Slashdot Mirror


Chilean Earthquake Shortened Earth's Day

ailnlv writes "Days on Earth just got shorter. The recent earthquake in Chile shifted the planet's axis by about 8 cm and shortened days by 1.26 microseconds 'The changes can be modeled, though they're difficult to detect physically given their small size. ... Some changes may be more obvious, and islands may have shifted. ... Santa Maria Island off the coast near Concepcion, Chile’s second-largest city, may have been raised 2 meters (6 feet) as a result of the latest quake ...'"

374 comments

  1. Great! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can go home a few microseconds early today.

    1. Re:Great! by SkeeZerD · · Score: 1

      Crap...less sleep

    2. Re:Great! by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      I thought that day went quick!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Great! by ls671 · · Score: 0

      Worst thing is that we will have to redraw maps to adjust the location of meridian and time zones to be accurate ! ;-)

      We should also note that making a pseudo-sphere diameter smaller doesn't shorten the daylight/obscurity period on the said sphere. Even if Earth went to half its current diameter, days should remain the same length unless we change the rotation speed as they suggest in TFA.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:Great! by ls671 · · Score: 2, Informative

      While at it, also note that Earth rotation period is ~23h56m, not ~24h because the surface of the Earth facing the Sun moves in the opposite direction of the Earth moving around the Sun.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re:Great! by derGoldstein · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sir, please don't bring your heliocentric propaganda into this scientific discussion.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    6. Re:Great! by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      "We should also note that making a pseudo-sphere diameter smaller doesn't shorten the daylight/obscurity period on the said sphere. Even if Earth went to half its current diameter, days should remain the same length unless we change the rotation speed as they suggest in TFA."

      Shrinking the sphere and keeping the mass the same will increase the rotation speed. This is why the nutron star left behind after a supernova spins so fast. It's also the reason an ice skater spins faster when they draw in their arms. - Please hand in your geek card on your way out. ;)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Great! by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear talk on 4chan that he's a witch! Ye best not be speaking with-um again less ye too be dragged before the inquisition!

    8. Re:Great! by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Hu, that's pretty interesting but what's a nutron star again?

    9. Re:Great! by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Hu, that's pretty interesting but what's a nutron star again?"

      Irresistible bait for spelling Nazi's.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Great! by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      It's the thing between them thar ears.

    11. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irresistible bait for spelling Nazi's. I see what you did there.

    12. Re:Great! by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Einstein said everything was relative and that your perception depends on your point of view.

      I just said "the Earth moving around the Sun" to conform to modern standard. I could have said "the Sun moving around the Earth" but then it would have been "in the same direction of the Sun moving around the Earth" but anyway, the principle would still be valid. It always apply for any object shining on another one while one is rotating around the other, or more precisely, when they rotate together around their center of mass.

      The truth is that there is no such thing as the Moon rotating around the Earth. They both rotate around the center of mass that they both constitute together. I chose Moon/Earth as an example because it is a simpler one than Sun/multiple planets/galaxies but the principle always apply.

      On a funny note Wikipedia says:

      "is the astronomical theory that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun and that the Sun is STATIONARY and at the center of the universe. "

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

      Modern science says that the Sun is not "stationary" because of the principle that masses always rotate around the center of mass they constitute together like stated above in my Moon/Earth example.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    13. Re:Great! by bronney · · Score: 0
    14. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you get to work extra and don't get paid overtime... how much would 1.26 microseconds account for after a year?

    15. Re:Great! by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I didn't think of this obviously ;-))

      Here is my geek card, send me your address so I can mail it to you or I can destroy it myself if you wish ;-))

      http://www.galacticawatercooler.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/geekcard-450.jpg

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    16. Re:Great! by dwater · · Score: 1

      What if there were two earths rotating around the sun at the same distance? Wouldn't the sun be stationary then? Hypothetical, but true, no?

      Extending this, I guess, then, that there could well be something, somewhere that is actually stationary. In fact, if you take all particles into account, why couldn't it be the sun?

      Isn't it true that you can only measure your velocity relative to some other object? However, acceleration is not relative and can always be detected. Since rotation requires acceleration, can't we detect is something is stationary? I suppose we'd actually have to put an accelerometer on the sun to detect if it is accelerating in any direction or not.

      I'm genuinely curious, btw ;) I suppose this is all written somewhere, and I should just look it up...nah.

      --
      Max.
    17. Re:Great! by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      What if there were two earths rotating around the sun at the same distance? Wouldn't the sun be stationary then? Hypothetical, but true, no?

      The question to ask yourself is - stationary in relation to what?

      In the solar system frame the sun is mostly stationary (because of its huge mass in relation to the planets), though not completely if you're being pernickety (also rotates and of course it is in orbit around a centre of mass with the planets, but we say they orbit it as shorthand).

      In the galactic frame, it's orbiting the centre of the galaxy (along with the rest of the solar system) at something like 568,000 mph, and then the galaxy is moving in relation to others, etc etc.

    18. Re:Great! by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The question to ask yourself is - stationary in relation to what?

      Wasn't there a famous quote to the effect that you could say the earth was the center of the universe, but it just makes calculations needlessly difficult?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    19. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure go ahead, now let's see about adjusting you salary accordingly.

    20. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're conflating "stationary" with "not accelerating". In a rotational context there's acceleration related to motion, but in a linear context there is not.

    21. Re:Great! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Pedantry overload! Look, I know this is /. but 23h56m is approximately 24h.

      It's not like we're counting the seconds.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    22. Re:Great! by bronney · · Score: 1

      My fav is the "educated stupid" bit. I read that thing once a year to remind myself I am still alive lol.

    23. Re:Great! by addsalt · · Score: 1

      We should also note that making a pseudo-sphere diameter smaller doesn't shorten the daylight/obscurity period on the said sphere. Even if Earth went to half its current diameter, days should remain the same length unless we change the rotation speed as they suggest in TFA.

      The change in diameter would change the moment of inertia for the planet. Since there is no change in angular momentum, the rotational velocity of the earth would need to increase to conserve energy (i.e. shorter days)

    24. Re:Great! by dkh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And what do we do with a witch?

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    25. Re:Great! by dkh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't matter anyway. Everything revolves around me. I am the center of the universe, and I can prove it.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    26. Re:Great! by dkh2 · · Score: 1

      The question to ask yourself is - stationary in relation to what?

      And that is precisely the realization that Montgomery Scott had to make to be able to transport onto a ship traveling at warp speeds.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    27. Re:Great! by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      That's right! We have to teach the controversy! I demand that the schools teach the geocentric model.

      --
      SSC
    28. Re:Great! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much the earthquakes we have play into when they say that old people perceive the days go by faster (along with the synapse stuff)

    29. Re:Great! by wcb4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Burn them!!!!

      --
      I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.
    30. Re:Great! by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Worst thing is that we will have to redraw maps to adjust the location of meridian and time zones to be accurate ! ;-)

      No, just the time zones. The meridian is arbitrary, and the time zones are based off the meridian.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    31. Re:Great! by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Einstein said everything was relative and that your perception depends on your point of view.

      Velocity is relative, but acceleration isn't relative. Rotation involves acceleration. So it isn't equivalent to say that X rotates around Y is the same as Y rotates around X. (Hypothetical example: consider a universe empty except for a single planet which is rotating. What does it mean to say it's rotating, without reference to background stars? Is it equivalent to a model where we say the planet doesn't rotate? No - we could see the difference in a centrifugal force causing the planet to bulge as it rotates.)

      On a funny note Wikipedia says:

      "is the astronomical theory that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun and that the Sun is STATIONARY and at the center of the universe. "

      I don't see what's funny? It's perfectly correct that this is what heliocentrism means. And yes, it still wasn't correct - but the point is it was a vast improvement over geocentrism. The Wikipedia article already covers this, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_modern_science .

    32. Re:Great! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Touche!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:Great! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The sun's going down a few minutes later every day in the Northern Hemisphere and a few minutes earlier in the Southern hemisphere anyway.

      But... did this actually shrink the earth? I don't see how that's possible, didn't it just shift its mass, making its wobble a little different?

    34. Re:Great! by LiquidPaper · · Score: 1

      Good! I just got a 0.001458333 % raise on my hourly wage.

      Maybe I should start thinking on a second condo.

    35. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for explaining this as it made no sense to me how things changed.

    36. Re:Great! by AmonRa1979 · · Score: 1

      No, there is a reason the leap seconds are counted on New Year's Eve. That's coming out of your vacation buddy.

    37. Re:Great! by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Is it equivalent to a model where we say the planet doesn't rotate? No - we could see the difference in a centrifugal force causing the planet to bulge as it rotates

      In order to test your theory, we need to immediately build a stationary Earth and rotate the entire Universe around it, to see if that bulge remains, instead of your wacky notion that the Earth is spinning and thus creating some invisible force that causes the bulge.

    38. Re:Great! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter anyway. Everything revolves around me. I am the center of the universe, and I can prove it.

      Is that you Gordon Brown?

    39. Re:Great! by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 1

      I'm not a witch!

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    40. Re:Great! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Build a bridge out of 'em!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    41. Re:Great! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Everyone can feel how much you suck?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    42. Re:Great! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Geocentric models are the ones with nice curves and don't need to eat a sammich?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    43. Re:Great! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Made out of hazelnut cream.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    44. Re:Great! by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      The truth is that there is no such thing as the Moon rotating around the Earth. They both rotate around the center of mass that they both constitute together. I chose Moon/Earth as an example because it is a simpler one than Sun/multiple planets/galaxies but the principle always apply.

      If I remember correctly, things are described as one orbiting the other when that shared centre of mass is inside the surface of one of the bodies. If they have a combined centre of mass that lies somewhere between the two bodies (not inside one of them) then you have a double planet.

      Pluto would be a double planet, if it were still a planet, as its moon is pretty big compared to Pluto and their centre of mass is in the empty space between them... I guess now it must be a double dwarf or something.

    45. Re:Great! by DrDragun · · Score: 1

      In fewer words: Conservation of Angular Momentum

    46. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly theorists, they're not talking about a star, they're talking about a DANCE!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhcjRoU0C7g

    47. Re:Great! by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Burn them!!!!

      No.

      We nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    48. Re:Great! by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed.

      Remember calculus 2 and wheel problems? One approach to the equations was to put the center of rotation at the center of the wheel. Another approach is to consider the wheel as rotating around the point of contact with the surface. One seems non-intuitive, but can simplify a bunch of other equations. Or dealing with rotating CoM equations...

    49. Re:Great! by Hillview · · Score: 1

      Silly theorists, they're not talking about a star, they're talking about a DANCE!

      Oh, the shoulder pads. Is this a dance troupe or a football squad?

      --
      -Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
    50. Re:Great! by cxx · · Score: 0

      What if there were two earths rotating around the sun at the same distance? Wouldn't the sun be stationary then? Hypothetical, but true, no?

      Try playing with this. If the values are precise, then yes, the sun will be stationary. But, give the sun just a slight initial velocity and the system goes quite funky. Any tiny change will upset this system.

      Here's the values I used:
      Body 1: 200 0 0 0 -1 (or 0 for stable system)
      Body 2: 10 142 0 0 140
      Body 3: 10 -142 0 0 -140

    51. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I just said "the Earth moving around the Sun" to conform to modern standard. I could have said "the Sun moving around the Earth" but then it would have been "in the same direction of the Sun moving around the Earth" but anyway, the principle would still be valid. It always apply for any object shining on another one while one is rotating around the other, or more precisely, when they rotate together around their center of mass.

      Time to listen how the The Day The Universe Changed Episode 1 - The Way We Are starts:

      "Let me tell you a joke: Somebody apparently once went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein, and said “What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked every morning at what is going on behind me now, the dawn, and to have thought that what were seeing was the Sun going round the Earth. Well, as every school kid knows, the Earth goes round the Sun and it doesn't take too many brains to understand that”.

      To which Wittgenstein replied, “Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going round the Earth”. The point being, of course, it would have looked exactly the same.

      You see what your knowledge tells you you are seeing. "

    52. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hu, that's pretty interesting but what's a nutron star again?"

      Irresistible bait for spelling Nazi's.

      Spelling Nazi's what?

    53. Re:Great! by spun · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is, how did the Federation develop such advanced technology when they obviously have no more than half a dozen scientists or engineers capable of making any kinds of break-throughs? I mean really, nobody ever thought of inverting the phase before?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    54. Re:Great! by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has to do with second moments, rotational inertia, that sort of thing... all very complicated and I don’t remember much of it.

      However, what I do remember is this. Basically, for any given mass and assuming that you can’t significantly change its density, it has the least possible rotational inertia if its mass is circularly distributed as close to the axis of rotation as possible*... e.g. a cylinder, sphere, disc, etc. So, a torus (donut) will have more rotational inertia than a disc of the same mass, and a sphere will have even less rotational inertia than the disc.

      Since rotational momentum is the product of angular velocity and rotational inertia, and the momentum is conserved since there are no outside forces, if the rotational inertia increases, the speed must decrease to conserve energy. Conversely if the rotational inertia decreases, the speed increases.

      Basically, the tl;dr version of that is, lumpy shapes spin more slowly than smooth round ones do. If an earthquake makes the earth generally more round, it speeds up the earth’s rotation; however if it lowers some parts while thrusting others upward it does the opposite: slows it down.

      *The rotational inertia is actually dependent on the axis of rotation; a perfect sphere will have more rotational inertia than a long, cylindrical rod... but only if the rod is spinning on its longwise axis. In other words, a perfect sphere has the least rotational inertia in all possible axes of rotation, although not in any particular one. The rotational inertia is an integral of mass times its distance from the axis of rotation. A sphere minimizes this for all possible axes; a cylinder with infinite length and zero radius minimizes it for exactly one axis... in fact this hypothetical cylinder would have zero rotational inertia along that axis and its angular velocity would be infinite.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    55. Re:Great! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I can do one better:

      Conservation of Energy

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    56. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Irresistible bait for spelling Nazi's."
      And I presume you're baiting the grammar Nazis?

    57. Re:Great! by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. He needed to realize that space itself was moving! (from the perspective of the equation derived by him in the alternate timestream)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    58. Re:Great! by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, things are described as one orbiting the other when that shared centre of mass is inside the surface of one of the bodies.

      Having looked this up previously, I can tell you the term you're looking for is barycenter and the barycenter of the sun/Jupiter system is slightly outside the sun. Google search is left as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    59. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unlike superfluous apostrophe's.

    60. Re:Great! by Chagatai · · Score: 1

      Irresistible bait for spelling Nazi's.

      I salute you, sir. Now you're baiting more grammar fiends for the errant apostrophe and those who will throw the penalty flag for improper use of Godwin's Law.

      --
      --Chag
    61. Re:Great! by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Velocity is relative, but acceleration isn't relative. Rotation involves acceleration. So it isn't equivalent to say that X rotates around Y is the same as Y rotates around X. (Hypothetical example: consider a universe empty except for a single planet which is rotating. What does it mean to say it's rotating, without reference to background stars? Is it equivalent to a model where we say the planet doesn't rotate? No - we could see the difference in a centrifugal force causing the planet to bulge as it rotates.)

      Actually, there have been some rather famous debates about whether space is absolute or relative (see the Leibniz-Clark correspondence) which ended on the unanswerability of that very question. To empirically test the difference, we'd have to have a planet situated in a universe like ours, and a planet in an otherwise empty universe - clearly an impossible experiment to conduct.

      I actually wrote a paper a long while back (for a class on Philosophy of Space and Time) arguing, in part, that a planet (or in my example a bucket full of water) rotating in an otherwise empty universe is a nonsense scenario, because there's nothing for it to rotate relative to.

      In short, acceleration IS relative, but it's relative to the background of all the stars and galaxies in the universe; they are our common reference frame.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    62. Re:Great! by soliptic · · Score: 1

      Shrinking the sphere and keeping the mass the same will increase the rotation speed.... [it's] the reason an ice skater spins faster when they draw in their arms.

      I was not aware that drawing in their arms reduces their mass.

    63. Re:Great! by soliptic · · Score: 1

      Fuck, I can't read, or think, and even worse I just posted that on the only internet forum in the sodding universe whihc doesn't allow editing or deleting or posts. I don't deserve an internet connection.

    64. Re:Great! by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Water-board them until they confess?

    65. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, please don't bring your heliocentric propaganda into this scientific discussion.

      stfu

    66. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hu, that's pretty interesting but what's a nutron star again?"

      "Irresistible bait for spelling Nazi's."

      Hey, Godwin's law!

    67. Re:Great! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      What if there were two earths rotating around the sun at the same distance?

      It's rare, but there are planets out there with twin orbits (or close to twin orbits), i.e. two planets of roughly the same size sharing nearly the same orbit.

      As in all orbiting situations, the star in the center wobbles because of the pull of all the stellar bodies in its system.

    68. Re:Great! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      lol, I bagged half a dozen with that one. :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    69. Re:Great! by Chuck+Lane · · Score: 1

      Velocity is relative, but acceleration isn't relative. Rotation involves acceleration. So it isn't equivalent to say that X rotates around Y is the same as Y rotates around X. (Hypothetical example: consider a universe empty except for a single planet which is rotating. What does it mean to say it's rotating, without reference to background stars? Is it equivalent to a model where we say the planet doesn't rotate? No - we could see the difference in a centrifugal force causing the planet to bulge as it rotates.)

      Anyone who enjoys this sort of thing should really, really read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle. Ernst Mach thought about acceleration in the absence of the rest of the universe quite a bit. His ideas had a strong influence on Einstein when he was developing general relativity. (However, whether or not GR actually agrees with Mach's Principle is complicated).

      Chuck

    70. Re:Great! by ls671 · · Score: 1

      > Touche!

      Touché !

      If that's what you meant. In french, an American football touchdown is translated by: touché. It is the only use I make of that word on a regular basis.

      P.S. Great reference to Pink Floyd, I just noticed it ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  2. Maybe this is why... by sixteenbitsamurai · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the PlayStation Network went down?

    --
    Yeah, that just happened.
    1. Re:Maybe this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did not go down. It was a hardware issue.

    2. Re:Maybe this is why... by sixteenbitsamurai · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Offtopic for a bad joke, huh. Sucks to be me, I guess.

      --
      Yeah, that just happened.
    3. Re:Maybe this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It did not go down. It was a hardware issue.

      That's what she said

    4. Re:Maybe this is why... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      You should be ashamed of yourself. Even /. has standards for humor.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    5. Re:Maybe this is why... by indi0144 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Offtopic??? Bad joke??? I'd punch You in the face, for reals. Note that I'm not AC, and thats because I mean it, I'd kick your ass then, just then, It will suck to be You.

      The flame button should be around here -vvvvvv-

    6. Re:Maybe this is why... by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't know if you care, but if you get modded down a lot, the reason might be that your writing isn't very clear and people don't understand what you're trying to say. I had to read that three times before I understood what you were saying.

      --
      Qxe4
    7. Re:Maybe this is why... by M8e · · Score: 0

      Score:3, Informative? I guess it does not suck to be you.

    8. Re:Maybe this is why... by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      No I don't care to be moded down. English is not my first language so you might be right but I think the message it's clear: there is a limit between being just an idiot and being a sociopath, If anybody jokes about stuff like this, in front of me, I hit them in the face. the same as I punched some retarded leftist making jokes about 9-11 once.

      Terrorism or natural disasters are not things to joke about, unless you are a psychopath.

  3. Did this affect climate by MSBob · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Given the axial shift will that have a measurable impact on the climate in a measurable way?

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    1. Re:Did this affect climate by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      either way, it's anthropogenic.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Did this affect climate by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, I checked out that pizza link in your sig, and that is so cool! I wish the pizza place would be that good around here. I live in NYC and I can't even get them to leave their car to deliver pizza to my door, let alone all those other handy features they show there.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    3. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I knew it! I blame the political party I'm not affiliated with.

    4. Re:Did this affect climate by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The panama canal is almost entirely above sea level...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Did this affect climate by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I knew it! I blame the political party I'm not affiliated with.

      You clueless dolt - it's patently obvious the fault of the political party you ARE affiliated with!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q. What do all ice ages have in common?

      A. They never happened! That's what they have in common, they have all been concocted by scientists with an agenda to undermine scripture.

      And for all those who think that this earthquake wasn't caused by Man ... well it was! Fornication, homosexuality, feminism, democracy, drug-taking, violent video games, on-line porn, science, charity, freedom of speech, blashpemy, etc. etc. all these evils will not go unpunished!

    7. Re:Did this affect climate by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually liked the ACLU until I followed that link. Thanks a lot. Now I'm starting to wonder if they're any less crazy than the Ron Paul fanatics.

    8. Re:Did this affect climate by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You say this to make fun of the global warming debate, but theoretically it's not completely impossible that underground nuclear testing has something to do with the specifics of any earthquakes since the 1950s or so. Earthquakes are undoubtedly chaotic, and a series of megaton explosions underground might have shaken things a little and helped them get where they're going faster (temporarily).

      Mind you, I'm not claiming that's necessarily the case either (or even probably the case). Just that, much like a decent conspiracy theory, it's not entirely nonsense or outside the realm of possibility. (I'd guess that overall seismicity remains the same overall but chaotic effects will change the locations of, say, half the aftershocks next century.)

      USGS FAQ here.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    9. Re:Did this affect climate by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the fault of both the parties, you sheeple!

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    10. Re:Did this affect climate by sleeping143 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because a phenomenon is measurable doesn't mean it's significant.

    11. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the fault of the people for allowing it to happen. We are all responsible.

    12. Re:Did this affect climate by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      damn.... that's a bummer.... anyone remember where I parked the H3?

    13. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the fault of the people for allowing it to happen. We are all responsible.

      Sounds rather irresponsible of us...

    14. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      either way, it's anthropogenic.

      Figures. Damned furries.

    15. Re:Did this affect climate by butlerm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      theoretically it's not completely impossible that underground nuclear testing has something to do with the specifics of any earthquakes since the 1950s or so.

      No doubt. Theoretically, it is an absolute certainty that the migration of swallows to Capistrano has something to do with the specifics of every earthquake for centuries now.

    16. Re:Did this affect climate by decoy256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Right... because it's "crazy" to not want government encroaching on every aspect of our lives. Fiscal responsibility is also "crazy".

    17. Re:Did this affect climate by AGMW · · Score: 4, Funny

      Q. What do all ice ages have in common?

      A. They never happened! That's what they have in common, they have all been concocted by scientists with an agenda to undermine scripture.

      And for all those who think that this earthquake wasn't caused by Man ... well it was! Fornication, homosexuality, feminism, democracy, drug-taking, violent video games, on-line porn, science, charity, freedom of speech, blashpemy, etc. etc. all these evils will not go unpunished!

      Cool ... so how does this work then? Do we just pick our favourite 5 or something? OK ... give me a fornication, drug-taking, on-line porn, with a side of violent video games, and good God why not, throw in some blasphemy!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    18. Re:Did this affect climate by delinear · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope not, or the next big human endeavour will be blowing holes in fault lines to try and "fix" climate change. Although if they can manage to make it a few degrees warmer here in the UK while simultaneously lengthening the weekends by an extra day, I may reconsider my position.

    19. Re:Did this affect climate by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Really hard to say, but you can see a nice table here, showing the relative size of nuclear bombs and earthquakes. The energy in an 8.8 earthquake is nearly a million times greater than Hiroshima's.

      --
      Qxe4
    20. Re:Did this affect climate by M8e · · Score: 0

      Sounds rather irresponsible of US...

    21. Re:Did this affect climate by dintech · · Score: 4, Informative

      As you probably already know, there are loads of other more mundane ways to instigate an earthquake. This wired article is quite interesting. To summarise:

      Build a Dam Inject Liquid Into the Ground Mine a Lot of Coal Drill a Gusher Dry Create the World’s Biggest Building
    22. Re:Did this affect climate by nido · · Score: 1

      While I could imagine a subterranean nuclear explosion triggering an earthquake, I think there are other, more effective ways to create megaquakes.

      For example, we could pump out all the lubricating fluid from the earth's crust. With the lube, the plates slide along somewhat smoothly. Without the lubricant, friction would build up until a catastrophic release (9.9 on the scale).

      I don't remember exactly where I read this idea, but crude oil certainly has functions beyond just sitting there, I'm sure. (abiogenic theory of oil, super-deep oil wells [oil struck at 5 miles below the surface], old fields refilling with oil, etc)

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    23. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say this to make fun of the global warming debate, but theoretically it's not completely impossible that underground nuclear testing has something to do with the specifics of any earthquakes since the 1950s or so. Earthquakes are undoubtedly chaotic, and a series of megaton explosions underground might have shaken things a little and helped them get where they're going faster (temporarily).

      Mind you, I'm not claiming that's necessarily the case either (or even probably the case). Just that, much like a decent conspiracy theory,
      it's not entirely nonsense or outside the realm of possibility. (I'd guess that overall seismicity remains the same overall but chaotic effects will change the locations of, say, half the aftershocks next century.)

      USGS FAQ here.

      You say this to make fun of the global warming debate, but theoretically it's not completely impossible that underground nuclear testing has something to do with the specifics of any earthquakes since the 1950s or so. Earthquakes are undoubtedly chaotic, and a series of megaton explosions underground might have shaken things a little and helped them get where they're going faster (temporarily).

      Mind you, I'm not claiming that's necessarily the case either (or even probably the case). Just that, much like a decent conspiracy theory,
      it's not entirely nonsense or outside the realm of possibility. (I'd guess that overall seismicity remains the same overall but chaotic effects will change the locations of, say, half the aftershocks next century.)

      USGS FAQ here.

      there is no such thing as global warming. ha we ve been warming up since the last ice age. its natural, and mans effect on the climate is negligable compared to the amount of methane put into the atmosphere by cows belching and tooting its a myth, perpetratrated by the government to cause panic, and allow government takeovers of the oil industry electrical companies and rule over our lives . we need to more scared of whats happening beneath the surface of yellowstone park out west. or does no one pay attention to national geographic besides horny teenage boys looking to see boobs on african women

    24. Re:Did this affect climate by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hi, please point out a reputable news source from this list I'll wait.

      If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing. You sound like a moron.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    25. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the fault of both the parties, you sheeple!

      By using the word "both", you are exposing yourself as a sheepie for thinking that there are only two parties.

    26. Re:Did this affect climate by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I actually liked the ACLU

      Wow. *There* are some words I've not heard before. How do you *like* an organization made entirely of bureaucrats and lawyers?

      Don't get me wrong: the ACLU serves a purpose, which is arguably very important, and every once in a great while they do something useful.

      But man, O man, they sure can make an unholy nuisance of themselves the rest of the time.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    27. Re:Did this affect climate by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Chaos Theory, a small change to the inputs can cause large changes to the results.

      However the changes are just as likelly to go in one direction as they are to go in the opposite direction: the butterfly effect is just as likelly to result in a typhoon instead of clear weather as it is to result in clear weather instead of a typhoon.

      Also, small changes to inputs can cause small changes to the outputs or even no changes at all (that's why it's called Chaos Theory) - plenty of butterflies flutter-about with out creating typhoons ;)

      If indeed the system that underpins earthquakes is chaotic, underground nuclear tests are just as likelly to have brought forward quakes as they are to have delayed quakes as they are not not have had much effect at all - in fact, they're likelly to have done all of them.

    28. Re:Did this affect climate by krou · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would that be The People's Front of Judea?

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    29. Re:Did this affect climate by krou · · Score: 1

      Which brings me to this question: Secretary of State William Cohen once claimed in a briefing that "[Some countries] are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." Anyone around here know if this is this even remotely possible?

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    30. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call these faults bipartisan faults. There are people out there mapping the bipartisan fault lines in the political landscape as we speak!

    31. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By criticizing the word "both", you are exposing yourself as a dreamer for thinking that there are more than two parties.

    32. Re:Did this affect climate by Boronx · · Score: 1

      If you understand the dynamics of some chaotic systems, you can reliably cause huge and permanent shifts with well placed, tiny impulses.

    33. Re:Did this affect climate by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      That lot of bastards? No, it's the People's Judean Front. Next you'll be thinking it was the Judean People's Front or something stupid like that.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    34. Re:Did this affect climate by natehoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, but it only takes a single pebble to start an avalanche.

      Now, mind you, if a nuclear weapon ever did trigger an earthquake it would probably just be the trigger event, and the pressure would still have been there from the start. If anything, the nuclear weapon would cause the earthquake to happen sooner, thereby possibly reducing the severity of the eventual quake.

      Wow, I just had a brilliant idea. California is worried about the Next Big Quake, and the solution to their problem is so simple - let's trigger whatever pressure is there now in a smaller quake.

      Dust off and nuke the state from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    35. Re:Did this affect climate by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I had that capability once in an island fortress, but I it was destroyed when I decided to torture a government agent rather than just shooting the sonofabitch.

      Lesson learned: Next time I design a superfortress with world destruction capabilities, the big red button that says "PRESS HERE TO DESTROY COMPLEX" won't be hooked up to the actual self-destruct mechanism. I'll just make it out of metal and wire 4,000 volts to it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    36. Re:Did this affect climate by uncledrax · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, the question itself, as stated, should not have been modded troll.. I actually asked myself the same question.

      By definition, an axial shift or rotational displacement would affect seasons.

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    37. Re:Did this affect climate by vinlin · · Score: 1

      Or it may act like the explosions used to trigger small avalanches, thus avoiding the large destructive avalanche. So may be the nuclear tests made the earthquakes weaker. -- Being positive may sound cruel at times.

    38. Re:Did this affect climate by imaque · · Score: 2, Funny

      What I want to know is, if one were to measure all the energy released from burning all the books in the Library of Congress, how many Libraries of Congress would it total?

    39. Re:Did this affect climate by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Fornication, homosexuality, feminism, democracy, drug-taking, violent video games, on-line porn, science, charity, freedom of speech, blashpemy, etc. etc. all these evils will not go unpunished!

      Wow, the religious zealots are getting really mean now.

    40. Re:Did this affect climate by saider · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to the Judean People's Front?

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    41. Re:Did this affect climate by Muros · · Score: 1

      mans effect on the climate is negligable compared to the amount of methane put into the atmosphere by cows belching

      Your argument just imploded there. Cattle's effect on climate is directly attributable to humanity, as there would be far fewer of them around if we didn't find them so tasty.

    42. Re:Did this affect climate by Synn · · Score: 1

      I did the button thing to 4k volts once.

      Lesson learned: Put a postie note next to the button reminding you it's a trap because in the heat of the moment when your base is being overran and you want to blow it up... you can forget.

    43. Re:Did this affect climate by sfhock · · Score: 1

      Jeff: There's a huge ship of some kind in Earth's orbit! But why? Wait a minute! Chaos theory! Chef: Chaos theory?? Jeff: Chaos theory, it was first thought of in the sixties. Sixty. That's the number of episodes they made of Punky Brewster before it was cancelled. Cancelled... Chef: Huh? Jeff: Don't you see? The show is over! The aliens are cancelling Earth! [edit]

      --
      "Let's go find some Turian and beat the shit out of him ... That always cheers you up!!"
    44. Re:Did this affect climate by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I still mostly like the ACLU. The one big problem I have with them is that they do not consider the second amendment an issue of civil liberties.

    45. Re:Did this affect climate by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I'll take one of those too. But can I swap the drugs for a little democracy?

    46. Re:Did this affect climate by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Splitters!

    47. Re:Did this affect climate by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Wow. *There* are some words I've not heard before. How do you *like* an organization made entirely of bureaucrats and lawyers?

      Don't get me wrong: the ACLU serves a purpose, which is arguably very important, and every once in a great while they do something useful.

      Your second sentence answered your own question :)

      I'd disagree with the "once in a great while" bit. I think they do quite a bit of good. However, even if all of their cases consisted of "making an unholy nuisance", they'd still be providing a valuable service simply by challenging the status quo. Complacency and conformity can be serious concerns - it's always good to have someone stirring the pot.

      On the other hand, I'd always considered them to be generally rational people. This bit of FUD they're pumping out is disappointing in that respect, but makes their work no less important.

    48. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European swallows. African girls take it up the ass.

      Captcha: emission

    49. Re:Did this affect climate by natehoy · · Score: 1

      You Lie!

      Or you didn't put enough amps behind those volts. :)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    50. Re:Did this affect climate by sjs132 · · Score: 1

      I'm all for a california island state... think of the new beachfront communities in arizona!

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    51. Re:Did this affect climate by RedEars · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's something about this in those leaked emails somewhere...

      --
      He who forgets will be destined to remember. - EV
    52. Re:Did this affect climate by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      I actually liked the ACLU until I followed that link. Thanks a lot. Now I'm starting to wonder if they're any less crazy than the Ron Paul fanatics.

      You must work for the government.

    53. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? because it isn't happening in exactly the same way as depicted? I mean shit, I could get a good portion of that information from a facebook account. (share your personal info and tell us everything you do everyday, it's what the cool people are doing now)

      But the other portion, credit cards, employment, etc I can all get for like 20 to 50 bucks and 10 minutes of free time. the only unrealistic part is the library card.

    54. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      theoretically it's not completely impossible that underground nuclear testing has something to do with the specifics of any earthquakes since the 1950s or so.

      No doubt. Theoretically, it is an absolute certainty that the migration of swallows to Capistrano has something to do with the specifics of every earthquake for centuries now.

      is that an unladen swallow or a laden swallow?

    55. Re:Did this affect climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then why didn't the earthquake happen in America

    56. Re:Did this affect climate by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking a little bit, but "releasing the pressure" from a big looming earthquake is a valid theory and geologists are exploring the possibility. Of course, the problem is that you'll never be able to convince people that setting off a smaller quake is preventing a bigger one - in the case that you're successful, how can you prove the big one was ever going to come, and if you're unsuccessful, then you're proven wrong and your earlier quake was unnecessarily damaging (even if it actually reduced the size of the bigger one later - you can't prove that either). Anyway, there is a lot of geophysical modeling being done to try to answer these kinds of questions, especially within the academic geology community in California (I'm a geology grad student in California, but I'm not studying earthquakes so I'm no expert).

      Interestingly, some are also exploring the possibility that we have already been releasing the pressure because of various deep engineering projects - for example, there was a story here within the last year or so about an earthquake in Iceland (I think) that may have been set off by drilling/geothermal energy stuff.

      And of course, you can't forget the possibilities put forth by "A View to a Kill" ;)

    57. Re:Did this affect climate by suzanof · · Score: 1

      "eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." Anyone around here know if this is this even remotely possible?" Evidently some folks think so. WHO is doing it to whom? A mans greatest enemies can be those within his own household. http://www.gabrielgomis.com/clima6.htm

  4. What's with the red headline bar? by fishexe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've never seen that before.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    1. Re:What's with the red headline bar? by Tynin · · Score: 5, Funny

      It means that no one had posted anything to the comments of the story yet. And if you are a /. regular it's really a secret troll code telling you to rush in to comment about frosty piss and checking the post anonymously button while praying to the FSM that you beat all the other cowards to it. ;)

    2. Re:What's with the red headline bar? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It means it's an unposted story; if you've paid good money for the folks who run this joint, it's one of the 'plums' they give you--to see them before those cheapasses who prefer ads and such.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    3. Re:What's with the red headline bar? by teh+moges · · Score: 1

      What ads?

    4. Re:What's with the red headline bar? by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      You may not know this, but fishaxe does: when you reach high karma, you no longer get ads (or rather you get the "option" to turn them off). Basically, if you contribute to the site, they don't monetize you directly.
      And spare me the reply saying that "yeah, instead you're the one providing content to the site, which they use to make money off of". There's always someone who says that, and there's always the same answer: If you don't want to be here, don't be here.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    5. Re:What's with the red headline bar? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Amusingly enough, the folks who pay only get x number of ad-free pages per day (x being set by the subscriber). The option to disable ads for contributors goes away.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  5. Now I'm late! by Subm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Crap, I was going to post something funny, but now I'm 1.26 microseconds late. Sorry, I gotta run...

  6. Awesome! by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

    Now we just have to harness this, and we won't have to worry about low-lying coastal areas being swept away by flooding and rising oceans!

  7. How often do such quakes occur? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    I mean, don't forget that a day only has 86,400 seconds (give or take...). One such quake doesn't really matter. A hundred won't. A million will start to matter. A billion definitly will.

    And of course, they don't happen every day but, well, a billion years ain't that long if you're a planet...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Adaeniel · · Score: 1

      Assuming 18 quakes a year that can shorten the Earth's day by 1 microsecond gives you a shortening of 5 hours over the span of a billion years.
      Just thought that would be fun to examine.

    2. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reason the day length changes is because the quake caused a net motion of mass toward the center of the planet. This reduces the moment of inertia, and because of conservation of momentum, the planet's rotation must speed up.

      If this happened repeatedly, it would mean that the density of the planet was increasing. That can't happen to any significant degree, because it would involve compression, which requires a source of energy (note -- I don't mean that the increased rotation is due to an energy input, just that it takes energy to compress a planet). Earthquakes just move energy around, they do not create it. So over long spans of time, earthquakes tend to increase the length of the day by about as much as they decrease it. It all depends on whether the net motion was toward the center of the earth or away from it.

      This is based on my knowledge of physics, but I am not a geologist, so there may be complicating factors I don't know about. However, I'm pretty sure that the planet's density cannot increase arbitrarily.

    3. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by danlip · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some quakes elevate land which would slow the spin of the earth, but some might lower it, and erosion is constantly lowering the land. After 5 billion years we are probably pretty much in a steady state as far as that goes (earthquakes push it up, and erosion tears it down). Of course other things like tidal forces between the earth and sun are having long term affects which will accumulate overtime (I believe slowing the earth's spin and moving it further from the sun).

    4. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by ashridah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's assuming every single one shortens the day. Do we know if they'll actually do that, or if there's more likely to be some kind of gaussian spread across positive and negative shifts?

    5. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      A quick back of the hand calculation tells me that tidal friction is only two orders of magnitude less effect than this. So about 100 days of tidal friction is equal to this event.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by indi0144 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what happens if instead of 100 8.3 eartquakes we have 10 @ 10.1?

      From wikipedia:

      >> Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; in terms of energy, each whole number increase corresponds to an increase of about 31.6 times the amount of energy released.<<

      This quake was 8.8 ram == 15.8 gigatons of TNT delivered
      The one (the comet impact) that owned the dinosaurs was 13.0 ram or 100 teratons of TNT

      And we really need one, very powerful in the right place at the right time to cause a polar swift. You know, after that you would start to see random Angels coming to Neo New York and Evas and stuff... no in all seriousness a polar swift will fuck us all big time.

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

    7. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by derGoldstein · · Score: 2, Informative

      a billion years ain't that long if you're a planet...

      Yes, it is. Our sun's lifespan is about 10 billion years, and it's half-way through. In other word, the solar system should be having its mid-life crisis now.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    8. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by rachit · · Score: 1

      IANAG, but I would assume earthquakes tend to assist moving matter "downhill"

    9. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A billion years is a long time for a planet, seeing as how the Earth is roughly only 6000 years old.

    10. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Kaleidoscopio · · Score: 2, Funny

      6000 years? Where did you come up with that number? Earth's age is around 4.5 billion years. 6000 years would be the age of the Homo Sapiens or something similar...

    11. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Which is offset by the forces moving matter "uphill", which I assume happens with volcanoes and ridges mostly at the mid-ocean.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    12. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > So what happens if instead of 100 8.3 eartquakes we have 10 @ 10.1?

      How about 1 at 11.9?

      Hey, it would give a seismologist something interesting to study, right?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    13. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A billion years is a long time for a planet, seeing as how the Earth is roughly only 6000 years old.

      Yes, but with days getting shorter with every earthquake, some of those 6000 years must have been 10,000,000 years long

    14. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by pongo000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is based on my knowledge of physics, but I am not a geologist, so there may be complicating factors I don't know about. However, I'm pretty sure that the planet's density cannot increase arbitrarily.

      What goes up must come down...in geology, it's called istosasy. It's sort of like gravitational equilibrium. What sinks in one place is usually offset by a height increase elsewhere. Over years, the small geologic events (and yes, the Chile earthquake is small when measured in geologic units) balance themselves out. I would not worry too much about the lost microsecond. We'll gain it back next year.

    15. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      Sorry...how about isostasy...too early to be talking about this stuff...

    16. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I think that on average quakes tend to increase the roughness of the Earth's surface (large mountain ranges such as the Andes are created by the cumulative effects of quakes). This will increase the radius of gyration of the planet and therefor lengthen the day. However, the increase in roughness is counteracted by erosion.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    17. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And of course, they don't happen every day but, well, a billion years ain't that long if you're a planet...

      I'm 57, that's like saying fifteen years ain't that long if you're my age. But, damn, it's been a long time since 1995. The earth is four billion years old; a billion years is a quarter of its lifetime.

    18. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Density doesn't have to change, nor the mass. Take the same mass in a big flat disk vs a long thin rod (both rotating around the axis of symmetry). In the Earth's case, if you were to change from the slightly bulged at the equator (some 25km out of 6700 radius) to more spherical that would have a larger effect.

      Earthquakes don't "move energy around".. they dissipate it as heat, just as clapping your hands or rubbing them together makes them warmer.

    19. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Of course other things like tidal forces between the earth and sun are having long term affects which will accumulate overtime (I believe slowing the earth's spin and moving it further from the sun).

      The earth's spin has been slowing since the development of the moon, and it's caused far more by lunar by tidal forces than solar tidal forces -- the moon's gravity, not the sun's. At the same time the moon is moving farther away from us. At the present, the center of the earth/moon system's gravity is underground on earth.

      At some point the moon will cease to be a satellite and the earth/moon will become binary planets. Wikipedia has more information about this.

    20. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Earth is /not/ compressed (as that requires an external pressure), and no energy is expended. Quite the opposite is true: the Earth /collapses/, and gravitational energy is /released/.

      In fact, /all/ earthquakes occur because tension is released (and thus the system transitions into an energetically favourable state).

      Generally, it is energetically favorable (as long as one is far away from a 'centrigugal barrier', or neglects rotation) if matter moves in closer to the center of gravity. This is the reason protostars (blobs of interstellar gas that will one day become a star) radiate, even though they don't have nuclear fusion going on yet.

      The thing that impedes this collapse is mechanical resistance (for anything solid and liquid) and a gradient of thermal pressure (for anything gaseous). (or other things such as degeneracy pressure, but I digress)

    21. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a "polar swift"?

      I'm having a little trouble reading typo today...

    22. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by misterooga · · Score: 1

      Yay, next year.... Wait. We can predict where another earthquake will hit next year?

      I got some packing to do.

    23. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is that why we dumped Pluto as a planet? We were looking for something smoother and hotter?

      Oh yeah!

    24. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Density doesn't have to change, nor the mass.

      Even though you can imagine some configuration of mass where the density remains the same does not mean that's what happens in an earthquake. Earthquakes most certainly change the density of the planet on a local level, and we can see these effects using orbiting gravimeters.

      Earthquakes don't "move energy around".. they dissipate it as heat, just as clapping your hands or rubbing them together makes them warmer.

      Heat is energy. Energy does not "dissipate." It is conserved. It is true that once potential energy is transformed to heat, it can radiate away and essentially be "lost," but the description of earthquakes as energy movers is completely valid.

    25. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      Whoops... posting to undo mod.

    26. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      What you call “change in density”, I call “moving mass around”. We’re talking about rocks and fluids... all of which are relatively incompressible. An earthquake might move a denser rock in to take the place of a lighter fluid, but it didn’t change the density, it just moved mass around... and this, of course, can be detected by gravimeters.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    27. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, that is the bingo statement in this bunch of slashdot knowitalls. Gravity is forever pulling it in, but over lengthy periods of time, the degree of in is going to be determined by the density of the material, and the slowly cooling core of this rock's shrinkage as it cools, which is almost purely thermal. Unforch this shrinkage is resisted by a somewhat rigid layer of rock etc which is essentially floating of the hot, molten rock (and iron) of the core, and is relatively thin, punctured occasionally by a pipe of hot rock up to the surface called a volcano. One can get a feeling for the insignificance of what man can do by visiting the biggest of those volcanos that we honor here in the states with the status of a National Park, the first one ever, Called Yellowstone. It hasn't actually erupted in 600 thousand years, apparently using the mechanisms such as Old Faithful, to relieve the pressures. But I digress.

      The point is, that this crust is A: floating about on the molten core, and B: forces related to things as simple as the corolius effect cause individual pieces of it to move about, running into each other, with one of them usually losing the battle and being subducted under the other, to be once again heated and made more plastic and eventually absorbed back into the core.

      This crusty surface, because its more rigid, resists the shrinkage of the core for as long as it can, and eventually has to give way, as it did under Haiti a few weeks ago, and under Chile just a few days ago. As it will again and again under the western edge of California, where at some places along the San Andreas Fault, the slippage is estimated as much as 120 feet overdue.

      This planet is cooling, and the core is shrinking, but as long as it remains plastic, these 'adjustments' will continue. Only when the core solidifies, fixing these bits and pieces of crust in place for all time, will such really violent events largely stop. Then, we will have fewer events, and more general events as the crushing will tend to distribute itself into smaller events, physically closer together.

      That will take a while yet, geologically speaking. Probably just about the same time this little G type star we call the sun begins its red giant phase, having consumed its readily available hydrogen fuel, and will have begun that long slide to a cooling, burnt out ember of its former glory. However, it will struggle on down through the periodic table, with its core becoming ever hotter in order to achieve the fusion that keeps it going, and this increased radiation pressure will blow away the lighter elements making it a red giant for a while. There isn't enough mass in it now to take it all the way to iron, which takes more energy to fuse than is recovered from the fusion. Were there that much mass which would allow it to continue to that point, then at that point you generally have a supernova because the absorbtion of the energy it takes to fuse iron sucks the heat out of the core, removing the radiation pressure that supports it, so the majority of it falls inward at nearly light speed until there is either a neutron star, or a black hole at the center. The rest bounces back at relativistic velocities, all of this taking place is an amount of time limited by the transit time of light over the diameter of the star. If we are far enough away to survive the radiation blast, we sit and admire yet another supernova. And we get to study the neutrinos released by such an event. We actually caught 7 of them from the SN1987A supernova.

      In the meantime, all we can do is try to instrument this rock, with an eye toward better predictions of where the next such event might take place, hopefully with enough of a warning that folks can either leave the area, or at least be better prepared for it. And that may be the best we can do given the conditions.

      But, there has to be a mindset that says we have to do it, and so far, that most economical of misery prevention methods has not found a hell of a lot of fav

    28. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the exponential curve, please.

    29. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In other word, the solar system should be having its mid-life crisis now.

      So we'll be seeing lots of sportscars and scantily-clad young models floating around in the heavens soon?
      I, for one, welcome our balding, cocaine-and-viagra-snorting overlords.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Earthquakes also move matter uphill. For instance what do you think caused much of the Andes to rise, and the Himalayas for that matter. Earthquakes are but a symptom of the forces causing those mountain ranges to rise.

    31. Re:How often do such quakes occur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. Polar shift cannot easily occur; you'd pretty much have to hit the Earth with a very large rock to do that. Remember that the Earth has an insane amount of mass; even the impact event which slew the dinosaurs didn't know the Earth (significantly) off its axis, and it was far, far more energetic than any earthquake.

      Now, some hypothesize that geomagnetic polar shift could happen as the result of a large earthquake, but that's only a hypothesis, and it really wouldn't be that big of a deal even if it did happen.

  8. FFS! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, for fuck's sake! I've got too much shit to do already! And now, I have 1.26 microseconds less to do it in??!! Scheisse! Of course, maybe I shouldn't post on slashdot. Maybe that would save more than 1.26 microseconds.

    1. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seriously! Think of all the things you could do with all that time:

      - Make love to your wife
      - List all of Pat Robertson's positive traits
      - Use WinMo before freaking out and throwing your phone out the window

      C'mon people, this is valuable time here!

    2. Re:FFS! by feepness · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, for fuck's sake! I've got too much shit to do already! And now, I have 1.26 microseconds less to do it in??!! Scheisse! Of course, maybe I shouldn't post on slashdot. Maybe that would save more than 1.26 microseconds.

      You could make love to your girlfriend a couple fewer times per week.

    3. Re:FFS! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just an *obvious* reminder, but Slashdot posters don't have girlfriends.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Use WinMo before freaking out and throwing your phone out the window

      Or throwing your chair across the room...

    5. Re:FFS! by acidrainx · · Score: 1

      Oh that wins on so many levels. Bravo.

    6. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could make love to your girlfriend a couple fewer times per week.

      Er, you do know you're posting on Slashdot, right?

    7. Re:FFS! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Hmmm ... how do you make love to your girlfriend a negative number of times a week?
      Oh, I see. Make anti-love. Anti-love is hate. So you would make hate to your girlfriend at least once per week.
      Well, I start to understand why people on Slashdot don't have girlfriends. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:FFS! by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      What is this "wife" thing you're speaking of?

    9. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was clearly an analogy.

    10. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's impossible!

    11. Re:FFS! by rwiggers · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would save him any time, since he mentioned posting on slashdot.

    12. Re:FFS! by PhiberOptix · · Score: 2, Informative

      someone didn't get the joke

    13. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fleshy, cold-spirited demon that spends your money.

    14. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "wife" thing you're speaking of?

      A device you screw on the bed that does the chores.

    15. Re:FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that his right hand "girlfriend" or his left hand "girlfriend" that you're refering to?

    16. Re:FFS! by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      I want a bed that does the chores!

      But then why would I screw my wife on it?

        I'd screw her on the *other* bed so the first one could keep doing the chores...

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
  9. GPS affected? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this affect GPS for a short time? I understand that the USAF (or whoever runs it) will correct the system, but how quickly does this occur? Would it affect a JDAM bomb in flight, for example?

    1. Re:GPS affected? by feepness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was traveling at 400 miles per hour, 1.26 microseconds is 0.007 inches. I am assuming that is within detonation radius.

    2. Re:GPS affected? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      One would hope.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not about the speed of the bomb. It's about the speed of the sattelites which orbit Earth and which the bomb uses to guide itself.

      A sattelite travelling in Geostationary orbit clocks 3.8km/s. In 1.26 microseconds it would travel about 5mm. If it, say, takes a month until the government calculates and issues the correcting commands, the offset would accumulate to 15cm.

      If a guided missile is launched to fly into a window of an enemy-occupied building, the offset can be enough to make a difference between hitting the window and hitting the wall.

    4. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A James Bond inch? How awesome!

    5. Re:GPS affected? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. Buried at the bottom of TFA is this lovely quote:

      "This small contribution is buried in larger changes due to other causes, such as atmospheric mass moving around on Earth," Chao said.

      So this has less effect than wind. That's right, fucking WIND does more to the earths rotation EVERY SINGLE DAY. Still, nice hype job by the scientists, without sensationalism they wouldn't get the funding for the mundane crap.

    6. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, if we cluster bomb Santa Maria Island, the bombs will strike 2 meters early. And, the Santa Marians will have to dig their bunkers 2 meters deeper. In fact, I just saw a video of Hitler upset about this on youtube, he was pretty vexxed about it.

    7. Re:GPS affected? by aonic · · Score: 1

      The satellites' orbits (which you calculate your position from) are calculated from the ranges to a network of ground stations with really expensive receivers mounted to bedrock. I heard through the grapevine that a couple sites in Chile slipped a few meters and that made the orbit products that geodesists use really crappy unless they took those sites out (because they assumed the old positions). The real-time orbits (less precise) that are broadcast from the satellites are produced by the Department of Defense, and their sites are usually on US military bases. Their orbits (and therefore any of the military equipment that depends on the real-time orbits) probably weren't affected by the quake.

    8. Re:GPS affected? by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More people die in car accidents every single day than died in this earthquake. What is with all this sensationalism about such an insignificant event.

    9. Re:GPS affected? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 4, Informative

      If a guided missile is launched to fly into a window of an enemy-occupied building, the offset can be enough to make a difference between hitting the window and hitting the wall.

      GPS doesn't have the kind of precision to guide a shot like that regardless of whether the time is uncalibrated. If we need to launch a missile into a building and it is imperative that it enter the building through a small window, we would surely use laser or thermal guidance... not GPS.

    10. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about ICBM's wouldn't the change in earths rotation make a difference in calculating long range attacks?

    11. Re:GPS affected? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If a guided missile is launched to fly into a window of an enemy-occupied building, the offset can be enough to make a difference between hitting the window and hitting the wall.

      GPS doesn't have the kind of precision to guide a shot like that regardless of whether the time is uncalibrated. If we need to launch a missile into a building and it is imperative that it enter the building through a small window, we would surely use laser or thermal guidance... not GPS.

      The C/A code used by civilian GPS receivers don't have that kind of accuracy - but the P(Y) code used by military GPS receivers does. Heck, a WAAS enabled civilian GPS receiver can get pretty close to that level of accuracy - down to the 1 meter range.

    12. Re:GPS affected? by butlerm · · Score: 1

      GPS satellites are in low earth orbit, and travel much faster than that, more like 300 km/s. Not that that makes much of a difference here. To first order, each satellite is going to continue on its merry way (i.e. be unaffected by the events on the surface), and the motion of a point on the earth's surface is going to move off of its expected track, in this case sped up by a factor of ~14 parts per trillion.

      The inertial velocity of the earth's surface at the equator is ~ 464 meters / second. So a fixed target on the equator is going to drift off its projected inertial track by ~ 6.5 nanometers per second. So if the issue went uncorrected for a month, a GPS guided missile might be off its normal (mean) track by 16 millimeters. Needless to say there are other factors that will affect the accuracy of GPS measurements by rather a lot more than that.

    13. Re:GPS affected? by butlerm · · Score: 1

      Correction: LEO satellites have an orbital velocity of approximately 7800 meters / second, or about 17,500 miles per hour.

    14. Re:GPS affected? by rusl · · Score: 1

      But car crashes are inevitable because we NEED all those cars you inconsiderate cad!

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
    15. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      atomic clocks are based on the cesium atoms breakdown ...gps is based on fixed points in space where satellites roam freely and crash to earth making a big splat

    16. Re:GPS affected? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > More people die in car accidents every
      > single day than died in this earthquake.

      Oh, sure, *worldwide*, but the earth is a big place. The earthquake killed a whole bunch of people in a *small area*, all at once.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    17. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The quake does affect GPS, but not as you might expect.

      GPS positioning is based on measuring the distance to GPS satellites, which is equivalent to measuring the clock difference between them. The result of this measurements gives you a position relative to the satellites you see.

      Now, to map that satellite-relative position to an earth coordinate, you need to know the satellite orbits. Those are slowly fluctuating anyway. The earth isn't exactly round, the moon is also pulling on satellites, and tidal forces slow the earths rotation every day. Therefore you need periodic orbit updates. (The google terms for this are almanac and ephemeris). Therefore all GPS satellites always broadcasts the current set of orbits. As a result of the quake, these orbits indeed change a bit, relative to the ground, and this is a permanent change. But in the GPS architecture, it's an irrelevant change.

    18. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your average GPS timer is on the order of 50 ns, or about 5^-8. That's two orders of magnitude off of a foot of error - light travels one foot in 1/10th of a nanosecond, or about 1^-10. For the computer guys out there, this is 10 gigahertz (50), or about 10 feet for 1GHZ. We have timers that will give you a foot of fidelity - but the position of the satellites is not really that certain. There are ground stations that could increase this fidelity, but they are few and far between. It's hard to get a good signal to measure from them.

    19. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people die in car accidents every single day than died in this earthquake.

      That remains to be seen. Chile is a vast country and has a poor (and now broken) communication infrastructure.

    20. Re:GPS affected? by M3.14 · · Score: 1

      I think that a missile (read "lot of explosives") does not need to fly "in" through window. Unless of course you want it to also fly past the inside door, turn left down the hall and hit the enemy directly in his left ball - in that case this offset can cause trouble.

    21. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't say that's what she said...

    22. Re:GPS affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fixed points in space where satellites roam freely and crash to earth making a big splat

      wat

      I don't even know where to begin, there are so many contradictions in that simple phrase...

    23. Re:GPS affected? by jafac · · Score: 1

      It doesn't affect GPS.
      It affects the accuracy of surveys taken PRIOR to this (and any other) geological movement.

      And there are actually many many other factors that affect the accuracy of such surveys, including, different standards of what a "foot" is, (meters? oh, that's what the commies and faggy french use), AND tidal forces from the moon and sun acting on the earth (not just the liquid ocean, the crust actually flexes DAILY as well; and not uniformly either - different, depending on composition, topography, etc.)

      GPS is pretty much always mathematically perfect and spot-on, based on radio signals; really only affected by relativistic issues and clock-drift, which are pretty much well-understood and compensated for.

      It's the unstable, wobbly, oddly-shaped, poorly measured physical object we're mapping the GPS coordinates TO, that is the problem.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    24. Re:GPS affected? by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      Which is objectively more important: world hunger, or one cup of coffee?

      Now that you've said "world hunger", how can you possibly drink coffee when you could be contributing the money to help world hunger?

      Next up: Ice cream. Oh, it's on, baby.

    25. Re:GPS affected? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That reminds me... I need another cup of coffee.

      Anyway, who were you trying to reply to? I’m following the parent thread and I really don’t see how your post is related to his.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  10. It sped up earth's rotation? by oaksey · · Score: 1

    So they talk about the "Ice-Skater Effect", even though they say that goes on "forever" wouldn't it wear off as buildings are rebuilt and new trees grow? What else is shifted closer to the center of the earth of any significant mass that they are aware of to come up with such a specific number?

    1. Re:It sped up earth's rotation? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      I think it has more to do with the movement of the crust- the plate under the Pacific there is going down into the earth. I am assuming any upward motion of the South American plate doesn't compensate enough to cancel, creating this Ice Skater Effect.

    2. Re:It sped up earth's rotation? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      I think my sarcasm detector may be a little slow today...

  11. Nit-Picking Science by tpstigers · · Score: 0

    I am a lover of science, but I'm still amazed that this kind of nit-picking is treated as though it's newsworthy. So the day (I assume that by 'day', they mean the rotation of the Earth on its axis) just got microseconds shorter. Will it affect global climate? Will it affect ecosystems? In short - will it affect anything in any way that would result in any of us actually giving a crap about it?

    1. Re:Nit-Picking Science by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Don't know, maybe it's a good time to try to measure how much energy could this earthquake had generated so we can learn stuff. Interesting thing is, that in less than 10 years 3 earthquakes had been so strong to alter the rotational speed of the earth:

      2004 Indonesia,
      2005 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia - And
      2010 Chile

      I don't know, a pattern? powerful earthquakes more often? How Chile's infrastructure passed the acid test? Why this tsunami did not ended on Hawaii like the one in 1960? If I can see all this not having a science background I don't understand why are You complaining.

      This, theres numbers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation

    2. Re:Nit-Picking Science by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Why this tsunami did not ended on Hawaii like the one in 1960?"

      This one is easy - the 1960 earthquake was FAR more powerful than 2010. It was out of steam by the time it got close.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Nit-Picking Science by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If it affected our tilt (which some of my own simple observations seem to conclude) there might be some changes in our global pattern. Axial tilt IS the reason for the season, after all.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Nit-Picking Science by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      It will invalidate the Mayan calendar, meaning that the world will not end in 2012. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Nit-Picking Science by butlerm · · Score: 1

      Angular momentum is a conserved vector quantity in the absence of an external torque. That is what keeps the earth spinning on its axis, and the axis pointing in the same direction. Needless to say, an internal earthquake cannot apply an external torque, and the effect on the lunisolar tidal forces that account for the only significant external torque (the one that causes prececession of the equinoxes every 23,600 years) would appear to be minimal at best.

      Or in other words an earthquake not caused by an impact from outer space or associated with an ejection of matter to outer space cannot have an immediate or direct impact on the earth's axis. The only effect (if there is one) would be a minimal change in the rate of axial precession, a rate which isn't exactly overwhelming in the first place.

    6. Re:Nit-Picking Science by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, if this is the case, explain the sudden three inch drop in shadow (I use the shadow on a tarp to determine seasonal change) which usually indicates a full month of time passing, and this happening within two days of the earthquake.

      I learned how to read time and the season by the shadows while in prison. Pretty neat when you learn how to do it, but this totally throws the estimation off.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Nit-Picking Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, if this is the case, explain the sudden three inch drop in shadow (I use the shadow on a tarp to determine seasonal change) which usually indicates a full month of time passing,

      Uh... you were stoned for a month? There's absolutely no frigging way an earthquake could make the Earth's axis tilt several degrees.

      Unless it did and we're all dead and the afterlife turned out to be surprisingly boring.

    8. Re:Nit-Picking Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where did you serve time, fucking Château d'If?

      I learned from my time in prison that if you don't clench your butthole it will bleed less when they're done with it.

    9. Re:Nit-Picking Science by Khyber · · Score: 1

      A three inch shadow shift would not equal even ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE change in axial tilt. Better recheck your math, you're the one who's stoned.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Nit-Picking Science by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I learned how to read time and the season by the shadows while in prison.

      Were you in some maximum security prison where you weren't allowed a watch or calendar, or were you just really really bored?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember, this is only what a model predicts, unlike what the headline suggests. And anyway, I think even if the quake had effects on day length and/or axis, another quake somewhere else on Earth sets it back a little. It averages out to what we witness. Earth is a dynamic place.

    1. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember, this is only what a model predicts, unlike what the headline suggests.

      Lemme guess: they used the Quake II engine?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    2. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      So you have a better model that involves every quake having a dual quake that exactly cancel the effect of the other one? What evidence do you have to support this?

    3. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by glwtta · · Score: 1

      1.26 microseconds is "sensationalist" now? Man, the standards for sensationalism on slashdot are really slipping.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1

      That's not the problem; the problem is the use of conclusive statements in TFS & TF headline. I thought we were scientifically educated people around here.

    5. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It averages out to what we witness.

      As explained in a comment somewhere above, and unlike the parent hypothesizes, the spinup actually is a general trend. The Earth's rotation rate will /always/ increase and never decrease due to earthquakes*, as it's energetically favorable for all mass to be closer to the center of gravity.

      Earthquakes occur because tension is released and thus the system transitions into an energetically favorable state, and that's for all matter to be a little bit closer in.

      In other words: the Earth (very, very slowly) collapses due to earthquakes and will spin up* (due to the conservation of angular momentum, and the change of the Earth's moment of inertia due to the collapse).

      *Note that there may well be /other/ factors to offset or even overcompensate the increased rotation speed due to earthquakes, such as the Moon. In that sense, the parent may still be correct (just not because of other earthquakes).

      Earth is a dynamic place.

      very true

    6. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      To be completely fair, if no 'sensationalism' were used at all, the headlines and summaries would generate even fewer reads of TFA than we have now.

      If anything, they might want to be more sensationalist, just to get more people reading the material.

    7. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his model is called 'conservation of momentum'

    8. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is only what a model predicts,

      When did we start relying on runway models for our science? Aren't they all vacuous and under-fed?

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    9. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1

      I guess. Welcome to Slashdot, the Fox News of sci/tech.

    10. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      Too bad it doesn't work that way.

    11. Re:I know we love sensationalist headlines, but by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1

      That's not what I said at all. I only said it made sense to suspect that a quake in Japan, for instance, would also have the effect of changing Earth's axis/rotation, and that that action would interfere with this Chile effect. Push, pull, push, pull.

  13. by 8cm? by SuperBanana · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Would it affect a JDAM bomb in flight, for example?

    This is just a guess, but- yes? By 8cm?

    1. Re:by 8cm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just a guess, but- yes? By 8cm?

      If that were true, then the earthquake would have been felt on the ground, while the bomb was falling.

  14. Even we can affect the length of a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read years ago that all the river damming projects changed the length of the day. A tiny amount but still we had an impact.

    Earthquakes often cause sudden changes. A friend could see the top of the tower at Six Flags Amusement Park from her apartment before the Northridge quake but the mountain raised enough during the quake that she couldn't see the tower. It's not uncommon for Mountains to raise several feet in a major quake. Mountain height changes balance which would affect days.

    1. Re:Even we can affect the length of a day by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      Actually going up the stairs one floor should affect the length of the day too, but does it matter?

    2. Re:Even we can affect the length of a day by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      It all depends on who you are. Southwest obviously thinks that Kevin Smith would have a measurable effect.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  15. That explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't enter the right code from my WOW authenticator because now the Space-Time continuum is all messed up! How will Arthas be defeated now??

  16. I'm no Mathematologist by dmomo · · Score: 3, Funny

    But according to my calculations, all we have to do is set our calendars back a day... ... in 188,253,750 (ish) years.

    I wonder how the PS3 will handle this.

    1. Re:I'm no Mathematologist by mercurymike · · Score: 1

      My PS3 last night couldn't handle a simple thing like getting the date right.

    2. Re:I'm no Mathematologist by natehoy · · Score: 1

      It'll do what everything else does to the PS3, turn it into an expensive blue ring-shaped nightlight.

      I never understood why this was called the "blue ring of death". It ensures you cannot play violent video games any more, which according to recent conclusive studies should reduce deaths.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:I'm no Mathematologist by downhole · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll all be using the PS5,629, and I'm sure Sony will have solved the problem by then!

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
  17. I say everyone by Korbeau · · Score: 3, Funny

    People of Earth, at 18:00 GMT March 10 we all jump at the same time and regain our microsecond!

    1. Re:I say everyone by jdc18 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no no, you just need the chinese to do it

    2. Re:I say everyone by derGoldstein · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder... Compare the total weight of the entire chinese population to the total weight of the entire population of the US. Who's heavier?

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    3. Re:I say everyone by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I wonder... Compare the total weight of the entire chinese population to the total weight of the entire population of the US. Who's heavier?

      If the US jumped a microsecond after China then the US would act as the wall and the earth would bounce into the opposite top corner pocket, haven't you ever played pool before.

      Signed

      Dave

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:I say everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very interesting question! They got the numbers but we got the girth yo!

    5. Re:I say everyone by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the US jumped a microsecond after China then the US would act as the wall and the earth would bounce into the opposite top corner pocket, haven't you ever played pool before.

      Dude, you're doing it all wrong, you want to put ENGLISH on the ball.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:I say everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder... Compare the total weight of the entire chinese population to the total weight of the entire population of the US. Who's heavier?

      a hard nut to crack on who is heavier, as the chinese are leaner people, and the US, well you know 'obesity' like no other country.

    7. Re:I say everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wonder... Compare the total weight of the entire chinese population to the total weight of the entire population of the US. Who's heavier?

      To further stray from topic...

      US Population: 310 million (rounded up)
      China Population: 1,335 million (rounded down)
      Avg US weight: 300 lbs (way, way high to prove point, including kids...)
      Avg Chinese weight: 100 lbs (maybe about accurate for population avg weight?)
      Total US weight: 93,000 million lbs
      Total China weight: 133,500 million lbs

      According to my figures, avg weight in the US (including kids) would have to be around 430 lbs to equal the amount of china's total population weight if they average 100 lbs. There are almost 4.5 Chinese people to every US person.

      Realistically, the average US adult weight is probably around 175 lbs, (about 200ish for men, and about 150ish for women). I would guess (from my quick search) that avg Chinese adult weight is around 135 lbs.

    8. Re:I say everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are forgetting to factor in the American Obesity epidemic. ;)

    9. Re:I say everyone by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Why is it called english when you mean that you shoot the ball improperly; eg. not a straight shot?

    10. Re:I say everyone by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      The Fast-food culture in US blows their bodies up, the square-cube law even applies, ie 'mass is increased by the cube of the multiplier'. It's like sumo wrestlers times a thousand! US will rip mother earth a new one if they jumped all at once! Don't do it!

    11. Re:I say everyone by mauhiz · · Score: 0

      I say we all run 10km west. That should slow down earth's rotation. Then wait for another earthquake with opposite effects to run back home.

    12. Re:I say everyone by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Why do you insist that only straight shots are proper?

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    13. Re:I say everyone by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure we'd have to keep running.

    14. Re:I say everyone by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I'm all for moving to the equator.

    15. Re:I say everyone by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      There are more than four times as many people in China as there are in the U.S. So yeah, for total population weight, it's going to be a pretty close run thing.

    16. Re:I say everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, it's probably about the same.

    17. Re:I say everyone by kramerd · · Score: 1

      ...Because I didn't? I asked a question about shots that are improper, a word whose definition, at its core, has the meaning of irregular or abnormal. I said nothing about what is proper, simply about what is improper. You know, as opposed to proper, straight shots, meaning adapted or appropriate to the purpose of circumstances; fit; suitable.

      My offense stems from the use of insist; I did not persist in demanding anything with a question. You seem to have jumped to a bit of a logical fallacy there, and I must insist that you stop committing fellacio.

    18. Re:I say everyone by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      You failed logic, didn't you?

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    19. Re:I say everyone by kramerd · · Score: 1

      I was going for funny, but woosh, and again WOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!

    20. Re:I say everyone by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      My apologies, then. I still have yet to master British irony.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  18. global warming by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    i'm waiting for someone to link this quake to gloabl warming, or atleast some news reporter to ask the question.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:global warming by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the heartland institute will come up with something for you.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  19. Will it affect global climate? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will it affect global climate?

    Yes - the days are shorter, therefore less sunlight per day, ergo - global cooling!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Will it affect global climate? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Yes - the days are shorter, therefore less sunlight per day, ergo - global cooling!

      We must respond to this crisis by enacting more tax cuts for the rich.

    2. Re:Will it affect global climate? by mauhiz · · Score: 0

      Yes - the days are shorter, therefore less sunlight per day, ergo - global cooling!

      The nights are shorter too. That means less cooling time. And more important, the energy released and converted to heat in in a single earthquake is much higher than half a millisecond's worth of net sunlight!

    3. Re:Will it affect global climate? by feufeu · · Score: 1

      Won't there be more days in a, say, year then ?

    4. Re:Will it affect global climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't there be more days in a, say, year then ?

      Yes, but as luck would have it, the extra days will be in the winter.

    5. Re:Will it affect global climate? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Nobody asked you!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    6. Re:Will it affect global climate? by rosencreuz · · Score: 1

      Don't be funny, we're living in the era of global warming. It'll be even warmer because nights are shorter. More global warming!

  20. How many seconds a year? by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

    Im horrible at math so how many seconds shorter are our days each year now.

    1. Re:How many seconds a year? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Roughly 400 microseconds. A little under half a millisecond?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:How many seconds a year? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Nearly half a millisecond!

      (1.26 * 365.25 / 1000 = 0.460215ms)

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    3. Re:How many seconds a year? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Oops, math fail. 400 Microseconds in a shorter year. Probably lower than that.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  21. Not a problem, easy workaround. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bomb controller only has to hit the button 1.25 microseconds sooner. Easy! Like I said, not a problem.

  22. Not First Post by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    Missed it by 1.26 microseconds. Damn.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  23. Whoa! by shivamib · · Score: 1

    Dude, maybe we should really turn that LHC off.

    I mean, seriously. At least tone it down a little. You're making the <b>Earth</b> move.

  24. Bad Analogy by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

    “It’s what we call the ice-skater effect,” David Kerridge, head of Earth hazards and systems at the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh, said today in a telephone interview. “As the ice skater puts when she’s going around in a circle, and she pulls her arms in, she gets faster and faster. It’s the same idea with the Earth going around if you change the distribution of mass, the rotation rate changes.”

    No, it's not. It's called the "bored to death at the office and nobody's watching" effect. You spin your chair rapidly and lift your legs from the ground. Then put your arms out -- you'll slow down. Pull them back in -- you'll speed up.
    Also, "As the ice skater puts when she’s going around in a circle"? Did somebody miss a word there?

    Shoddy writing, bad analogies, this is an embarrassment.

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    1. Re:Bad Analogy by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      It should actually be called the "conservation of angular momentum" effect, because that is the correct term for it.

      Of course, it has to be stupid-ed down in monumental proportions because of our failed education system.

    2. Re:Bad Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As the ice skater puts out when she’s going around in a circle"

      TFTFY

    3. Re:Bad Analogy by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Shoddy writing, bad analogies, this is an embarrassment.

      Embarrassment? THIS! IS! SLASHDOT!

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  25. ns by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    The nanosecond the earth stood still.

  26. Spin Throw Chair by shivamib · · Score: 1

    You spin your chair rapidly and lift your legs from the ground. Then put your arms out -- you'll slow down. Pull them back in -- you'll speed up.

    And if you throw it afterwards, you become Steve Ballmer.

  27. May have been raised by Rubber+Biscuit · · Score: 1

    Not hard to believe that the quality of journalism is declining when you read a comment like "Santa Maria Island ... may have been raised 2 meters (6 feet) as a result of the latest quake." Hmmm, too bad we can't measure something on a scale accurate enough to know if this is close to being true. I'm guessing that if the Island was raised, they meant "in relation to sea level." Of course, with all those waves, it really makes it tough to measure ... how on earth did that comment get by the editors.

  28. psssh, this is nothing by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1

    i time my activities in femtoseconds. ...yes, i realize i just burned myself, but i can't resist using the word "femtoseconds".

    1. Re:psssh, this is nothing by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but a couple of decades ago we were testing reflections of laser pulses off of a 60-ish cm sphere covered with corner cubes. The question was how many photons we were getting from each "ring" of cubes so that we could better predict the exact center of the sphere when it was in orbit. See http://images.google.com/images?q=lageos I think we knew the orbit to better than 5cm at the time. Anyway, we (well they - I was just a co-op student) used a 250fs pulse to try and get distinct returns from each cube and map the response. Who knows what they're doing now.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  29. Geat, anothe Java update! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck! Just when I thought I had the whole java.util.Date class down.

    What does it all mean? Calculate....calculate...

    Goddamnit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Another update for my users lest their date become corrupted 1.2 million years from now!

    I'm sick of it!!!!!

  30. Not worth mentioning by butlerm · · Score: 1

    The earth is naturally slowing down at a rate that makes this sort of thing hardly worth mentioning. That is why we have leap seconds.

    Several milliseconds (per year) total when every year we drift ~500 ms? A few thousand such earthquakes and we might be able to put off a leap second for another year.

    1. Re:Not worth mentioning by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The earth is naturally slowing down at a rate that makes this sort of thing hardly worth mentioning.

      Actually, the slowdown is only about 2ms/century, or about 0.054 microseconds/day. So a 1-microsecond jump in a day should be noticeable. This information is tracked. Here's the raw data from the Earth Rotation Service.

      With GPS systems working down to 15cm, changes like this get noticed.

    2. Re:Not worth mentioning by butlerm · · Score: 1

      This 2 ms per century drift in the length of a day is an average. The actual variation is far more erratic - so erratic that this sort of thing seems rather likely to be lost in the noise.

      [By the way, clock drift here is the integral of the change in the length of the day per day. Hence the disparity.]

  31. Haven't we heard this before? by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

    With the BIG Indian Ocean quake a few years ago? Why do is it suddenly big news when a smaller quake does the same thing a few years later? Isn't it fair to assume that quakes of any significantly large magnitude do this? And don't we have quakes of that magnitude every few years?

    1. Re:Haven't we heard this before? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      You mean the 9.1 near Sumatra in 2004? That was a little bigger, yes, but this "smaller quake" you treat so dismissively is among the five largest of the last century. So, in answer to your last question, no we don't have 8.8 quakes every few years.

    2. Re:Haven't we heard this before? by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      If by "a little" you mean twice as big (remember this is a logarithmic scale we're talking about), then yes, it was a little bigger. I'm not being dismissive of the quake, I'm being dismissive of people who overhype fairly common occurrences to get media attention. Five in a century is still a pretty common occurrence by geological standards (especially given that this is the second in 6 years).

    3. Re:Haven't we heard this before? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps. Speaking as someone who lives in California, where multiple quakes occur on a daily basis, my notion of a "common" earthquake may be quite different from yours. :)

      Anyway, the last earthquake of similar magnitude before the Sumatran one was over forty years ago (1964), and our technology was quite a bit more primitive then. This second biggie (and it is a huge quake) gives us an unparalleled opportunity to study the behavior of big ones, as we now have a sample size of two! :)

  32. So for us Linux users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before this gets reflected in tzdata?

  33. Bullshit Science by CranberryKing · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    My subject is my post.

  34. So THAT explains it by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I had wondered why the shadow on my balcony tarp, which I use to mark seasonal progress, suddenly took a one-month JUMP shadow-wise. (about three inches)

    Holy fuck imagine if we had a 9.9 somewhere.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:So THAT explains it by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. The change by the earthquake is milliseconds, so the difference in the shadow would be too small to see. What does explain it is the fact that there's a slight wobble to the Earth's rotation. The ocean's tides have more of an effect than the earthquake.

    2. Re:So THAT explains it by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The ocean's tides have more of an effect than the earthquake."

      The nice professor that does the AstronomyCast Podcast, Dr. Pamela L. Gay, would very likely disagree with you. in fact, I know she would.

      On estimate, an 8.8 quake releases the energy equivalent to 400 times the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. That is more than enough energy release to move us off a fraction of a degree on our tilt in the vacuum of space.

      If it's big enough to shift that much water, it's big enough to shift our tilt.

      Also, according to NASA, the shifting of our axis is what caused the speedup in our rotation.

      I'm willing to bet my observations are correct. On a global scale, inches could very well down be just microseconds.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  35. Rather, AGW is clearly the cause of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earthquake.

    After all, everything else is explained by it

  36. Ha ha! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    So does this mean atomic clocks aren't accurate anymore? Buahah glad I didn't purchase stock!!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Ha ha! by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      The atomic clocks are set by a radio signal set by an algorithm on measurements of the atomic source in the atomic clock. All they have to do is adjust the algorithm, and the clocks will be accurate.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  37. 2 meters (6 feet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is precisely the kind of sloppiness that lost us Challenger.

  38. Alarm by Jas-purr · · Score: 1

    Snoozed my alarm this morning to make use of it. It's really the microseconds that matter!

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. And then about the non-sarcasm part by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More people die in car accidents every single day than died in this earthquake.

    And that, I think, is actually a real problem---it would be really great if you could somehow get people to drive a bit more safely. It'd save a lot of lives, including the lives of a bunch of productive citizens, i.e. it'd also bring more material wealth for everybody.

    Yeah, sure, that shouldn't take the spotlight away from a recent significant event (which also has a lot of wounded and property damage).

    But maybe it's something worth pouring resources into?

  41. Use the force Luke by rusl · · Score: 1

    The Force is 1.26 microseconds more accurate. And it is more real!

    --
    Stupidity is its own reward.
  42. Everyone stand up by caywen · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think if everyone in the world stands up and raises their arms for 10 seconds once per year, we can compensate for this.

    1. Re:Everyone stand up by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      That is far, far too much work.

    2. Re:Everyone stand up by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      So what your saying, is that perhaps we should put our hands up in the air, conceivably waving them around, like we just don't care?

  43. I am going to piss people off, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hurray, technically everyone lives slightly longer, except for the 700+ who died in the earthqauke,

    Women, rejoice, you are younger than you thought.

    Men, continue not to care as long as the girl is at least 18.

    Sexually confused people. you still dont count.

    People offended by the last line, note that I posted anon specifically so that I don't have to listen to you (or vegetarians, or christians, or literally any other dumbass)

  44. Rotating mass of Earth changed how? by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

    I mean, I get the fact that tidal forces (Earth Moon) have a braking effect on rotation of each body, and I get the fact that the distance between the centres of mass of the two bodies changes as the speed of rotation winds down.

    What I do not get is how SHIFTING MASS on the SURFACE of the Earth a few metres, eg an earthquake, changes the speed of rotation???

    Model it on a flywheel or gyroscope with a movable mass at the rim, sure, WHILE THE movable mass at the rim of the flywheel IS IN MOTION the flywheel RPM will change, but when the movable mass is at rest again total RPM will be the same.

    AFAICR the only way to change RPM with unchanged mass is to move mass towards or away from the axis of rotation, which earthquakes, being crustal events, cannot do...

    Geo-physics or celestial mechanics guys help me out, please.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:Rotating mass of Earth changed how? by Bruha · · Score: 1

      I take it you have never watched ice skating then.

      As they spin they shift their constant mass inward to speed up the spin and shift it outward to slow down.

    2. Re:Rotating mass of Earth changed how? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I'm neither a geophysicist nor a celestial mechanic, but I have the qualification of having read the summary. I hope that's sufficient qualification.

      AFAICR the only way to change RPM with unchanged mass is to move mass towards or away from the axis of rotation, which earthquakes, being crustal events, cannot do...

      From the summary:

      Santa Maria Island off the coast near Concepcion, Chile’s second-largest city, may have been raised 2 meters (6 feet) as a result of the latest quake

      Earthquakes are tectonic plate events, true, but that doesn't mean there isn't a vertical component. To oversimplify the concept so this isn't a 4000 word post, the tectonic plates in South America are colliding. When they bump, one of them slides up over the other. Tectonic plate movements in those circumstances can eventually create (and have created) whole mountain ranges.

      In this specific case, it was limited to raising decent-sized island a few feet. But that has the effect of moving some land mass higher, which moves mass away from the axis of rotation.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:Rotating mass of Earth changed how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your explanation moves mass away from the center, which would slow the rotation. Something is amiss.

    4. Re:Rotating mass of Earth changed how? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The earth is slightly flattened... so, if something at or near to the equator moves down (toward the centre of the earth) and something farther from the equator moves up (away from the centre of the earth), it brings the overall shape of the earth closer to spherical.

      Close to the equator, you’re “above” where you ought to be if the earth was reduced to a perfect sphere. Farther from the equator, you reach a point where you’re “below” this. For the parts that are “below” to be moved upward, parts that are “above” must be moved downward... bringing both of them closer to where they would be if it was spherical.

      Concepcion is about 35 degrees south of the equator.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  45. Big Threat by hineliyaa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Such earth quakes are a threat to life on earth. We must find a solution to this problem. http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/acai-optimum-review-get-free-trial-now-1704552.html

  46. Concepcion, Chile: not the second largest City... by lathama · · Score: 2, Informative

    While I am new to Chile I do know my facts. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_in_Chile#Largest_cities Concepción is not even in the top 10 Cities. The Conurbation of Concepción is the second largest Conurbation.

    Read more and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation

    --
    The GPL, for those that truely understand.
  47. And here I just thought time was... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...going by faster because I am getting older.

  48. Will it affect 2012, now wait just a microsecond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if anything does this have to do with the Mayan Calendar, I mean did they predict this or has this thrown off their calculations?

  49. Earth Rotation Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, go ahead and post that link. Next thing you know, they'll be slashdotted and today will last 28 hours :(

    1. Re:Earth Rotation Service by rycamor · · Score: 1

      Modded 0? I thought this was at least mildly funny.

  50. Oh, great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they're going to try to cut my pay.

    1. Re:Oh, great! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Now they're going to try to cut my pay.

      damn that pico-payment technology

  51. Its Ok, by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its ok though, because it offset the effect of the three gorges dam in china, which made the days longer. http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/11435 sure, that dam lengthened the day by less than the earthquake shortened it, but we also have to account for other dams that have lengthened days.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  52. You forgot: by rgo · · Score: 1

    You forgot: Do nothing.

    1. Re:You forgot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So *that's* why I feel all shook up today...!

  53. that's a lie by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the earth has 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE

    http://timecube.com/

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:that's a lie by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      wtf...?

  54. I aways said... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I know there is an underrated 3rd axis the planet spins on that has been a bit off lately and imo the real culprit for the climate changes.
    This just reconfirms it for me, that such a quake in such a small area could actually affect the whole globe.
    Such a delicate axis we have ....setting off many nuclear bombs, and having such terrible earthquakes. I have my suspicions about that
    like some strategically placed nukes way below the earth's core....set to detonate .....I am sure the tsunami a while back that destroyed most of sri lanka was quite possibly due to some nuclear testing done way out in the ocean, by engineers that thought there would be no repercussions.

    Alas, I am a very sad and pessimistic type, almost paranoid when it comes to what governments are willing to do to their own people
    to get what they want, but I also see just how governments interact with each other, or lack of, when they are told by other governments not to proceed. Did we ever find out what was happening with that dude from North Kim Jong-il that wanted to have his own nuclear arsenal....they needed to test as well.....I wonder....

    1. Re:I aways said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know there is an underrated 3rd axis the planet spins on that has been a bit off lately and imo the real culprit for the climate changes.

      Hello, Gene Ray!

  55. 1.26 microseconds. It may not seem like much, by kybur · · Score: 1

    but to an android, it is nearly an eternity.

  56. Mayan calendar is lieky out synk anyways by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Mayan calendar is likely out sync anyways and DID WE GET ours right to start anyways? Like did we start on 0 or 1? did we even all start the 0 on time DID we for get about leap years for some time? What did time zones do to the sync? The railroads started the time zone thing.

    1. Re:Mayan calendar is lieky out synk anyways by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The Mayan calendar synchs up with events observed by Western societies as well: Solstices, Eclipses, etc.

      Likewise Astrology holds the same date-range as when we'd pass through that section of sky.

  57. Re:Will it affect 2012, now wait just a microsecon by natehoy · · Score: 1

    No, it's all according to plan. This was simply Quexarotflmao resetting the celestial clock to compensate for 3 extra butterflies flapping their wings in Madagascar last year. The end of the b'ak'tun approaches apace. All is as it should be.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  58. old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 2010's called, they want their 1.26 microseconds back.

  59. Not so great by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    There's 1.26 microseconds less time in every day now?!? No wonder I haven't been able to get anything done since the earthquake!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  60. In the weeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great that they can analyze this to the gnat's eyelash, yet I don't even know if we can get the general part right.
    Some think that the earthquake magnitude distribution is due to a self-organized critical phenomena, yet the actual answer may be more mundane.
    http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/02/quaking.html

    As E.T. Jaynes said:
    In any field, the Establishment is seldom in pursuit of the truth, because it is composed of those who sincerely believe that they are already in possession of it.

  61. You're obviously new here by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    This is /. and there are no geeks here with girlfriends. Although an odd few do somehow manage to get wives.

    So, no he probably can't make more time available by making love to his girlfriend a few less time times per week
    Now perhaps he could make love to his imaginary girlfriend a few less times per week.

  62. Yes, it was Osiander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To assuage the Church, Osiander changed Copernicus' book, claiming that the heliocentric model was only used to simply calculations.

    From wikipedia:

    Osiander added an unauthorised and unsigned preface, defending the work against those who might be offended by the novel hypotheses. He explained that astronomers may find different causes for observed motions, and choose whatever is easier to grasp. As long as a hypothesis allows reliable computation, it does not have to match what a philosopher might seek as the truth.

  63. Obligatory XKCD Post by zummit · · Score: 2, Funny
  64. For us in Chile, the days just got longer by cenc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For us in the disaster zone (I am in Temuco 100 miles south of the worst hit areas), it feels like 48 hour days. They likly will just get longer as this goes on.

    if you want to help, visit http://www.allchile.net/

  65. Tangential Nitpick by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    In Chaos Theory, a small change to the inputs can cause large changes to the results. However the changes are just as likelly to go in one direction as they are to go in the opposite direction: the butterfly effect is just as likelly to result in a typhoon instead of clear weather as it is to result in clear weather instead of a typhoon.

    In a chaotic system, the long-term effects of small changes to the initial conditions cannot be deterministically predicted. (That's the "chaos" part.) However, it's not all even chances--some outcomes are more likely than others (that's the "theory" part.)

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  66. Density of the planet could increase... by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    The density of the planet could increase over time if the Earth's interior experiences a net loss of heat to the climate and thus to outer space. The interior is mostly hot iron, which shrinks as it cools.

    Don't worry though, any speed up would be more than offset by the tidal drag from the moon. :-)

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  67. Hmm... by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering that since the earth's internal is slowly cooling would that not over time cause a decrease in outward pressure and result in a slow contraction thus greater density?

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  68. This is easily answered. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    Are we talking about MY cup of coffee or YOURS?

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  69. Another solid answer in the form of a question. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    Which is more important: world hunger, a cup of coffee, or me not getting my morning coffee and going apeshit and bringing down destruction on the entire world?

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  70. Sea Levels by JimThink · · Score: 1

    Well I'm sure sea levels were raised, or lowered, too...somewhere. Call Danny Glover and Al Gore!

  71. Re:Concepcion, Chile: not the second largest City. by pablo.cl · · Score: 1

    That Wikipedia article mixes communes (municipalities) and cities. La Florida, 365,563 inhabitants, is not and has never been a city. Puente Alto (492,603 inhabitants) was a separate city 20 years ago, but not now. A conurbation is a fancy name that means currently a city, even if 50 years ago there were many of them.