is nice. :)

  73. A few more sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are a couple more helpful sites:

    http://www.planetquake.com/
    http://www.quaker.org/

  74. In the last days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there will be earthquakes in diverse places with the seas and waves roaring and men's hearts failing them from fear. When you see these things begin to happen, look up, for your redemption draws near.

  75. No Big deal for the locals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My former wife is also a /.'er and lives in the Arcata bottoms, and she emailed me that they are fine, and it's no big deal.

  76. Backup links ... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, the amusement is in realizing that if the earthquake caused a break underwater, that it's not going to be fixed in ~2 hrs, thus indicating the cluelessness of the question pondered.

    Why? That underwater link that guy mentioned might still be broken, if was indeed broken they probably activated an auxiliary/backup link to route their traffic through and are still working on the severed cable. I rely on a connection via a series of undersea links that have been severed a few times over the last few years by anything from fishermen to mechanical diggers and underwater sand-mining operations. Over here it rarely takes the local telecom more than half an hour to start routing traffic through backup connections but then of course we don't get as quite as many earthquakes here as they do in California

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Backup links ... by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly right. For the doubters that remain, here is a map of some of the undersea fiber that serves the USA west coast.

    2. Re:Backup links ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo! Intelligence does exist here.

  77. You are sooo wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I call bullshit on your statement that "most of Santa Cruz was destroyed in the loma prieta 15 years ago".

    I lived there, and I have plenty of photos and video that show that damange, but in NO WAY was most of the town destroyed.

    Fuckin wanker!

    1. Re:You are sooo wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The post asserting Santa Cruz was destroyed is utterly lame and uninformed. What a loser.

  78. Sometimes typos. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

    end up funny.

    I suppose the insensity scale would be the inverted intensity scale. They probably use it in the antipodes.

    Either that or it's something to do with drinking games.

    KFG

  79. on the Richter scale? by panic_smooth · · Score: 2, Insightful
    presumably 7.0 or whatever on the Richter scale?

    seriously - on UK news channels, BBC etc, they always quote 'earthquake of strength X on the Richter scale'. personally i find this extremely annoying since it's a completely superfluous figure-of-speech - unless there's some other scale which people use to measure earthquakes.

    anyone know different?

    --
    1. Re:on the Richter scale? by Trollstoi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. Shindo and Mercalli

    2. Re:on the Richter scale? by damoslim · · Score: 1

      Actually those 2 are INTENSITY scales rather than MAGNITUDE scales (like the "Richter Scale"). The former measure ground shaking at a site, the latter measure the energy release of the earthquake itself at the source. In response to the original comment, actually only really the media uses the expression "Richter scale" now, as there are many different logarithmic magnitude scales. The problem with the original Richter (or "local magnitude") scale is that it doesn't keep increasing with the amount of energy release (it "saturates"). Now seismologists/earthquake engineers usually use the "Moment Magnitude" scale which is directly related to the energy release. Once again, it's a logarithmic scale. There are other magnitude scales such as body wave magnitude, surface wave magnitude ... (can't think of more off top of head) So in response to the first comment, yeah the "on the Richter scale" peeves me off too since it's well outdated!

    3. Re:on the Richter scale? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      The Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity perhaps?

      While "outdated," it actually provides a more realistic interpretation of the actual affects of an earthquake. Whereas an 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale could cause no damage at all in an area full of bedrock, it could completely flatten an area built on silt and mud. (Eastern California vs. St. Louis, for example)

      --
      What?
    4. Re:on the Richter scale? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You could measure earthquake strength based on ergs released (it's a very big number so I have no idea why they choose such a tiny energy unit) In fact I believe the Richter scale is a log scale of energy released. (as such, it gives a better idea of the magnitude)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:on the Richter scale? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      You'd like to check out the Mercalli Scale.

    6. Re:on the Richter scale? by valkr1e · · Score: 1

      Actually, I prefer to get my measurements in more pallatable measurements, usually in burning library of congresses

    7. Re:on the Richter scale? by damoslim · · Score: 1

      That's basically what the "seismic moment" is. The "moment magnitude" is just a logarithmic version of this, calibrated so that it gives similar results to the older scales (e.g. Richter local magnitude scale) for moderate earthquakes.

  80. No big deal about the guysers quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Geysers quakes are no big deal, that area has been active for decades.

    Get some perspective man.

  81. Warning recended 5 1/2 hours ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    When you're posting something that can affect people's lives, *please* check the facts. I heard the tsunami warning being recended over the radio at around 9:30 PM PDT. That's 5 1/2 hours before this story was posted.

    There's no reason to create fear or panic.

    (And for anyone that's interested why a californian's up posting at 3AM, I just saw Batman Begins. It was remarkably good, although I'm tired of watching ninjas as bad guys [oh, and the ninja is from JAPAN people, not Bhutan...] but i digress)

  82. Miami-Dade files several hundered FEMA claims by aapold · · Score: 1

    (reference to last summer, when Miami-Dade filed more claims for hurricane damage than the counties that were actually hit by the storm).

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:Miami-Dade files several hundered FEMA claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (reference to last summer, when Miami-Dade filed more claims for hurricane damage than the counties that were actually hit by the storm).

      So... one of the most highly populated counties in Florida files more claims than its more rural neighbors? Perhaps if more people lived in those other counties, there would be more claims.

  83. Virgna Beach Check In by qaxzar · · Score: 1

    Didnt feel anything here either. Our dog was fairly upset for no reason though.

  84. Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by jesterzog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    one happens every 200 or so years on average. The last one happened around 1700, so another one is fairly likely in the near future.

    This is just a small nit-pick with this assertion. Sorry for dragging it out as I have.

    I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I also have a good friend who's a geophysicist, and I know a lot of others in the Earth Sciences department next door to my own. (We have a lot of major earthquake-causing fault lines in New Zealand, and it's a popular place for geophysicists from around the world to hang out.) If someone knows more then I'd welcome a correction, but my understanding is that earthquakes are still almost entirely unpredictible with today's knowledge.

    We can look at the history of any site and calculate an average earthquake frequency, just as your site averages every 200 years. If you look a short time into the future, it'll probably remain an average of about 200 years.

    But in Earth science terms, a "short" time is millions of years. When the frame of reference is so large, attempting to predict events accurately to hundreds of years is hopeless. An historical average of a big quake every 200 years really doesn't tell us anything useful about the immediate future of a site in terms comparable with a human lifetime.

    I've heard people argue about how the stress is released after an earthquake and there's a relation. I think this is a very common misconception that seems intuitive, but doesn't really match the facts as we know. All the geophysicists I've spoken to have claimed that this is mostly fiction, though.

    The biggest problem with this approach is that there's no clear and accurate way to even estimate, let alone measure, how much stress there was in the first place. Most of what we can guess simply comes from analysing historical records, and accurate records often don't even exist beyond the past few hundred years, if even that. You might have thought that 7th magnitude quake was big and released a lot of stress, until an 8th magnitude quake suddenly releases ten times as much energy, with the earlier quake having made a negligible dent in its force.

    If you look historically at the quakes in your area, you'll probably see that they're not set at all evenly. Even if you've gone for 300 years without an earthquake, chances are it's about as likely that you'll get a big one tommorrow as it is that you'll get a big one 1000 years from now. Perhaps you'll get 3 or 4 big ones in the next 3 or 4 decades.

    This isn't to say that it's not worth preparing for, though. If you live on a fault, chances are that you'll at least get moderate earthquakes, and over a wide enough population, it's quite likely that some part of it will be hit every so often. (The media doesn't normally report about all of the places that didn't have earthquakes.) Good building standards and response strategies, for instance, are the reason that there may only be a few tens or hundreds of casualties in a well-off country, whereas it might be hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties for an equivalent quake in a third world country.

    1. Re:Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by iabervon · · Score: 1

      It's probably better to say that there's a 1 in 73000 chance that a big earthquake will hit on any particular day, not taking into account any information about the day. If we were to look back in 10000 years, we'd probably say that 50 big earthquakes happened there, following close to a Poisson distribution. Sure, 300 years is longer than average, but 11 of those 50 will probably be longer. Chances are there'll have been a period under 5 years and one over 780 years, too.

      It's pretty clear from conservation of energy that earthquakes release some of the potential energy which has built up. What we don't know is how that energy changes over time and how much there is at any particular moment, so the "releasing stress" concept doesn't have any practical application: we know that the fault has less energy today than it did yesterday, but we don't know how much it had, and we won't know when it builds up to be more again.

      But as a simple application of the theory, it's obvious that expecting big earthquakes to be periodic doesn't make sense; there could hardly be a fault that produces only really big earthquakes after pressure has built up for 200 years.

    2. Re:Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by kels · · Score: 1

      Just to nit-pick your nit-pick, a difference of 1.0 on the Richter scale (or, more precisely, in moment magnitude) is actually a factor of 32 in energy. It is a factor of 10 in amplitude, which translates to a factor of 10^(1.5)=31.6.

      --
      "I believe that the cult of the particular brings only death - for it bases order on likeness." St.-Exupery
    3. Re:Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by Somegeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is just a small nit-pick with this assertion. Sorry for dragging it out as I have.
      The poster never asserted anything about predicting earthquakes based upon the average. The poster just stated that historical data shows a 200 year average, and from that data one could say that one was 'fairly likely in the near future'. That's the way averages work; we may not understand the reason behind the pattern, but if there is enough data to create a pattern, its reasonable to guess that the pattern will continue. Just because the geological time scale is huge doesn't mean that there can't be regular geological events that occur with a short frequency. For a specific example, look at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) test site in Parkfield, California:

      http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/research/parkfield/

      Historical data showed earthquakes occurring in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. The pattern average showed an earthquake due by around 1993. The next significant earthquake did not happen until 2004, not exactly on time, but dead accurate compared to your time span of 'millions of years'.

      Regarding the advice from your friends; a scientist once told me 'Half of everything that scientists teach is wrong, and we don't know which half it is.' Much of current scientific theory is just that, someone's current theory. Take it with a grain of salt.

      until an 8th magnitude quake suddenly releases ten times as much energy,
      Nope. From the USGS again: "The total amount of energy released by the earthquake, however, goes up by a factor of 32."

      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/glossary.ht m#magnitude

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    4. Re:Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by qwp · · Score: 1

      You sound all proper and such, but i like the ranger guys post better.. Therefore i shall ignore your fancy words, and just focus on the
      numbers of trivial finding. ;P

      wtf... this image thing for posting sooo super sucks.. i need glasses to read the image

    5. Re:Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      The poster never asserted anything about predicting earthquakes based upon the average.

      Hmmm... I read: "The last one happened around 1700, so another one is fairly likely in the near future."

      Your interpretation might be different, but to me that's comparing an historical average with the recent past to predict the immediate future, which is what I was commenting on. Anyway, I've enjoyed reading the responses to my comment. As I said, I'm on second-hand information.

      Nope. From the USGS again: "The total amount of energy released by the earthquake, however, goes up by a factor of 32."

      Thanks for the correction.

    6. Re:Earthquakes can't be usefully predicted by nothings · · Score: 1
      Patterns and averages aren't the same. If a quake happened every 200+-20 years for the last 1000 years, then sure, you'd expect another quake somewhere between 180 and 220 years after the last one.

      If, however, you expect a fair 20-sided die to roll a 17 every 20 rolls on average, and it's been about 20 die rolls since the last 17, you are not "due" for a 17; a 17 is no more likely in the next five rolls then a 17 was likely in the first five rolls immediately after the last 17. This is the gambler's fallacy, obviously.

      So the question is just whether the grandparent post of yours meant the first kind of pattern by "average", or the second. The second situation is referred to as "the coin [or die] has no memory"--what happens later has nothing to do with what went before. Obviously, the ground does have memory--when an earthquake happens, the ground changes. It certainly sounds reasonable to suppose that after this "release of tension", tension builds up further overtime, thus introducing a bias to when the next earthquake occurs. And I believe this is what the parent to your post wrote:

      I've heard people argue about how the stress is released after an earthquake and there's a relation. I think this is a very common misconception that seems intuitive, but doesn't really match the facts as we know. All the geophysicists I've spoken to have claimed that this is mostly fiction, though.

      You seem to be asserting that these patterns do exist, and he seemed to be asserting that these patterns don't exist. I have no idea which of you is right, but I'm not sure Parkfield is great evidence when the prediction is wrong off by 50%. But whether these patterns exist in some cases or not ignores the question of whether your grandparent meant "time between successive quakes hews to this number very closely" or "the average time between successive quakes has been 200, with enormous variance", which is the nit that was actually picked.

  85. Re:Slashdot should not be my primary news source : by dnaboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wouldn't bank on it unless Steve Jobs issues the tsunami warning himself.

  86. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    joking about this topic is in poor taste

    You, sir, are stating something obvious, but draw the wrong conclusion.

    Yes, joking about it is poor taste. And yes, jokes are still OK.

    In fact, it is well known that humans that feel awkward and uncomfortable about a subject use humour to let off some steam. This, sir, means that the people making tasteless jokes have compassion for the victims. There is nothing wrong with them making a joke to ease the mood.

    Some people will have what you think is poor taste. Get over it.

  87. washing under the hat by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    This little boy's "hat" was too small to wash under, from what I was told. The boy would not allow the parents to clean it, and would not do it himself until the infection made it clear why. Apparently, after a couple of years of washing appropriately, it's still painful.

    I'd be a little less cynical of the "do away with circumcision" concept if that site were raising the same fuss about getting pediatricians to educate parents.

    As it is, it just looks like they are complaining because it takes away the excitement of sex, and I don't think that can be argued in the same breath as arguing that it doesn't reduce masturbation.

    1. Re:washing under the hat by fossa · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet that the need to "have sex" or masturbate or whatever, instilled through ages of evolution, is largely unrelated to feelings of pleasure. Foreskin or no, the urge to reproduce is the same. Pleasure is just icing on the cake.

    2. Re:washing under the hat by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Pleasure is just icing on the cake."

      no, pleasure is natures way off ensuring people will want to do it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. how many are dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many died? how many will die during the next 24 hours after the impact?

  89. Super/Megaquake by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

    Far as I know, and I am not a specialist in the field but there are two mega quakes that are in line to happen at some stage.

    The oceanic plate off northern california / Oregon/seattle and the large plates in the area surrounding turkey, one running right through Istanbul.

    In terms of the mega quake, the tsunami is bad, but from the data I looked at, the frequncy of vibration when hitting the landmass would be large and ongoing. Its the ongoing/changing nature of the waves travelling through the ground that would bring down the damaged buildings.

    In the atlantic area there is a large landmass waiting to slide, and the potential there is for a larger disaster than the recent cataclysm in indonesia.

    Sometimes we belieev we are impregnable and capable of handling any issue, at some stage, nature is as going to send us a reminder we live on a volatile and changing planet.

    If they are monitoring that ocena plate and it looks like trouble, they should be moving people away from the coast NOW. There is enough evidence that - if its the plate I am thinking of, there may well be serious issues ahead..

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  90. South Central UK check in by aug24 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hi Roger!

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    1. Re:South Central UK check in by DeadlyDonkey · · Score: 1

      Roger Charlie, Over.

    2. Re:South Central UK check in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the vector Victor?
      Can you get me clearance, Clarence?

    3. Re:South Central UK check in by GonerDoug · · Score: 1

      Ok, that was a pretty good Rogering...

    4. Re:South Central UK check in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, smoke me a Kipper - I'll be back for breakfast

  91. I guess it's pretty urgent by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

    It has to be pretty urgent if they post the news without bothering to capitalize first :D

    --
    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
  92. what im more concerned about is by CiXeL · · Score: 1

    notice how the 1994 northridge quake occurred following a notorious el nino season. there is well documented cases where people dumped waste water in a fault and it lead to earthquakes.

    now think of the deluge they received last winter.

    makes you think eh?

    it wont affect me since i recently relocated to miami because the tech job market was terrible with downward pressure on wages with upward financial pressure on everything else. it was move or go bankrupt. but all of my family still lives there and i really hope im wrong.

  93. Earthquake in South America by nherm · · Score: 1

    There was a earthquake in Chile on monday, it was 7.9 on the Richter scale

    bulletin with some more details.

    Remember, there is a connection of these kind of events along Pacific coasts, mostly due to interactions between Nazca plate (north of Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia) and the Pacific Plate (Japan, EEUU west coast)

    (obligatory IANAG disclaimer, G = Geologist)

    1. Re:Earthquake in South America by saider · · Score: 1


      Most americans wouldn't know where the EEUU is, so you might want to clear that up.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:Earthquake in South America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, that was helpful of you. For those who are still wondering, "EEUU" is the Spanish abbreviation for the US.. (The English "EU" is "UE" en Espanol.)

    3. Re:Earthquake in South America by nherm · · Score: 1

      Ooops! sorry... :)

      s/EEUU/U.S./g

  94. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by metlin · · Score: 1

    Not all news media across the world are like that - I've noticed that media in certain Asian countries and Europe have a much wider coverage of world events, unlike the American media which is pro-American-infotainment centric.

  95. No, Parent is right by ThePlague · · Score: 0

    If you use a log graph (non-linear on one or both axis, distances go as the log function), then you would get a straight line.

    Consider the data you gave. I don't know if it's right, but it sounds ballpark. You could curve-fit this data to the equation:

    E = 1 MT*2^(5*(R -6))

    Where E is the energy in MegaTons (MT) and R is the Richter magnitude. Get the equation unitless by dividing by 1 MT:

    E/MT = 2^(5*(R-6))

    Now, take the log of both sides:

    Log(E/MT) = 5*(R-6)*log(2)

    So we do have a linear relation between the log(E/MT) and R. The slope of the line is 5*log(2) and the intercept is -30*log(2). If we graph log(E/MT) vs R, we have a staight line. Conversely, we could use log paper (logarithmic scale on y axis) and plot the original equation. It would be a straight line as well.

    1. Re:No, Parent is right by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      It's not a logarithmic graph, it's a logarithmic scale!

      By stating you need one of the axis to be a logarithmic scale in order to get a straight line, you've just proved this post's grandparent and great-great-grandparent.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    2. Re:No, Parent is right by ThePlague · · Score: 0
      I think this might be a case of mis-communication. I interpreted NitsujTPU post:
      Ok, so, draw a logarithmic chart and you should get a nice line ;-)
      as meaning to do a graph with the y axis as a log scale. Graphing the function on such a chart would, indeed, get you a straight line. Basically, it comes down to differentiating between "graphing a log function" and "doing a log graph". Or even more directly, the difference between a "graph of log" vs a "log graph". It's semantic, I know, but that's the usage that I'm accustomed to.

      If one were to graph Richter on the y axis, and energy on the x with a normal linear scale on both axes, then the graph would indeed be the same as a graph of the log function with scaling variables. Just solve the above equation for R to see that. R is a logrithmic function of Energy. Energy is an exponetial fuction of Richter. These statements are all saying the same thing.

    3. Re:No, Parent is right by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      graph of a logarithmic function on a log graph

      It was intended to be funny.

    4. Re:No, Parent is right by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Er, sorry. Graph of an exponential function on a log graph.

  96. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'it always good to joke about events that can and do kill hundreds of thousands'

    To quote Mel Brooks:
    "Tragedy is when I get a paper cut on my finger. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die."

  97. Oh no by iced_773 · · Score: 0


    Is the phone system going to be slashdotted now? That would be a first!

  98. I live here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I assure you that it is just natures way of purging parasites.

  99. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by cduffy · · Score: 1

    How tasteless would it have been to make light of planes hitting buildings six months after September 11th, 2001?

    That depends on the joke, and the listener. I wouldn't describe all such jokes within that time range as automatically in poor taste, though. Laughing about something is, to many, an effective way to numb the pain.

  100. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh come off it. Humor is a healthy way of dealing with tragedy. If you get offended that's your choice. Moping about isn't going to bring anyone back, and I prefer to smile.

    Not so long ago I lost my dad to heart disease, a perpetual natural disaster that kills more people than 10 WTC attacks every month. And you know what, I still laugh when Homer has a heart attack. If I were to die a horrible horrible death, I'd at least hope someone could get a giggle out of it.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  101. Seismologists says there is no relation. by Schmicky · · Score: 1

    How come this guys keep stating that as there are different plates, quakes have no relatioin. I live in Chilea and we had 2 mayor earthquakes just yesterday @ northern Chile, and another much smaller 1500 miles south @ the capital, and yet thay state there is no relations as plates are diferent. Now this. I'm not specialist, but NO ONE can be that blind to just state "there is no relation between them". Seismology is not an exact nor completely understood science, so at best they can say "As of our extreemly limited knowledge, we can't find a relation, but it's clear that there IS a relation between them, we'll study what that relation can be.". I'd just like to state that all ppl leaving in what is known as the pacific ring of fire do share a relation. The point is that some studies are still in their basics, wheather, astrophysics, seismology, etc. And even though there are big advances, no one can be considered an "all knowing" expert. At most (at this moment) they can be considered as ppl who study the subject, but has a looooooong way to go yet.

    1. Re:Seismologists says there is no relation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not specialist, but NO ONE can be that blind to just state "there is no relation between them". Seismology is not an exact nor completely understood science, so at best they can say "As of our extreemly limited knowledge, we can't find a relation, but it's clear that there IS a relation between them, we'll study what that relation can be.".

      There's about as much relation as my pissing in the water off of California has to do with the warmer water off your (Chilean) coast associated with El Nino.

  102. Yes, but what about Volcano insurance? by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    What's that, you say? You never had a Volcano?

    Then you realize that it is due anytime now!

  103. Re:Offtopic response to sig by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    Are you aware of the little boy whose penis was accidently amputated by the circumcisionist? Neither male nor female circumsision is "generally advisable". It was popularized in the US in the early 1900's as a "cure" for masturbation, and has been kept going by FUD and ignorance.

  104. Re:Offtopic response to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The shellfish/penis/milk-with-meat thing has NOTHING to do with "health". It has to do with one's ability to follow God's will. Can you or can't you? That's the deal with these silly things.

    -- Saeed al-Sahaf

  105. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every morning my mom comes down into the basement, shakes my bed and says, "Get up and go get a job you lazy slug!" I'm willing to bet I'm not alone here.

    1. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Your mother wakes me up every morning, too. ah'thank you!

  106. Richter scale is dead, long live moment magnitude by Paradox · · Score: 1

    Not to offend anyone, because even most news agencies get this wrong, but the Richter scale was long ago deprecated for use in large quakes. You can check out the information on the Richter scale at Wikipedia, but the gist of it is that the Richter scale didn't really relate to the physical characteristics of the quake in an identifiable way.

    The new system that geologists use is Moment Magnitude, which is more physically identifiable. However, it'll have values fairly similar old familiar Richter. The real benefit is that it doesn't have a cutoff limit, beyond which all earthquakes simply fall to the same value.

    Just to give people a feel for the intensity of the quake, every step on the moment magnitude scale is an increase in energy by a factor of 10^1.5. Consider that a 7.0's factor is then x10^10.5, which is a pretty damn huge amount of energy, about 31622776602 times more than a magnitude 1 quake.

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
  107. Get ready to buy property in... by jamesangel · · Score: 1

    Arizona Bay!

  108. Doubly wrong post. by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Informative
    You're wrong on two counts.

    Since the 1700s, not a single earthquake in California that was over 6.5 has caused a tsunami there.

    There have been 8 California quakes that have generated tsunamis. Though the San Andreas Fault isn't liable to generate a tsunami because it slips to the right instead of up/down, some California quakes are able to generate undersea landslides. Click on the image on this Mbari page and you'll see a substantial scar left by a landslide off the Santa Barbara Coast.

    Secondly, yesterday's quake was north of Cape Mendocino which is at the southern end of a series of subduction faults that head up to Alaska. Unlike transform faults, subduction faults can, and do, cause tsunamis.

    If anything, I think the media is ignoring some of the risks. Portions of Monterey Bay have very steep submarine walls. A 7.0 quake centered in the bay could generate a landslide that would send a tsunami towards the low-lying regions in Monterey and Carmel. The best advice for anyone in California who feels a quake while they're near the shore is to climb right away. Don't wait for the media to tell you there's a risk because the warning will come too late. Most of the time climbing will be unnecessary, but sometimes it'll save someone's life.

  109. Here is a great website for monitoring quakes by Hits_B · · Score: 1
  110. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    You're British, right? Would you joke about the Omagh bombing with someone from that town, Hillsborough with a die-hard Liverpool fan, the Paddington rail crash with someone who was on that train, or someone from Dumblane about the horror that occured there?

    I'm guessing you wouldn't. And I'm guessing you wouldn't dream of doing it with anyone while the events were hitting the headlines. Joking about potential life and death events as they are occuring, as the poster to whom I originally replied had done, is tasteless.

    I agree, given proper time for reflection, joking about tragedy can be a good thing - part of the healing process, even - but there are always certain subjects that are taboo unless you know your audience intimately and/or they are prepared for it. Try joking about the Holocaust with someone who's Jewish, for example, and see what kind of reaction you get.

    Laughter is good medicine but laughing whilst people could be dying is callous to say the least.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  111. Oh, _that_ northern California. by toothfish · · Score: 1

    We didn't feel anything here in San Francisco, and I guess the reason for that is because it was in the real northern California as opposed to "central California"-- I hear the people who live in Eureka, Humboldt, &c are sort of touchy about that...

  112. Re:Richter scale is dead, long live moment magnitu by AoT · · Score: 1

    What energy units are those numbers in?

  113. Made me feel all wobbly :-) by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    I was in the Safeway in Eureka reading a mag and started to feel like I needed alot of sleep and some suger. You know the feeling,wobbly. Anyways people were running out of the store and my wife was out in the car trying to call me to get my butt out to. Seems that everything outside including the car was swaying.

    We immediatly got home looked at usgs.gov and decided a 7.4 was worth a drive up th nearest tall hill. It was quite weird seeing all sorts of people parked on Fickle Hill watching the bay. Thank God nothing came rolling in much of this area is at or below sealevel.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  114. Magnitude is dimensionless by Paradox · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that moment magnitude is just a convenient way to talk about seismic moment the way we would talk about the classic Richter scale magnitude.

    So it's dimensionless, if I recall correctly (and wikipedia confirms this).

    I suggest you read the wikipedia articles for more information. I am way out of my depth talking about geology. I only remember a few tidbits of facts from an introductory college class.

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
  115. Re:Offtopic response to sig by SComps · · Score: 1

    didn't cure me. I wonder if that's why my glasses are so thick.

  116. Re:Offtopic response to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, circumcision is performed because nobody likes a cheese-dick.

  117. Fucking posters and their ignorance by geekoid · · Score: 1

    An earth quake in california can cause a tsunami accross the sea.

    point in fact it could cause the energy to flow away from california, cause a tsunami in the other side of the ocean, and then come back causingf a Tsunami in California.

    Also, california earthquakes have caused a tsunami since 1700 hundred. However, Tsunami does not equal life threatening wave.

    If you know anything about the geology of the California coast, then you would know there are several areas that, if collapsed, will cause a signifigant wave.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  118. No one cares the quake will happen TOMORROW by wsanders · · Score: 1

    The fact is that it's a almost a dead cert a big one will happen sometime in the next 50 years on some faults. For example, the probability for the Big One on the Hayward Fault (nearest where I live), the northern half of which is directly under Berkeley and Oakland, is usually expressed as "80% chance in the next 20 years." The interval between big earthquakes in California is definitely a bell-shaped curve, obviously with a constraint on zero and lots of heteroskedacity, but it's pretty reasonable to make some assumptions and come up with "X% in N years".

    I'm active in the volunteer emergency services in my neighborhood. We don't care if The Big One happens tomorrow, or whether the chance is one in 10000 or one in 50000 for a particular day ro week or month. What matters is, over the lifetime of any new of recently built structure, and in my lifetime personally, it's fairly certain. The 94 Northridge quake drastically changed building codes and requirements, so since all but the most recently built structures near the fault will be damaged or destroyed by such a quake, this statistic is extremely useful is motivating people to upgrade their structures, make contingency and recovery plans, etc.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  119. As they learned... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    from the last earthquake: Insurance companies either:
    1) suddenly go out of business and there is no way to file a claim.
    2) Lie
    3) Call you a liar
    4) at best offer a fraction of the damage and force you to sue to get what they should pay
    5) try not to pay for damage that is caused by things effected by the earthquake.
    example:
    Scum Insurance person: "well, that damage was cause when the telephone pole fell on your house, so it doesn't cover that."
    You: "But it was the earthQuake that made if fall!"
    Scum Insurance person: "too bad, you can always arbitrate. here are the steps you need to do to arbitrate..oh and we won't even pay the portion we said we owe intil after arbitration."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  120. *bounce bounce* by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    Most slashdotters have never had their beds shaken, so you might want to explain what it's like.

    I'll have you know that I am wild enough to have bounced on my bed once or twice as if it were a trampoline. I am perfectly aware of what a shaking bed feels like.

    Of course, the last time around the wooden centre support gave way, and I had to pull it off the floor, lift up the mattresses, and reinsert it correctly.:)

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  121. Re:Earthquake? Bah.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    " Yeah, it always good to joke about events that can and do kill hundreds of thousands"

    actually, it is. It helps a person deal with the stress.

    "I hope that you're as keen to repeat your hilarous gag when death and destruction on the scale of last year's Asian tsunami hits closer to where you live."

    people would joke then as well. It's a normal response. Americans joke about America too.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  122. some initial concern is definitely warranted. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    In the 60s, a tsunami caused by a quake off of Alaska killed a dozen or so people in Crescent City.

    Within the past half hour they said on CNN that Cresent City suffered a tsunami fromn a seaquake in the 1950s that some of the residents remembered.

    Falcon
  123. Also an earthquake on Sunday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out in the Southern California desert, I think it was a 5.2 and we felt it in Orange County.

    Did earthquake season start early this year?

  124. Re:first subduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is and it is a subduction zone - that's why the Cascade volcanos are up that end. The faultlines off the southern part of the CA coast are strike/slip - no volcanos.

  125. i knew a guy by CiXeL · · Score: 1

    who WAS tripping balls when the northridge quake happened in 1994. His friend thought it was armageddon and he thought they were being invaded by aliens. Afterwards my friend went out into the street to see what was going on only to have a really large dog run by him and he flipped out.

    So yeah, drugs are bad mmkay?

  126. It's not that expensive. by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

    I pay $113/year to the California Earthquake Authority to insure a two-story house just outside of Sacramento, Calif. Not prime earthquake territory, but not "very expensive" either.

  127. imagine an undersea ridge by Intraloper · · Score: 1

    a few hundred feet high, say, and maybe a few miles long, at right angles to the slip fault.

    Then a slip occurs, and that land mass includng that ridge moves, say, 30 feet sideways.

    No uplift at all, but that moving ridge could still move a pretty good mass of water, and create a pretty good wave.

  128. Re:Offtopic response to sig by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

    I'm not talking about the religiously motivated circumcision common among Semitic peoples, but about the routine medical circumcisions performed on most males in the US at birth. This didn't come about until the late 19th-early 20th century for the reasons I stated. It was to prevent "masturbatory insanity." No, I shit you not.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  129. Corrections to TFS by CommandoB · · Score: 1

    A 7.0 earthquake

    A 7.2 earthquake

    occured at 7:50PM PST

    occured at 6:50PM PST (7:50PM PDT)

    source (same as in TFS)

    --
    Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
  130. When I lived up in Redding, we used to call by Intraloper · · Score: 1

    our part of the state Superior California. Caue it was 'above' Northern California, which ends several hundred miles south of the northern border of California.

  131. Learn to swim! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will.
    I sure could use a vacation from this
    Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
    Freaks
    Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
    The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
    Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
    Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.
    Fret for your figure and
    Fret for your latte and
    Fret for your hairpiece and
    Fret for your lawsuit and
    Fret for your prozac and
    Fret for your pilot and
    Fret for your contract and
    Fret for your car.
    It's a
    Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
    Freaks
    Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
    The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
    Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
    Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.
    Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
    Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
    Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
    Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.
    Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will cuz
    I sure could use a vacation from this
    Silly shit, stupid shit...
    One great big festering neon distraction,
    I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
    Learn to swim.
    Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
    Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.
    Learn to swim.
    Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
    Fuck all his clones.
    Fuck all those gun-toting
    Hip gangster wannabes.
    Learn to swim.
    Fuck retro anything.
    Fuck your tattoos.
    Fuck all you junkies and
    Fuck your short memory.
    Learn to swim.
    Fuck smiley glad-hands
    With hidden agendas.
    Fuck these dysfunctional,
    Insecure actresses.
    Learn to swim.
    Cuz I'm praying for rain
    And I'm praying for tidal waves
    I wanna see the ground give way.
    I wanna watch it all go down.
    Mom please flush it all away.
    I wanna watch it go right in and down.
    I wanna watch it go right in.
    Watch you flush it all away.
    Time to bring it down again.
    Don't just call me pessimist.
    Try and read between the lines.
    I can't imagine why you wouldn't
    Welcome any change, my friend.
    I wanna see it all come down.
    suck it down.
    flush it down.

  132. Re:Slashdot should not be my primary news source : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also in Southern California. The reports on television had very little helpful information so my wife thought we might be in significant danger. In spite of the fact that we are several miles inland. 100 feet above sea level. With several 500-foot-plus hills between us and the ocean.

    That would be some tsunami.

  133. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if was indeed broken they probably activated an auxiliary/backup link to route their traffic through

    By the nature of TCP/IP there is no reason not to have that "auxiliary backup link" already "activated" and contributing some bandwidth if it's functional.