Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Says New Software Will Help Predict Natural Disasters

Posted by samzenpus on from the whole-lotta-shaking-going-on dept.

coondoggie writes "IBM says it has patented a natural disaster warning system, which uses analytic techniques that accurately and precisely conducts post-event analysis of seismic events, such as earthquakes, as well as provide early warnings for tsunamis, which can follow earthquakes. The invention also provides the ability to rapidly measure and analyze the damage zone of an earthquake to help prioritize emergency response needed following an earthquake."

72 comments

  1. Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So they are claiming to be able to predict the unpredictable? I want absolute proof of their claims.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a couple of devices that can help. Nuclear warheads: you destroy earth, therefore reducing the probability of natural disasters to zero. That's what we call the brute force approach.

    2. Re:Oh Really? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      "So they are claiming to be able to predict the unpredictable?"

      No, that's just the all to familiar sensationalist headline.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Oh Really? by vbraga · · Score: 1

      The former company I used to work for had a project like this (not for IBM but for my local government). Very roughly it did not really prediction, like the article says, but it would map cells, and given information (like millimeters of rain, wind data, seismic data, and so on ) on these cells and it's neighborhood, it would draw a map with given risk, in an arbitrary scale, for each area.

      It's open source software, so, if it interests you, it's available here.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    4. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Earthquakes, tsunamis everything is perfectly predictable if you have enough data and processing power. Look at how weather is being predicted all over the world for years.

    5. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I should have realized this. /., once site that really had news for nerds on stuff that mattered. Now it's yellow-dog journalism at its best/worst.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    6. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Not predicted, statistically modeled with a great degree of accuracy (that is a hair worth splitting).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    7. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Statistical analysis software at its best. (:

      URL is 404 Not Found

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    8. Re:Oh Really? by vbraga · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you for pointing it out. The correct URL is : http://www.dpi.inpe.br/sismaden/english/index.php.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    9. Re:Oh Really? by brian_tanner · · Score: 1

      Not predicted, statistically modeled with a great degree of accuracy (that is a hair worth splitting).

      As someone who is comfortable with statistics and machine learning, I have to wonder what you're driving at here? You started by making a sort of "Guffaw!" statement about predicting the unpredictable. And now you're trying to be pretty precise about separating prediction from accurate modelling. What bone are you picking? This is an honest question: what is the egregious misuse of terminology that you are arguing against?

      And before you answer (if you will), I'm asking independently of the actual summary or TFA. I don't care much about that. Let say this started out with someone saying they had invented a machine that can predict earthquakes (with some important provisos). It's my belief that the rest of your comments still naturally follow. So lets say the claim is that someone can use a bunch of sensor readings integrated with a computer model to model the relevant forces with sufficient fidelity that the model allows actions to be taken (like evacuations or "get in the basement with some bottled water" warnings, or whatever). Is this fundamentally impossible for some reason, or does it just not match a definition of prediction that I'm missing?

    10. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if they could only get IBM Systems Director to work like it's supposed to.

    11. Re:Oh Really? by brian_tanner · · Score: 1

      Note: I misread the thread structure and thought the parent of my post was a different post, so feel free to ignore me.

    12. Re:Oh Really? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm.. they're claiming to be able to predict tsunamis in the aftermath of earthquakes, not the earthquakes themselves.

      Although earthquakes, too, should be predictable if you can get the right measuring equipment in the right places: "just" measure the strain, and when it gets close to the slip point, earthquake is likely.

      Anyway, the software IBM is talking about doesn't do that. It takes the earthquake as data input, and spits out the likely damage resulting as information output. Something that is both useful, and not impossible.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually it says they are able to predict post event seismic activity, which can give early warning of an impending tsunami and where the tsunami may affect. It also says it will be able to predict what areas will need the most help.

    14. Re:Oh Really? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      So they are claiming to be able to predict the unpredictable? I want absolute proof of their claims.

      I will believe it when they predict an intelligent decision from the government, how's that for unpredictability?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    15. Re:Oh Really? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Not predicted, statistically modeled with a great degree of accuracy (that is a hair worth splitting).

      As someone who is comfortable with statistics and machine learning, I have to wonder what you're driving at here? You started by making a sort of "Guffaw!" statement about predicting the unpredictable. And now you're trying to be pretty precise about separating prediction from accurate modelling. What bone are you picking? This is an honest question: what is the egregious misuse of terminology that you are arguing against? And before you answer (if you will), I'm asking independently of the actual summary or TFA. I don't care much about that. Let say this started out with someone saying they had invented a machine that can predict earthquakes (with some important provisos). It's my belief that the rest of your comments still naturally follow. So lets say the claim is that someone can use a bunch of sensor readings integrated with a computer model to model the relevant forces with sufficient fidelity that the model allows actions to be taken (like evacuations or "get in the basement with some bottled water" warnings, or whatever). Is this fundamentally impossible for some reason, or does it just not match a definition of prediction that I'm missing?

      I remember someone saying; "There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    16. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although earthquakes, too, should be predictable if you can get the right measuring equipment in the right places: "just" measure the strain, and when it gets close to the slip point, earthquake is likely.

      As is typical around here, the problem is vastly oversimplified. Or maybe you can tell us what the "slip point" is in different places and under different conditions. As someone with a background in geophysics, I can tell you that there isn't a correct answer. Also it's funny that you put the emphasis on the measuring the strain part, implying that that's the difficult part. In fact, that's the easier of the two.

    17. Re:Oh Really? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Predicting is easy. It's being right that is hard

      As Shakespeare would have it:
          GLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          HOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
                  The Tempest

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    18. Re:Oh Really? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So they are claiming to be able to predict the unpredictable? I want absolute proof of their claims.

      No, they're claiming that they can do post-event (that means after the fact, if it's not obvious) analysis of an earthquake or other unpredictable event, and then predict the entirely predictable tsunami caused by same.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are ugly, damn ugly and your mom"

    20. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I think I'll some fun with this. (:

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    21. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Prediction is the 100% accurate forecasting of future events with out any error. Modeling, like is done with the weather, is done with a margin of error (I'm not sure how much so I won't even bother trying to guess). They are fairly accurate but never 100% over time.

      So, to summarize what I just said:

      Prediction: Accurate 100% of the time over any length of time
      Forecast/Modeling: Accurate to within a certain period of time (sometimes its really short, sometimes it isn't), at which point inaccuracies start happening

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    22. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Samuel L. Clemens (with a degree of uncertainty (; )
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Statistics

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    23. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      See, I thought we already had software that could do that.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    24. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      No kidding.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    25. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      The submission stinks in accuracy. Granted this is /. and is almost a 100% given.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    26. Re:Oh Really? by brian_tanner · · Score: 1

      Ok. That's not a definition of prediction that I think anyone in statistics or machine learning would find particularly interesting.

      I would say that a prediction is simply a statement about a future event. Systems that make predictions (predictors) can have varying degrees of accuracy. Few predictors are 100% accurate, considering the large number of low probability (and usually unmodeled) events. Even a perfect weather predictor may be in error if the power goes out or an asteroid hits the earth.

      Any outcome with even the smallest uncertainty is unpredictable, but your definition (if I understand). That doesn't seem useful. I'd argue that if something is predictable *enough* that the predictions can reliably be used to improve utility, then the predictor has value.

    27. Re:Oh Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Only the Sith and mathematicians deal in absolutes.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:Oh Really? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Most of what is unpredictable is forecastable.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  2. Concentric circles? by mfnickster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can they predict series of concentric circles emanating from a red dot?

    Once the red dot appears, it's too late for the little rows of human figures.

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  3. PowerBall by inthealpine · · Score: 1

    Don't they know you always use that power to win the lottery first.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    1. Re:PowerBall by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're talking about psychics, the reason more of them don't win the lottery is that they can also take a peek at what happens after they win the lottery. Which they might not like.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hurricane Palin has already done too much damage.

  5. Actual article by Eevee · · Score: 3, Informative

    The actual article is from CNN.

  6. time scale and prior information density by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    If they can predict a volcano eruption let us say 40 minutes in advance, why not?! Like weather it is probably a matter of time scale and prior information density.

    ____ ____ ____ ____
    "dyslectic people seem to be stupid and now it is a proven fact that they realy are. haha. learn to read losers."
    From http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Dyslectic/

    1. Re:time scale and prior information density by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is, they can't. As others have pointed out from actually reading TFA, the software is to help prioritize disaster relief efforts, not predict the unpredictable.

      Let me know how your fortune telling pans out (even so-called weather prediction is actually just a forecast based on statistical models that generally do not hold up, hence why such "predictions" can only be made with a degree of certainty leading up to a probability of 0 (for a non-event) or 1 (for an event) at the time predicted.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:time scale and prior information density by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The thing is, they can't. As others have pointed out from actually reading TFA, the software is to help prioritize disaster relief efforts, not predict the unpredictable.

      Let me know how your fortune telling pans out (even so-called weather prediction is actually just a forecast based on statistical models that generally do not hold up, hence why such "predictions" can only be made with a degree of certainty leading up to a probability of 0 (for a non-event) or 1 (for an event) at the time predicted.

      Actually they are not predicting the event but are predicting the damage radius from the event. There is a damage zone where buildings look OK but really are dangerous to occupy, being able to predict how big this zone is would be very useful, you don't want to use a building that will fall down in the next after-shock as a shelter. The existing network has some serious latency, the last Earthquake I felt here in Michigan took an hour to get posted to IRIS.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:time scale and prior information density by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Now stuff like that IS predictable. Forecasting volcanic eruptions with any certainty? Or the weather? Have fun with that. I'll focus on what's important (damage control) and not worry about the rest.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    4. Re:time scale and prior information density by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Usually the idea is to get the (kitchen sink) patent then wait for somebody to come up with a clever idea and sue their ass off.

    5. Re:time scale and prior information density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually? Do you have a single example of IBM ever doing that?

    6. Re:time scale and prior information density by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as 'unpredictable'. There is just 'too hard for us to predict with our current level of technology and available resources'

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:time scale and prior information density by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      You can never account for every last variable. You can never 100% say that the "weather is going to do such and such on such and such date" because something might come along and change those conditions. The same with volcanoes and earthquakes.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  7. "Patented", eh? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if you've paid the entry fee - and you're all paid up on the monthlies - they'll save your/city's/county's/state's/country's lives?

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:"Patented", eh? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Why not? Large part of medicine is patented, too...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  8. Bad summary by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Two keywords:

    POST EVENT

    ie there is no "prediction" of the event - only of its impact on nearby humans. Sensationalism at its best.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends whether you consider a earthquake-triggered tsunami to be the effect of a disaster, or the disaster itself.

  9. Just a thought. by inthealpine · · Score: 1
    Okay, I actually read TFA (don't worry only enough to make a snide comment).

    If properly employed -- and connected to a large network of similar computers -- it could be used to map out the aftermath of an earthquake quickly, speeding up the work of emergency responders and potentially saving lives.

    Maybe I haven't thought this though, but if there was an earthquake might it not bring the local ISP down? Power, infrastructure damage, etc. would really make this unreliable. It's like when the power goes out in your town and everyone waits for the first person to say something stupid like "The air conditioning isn't working and it's going to be hot, well I guess we should put some box fans in the windows. Hey, can someone check on the computer and see whats going on?"

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
  10. Terrible title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realize the title came straight from the Network World article, but nowhere is any mention of the ability to "predict" made in the article. They say that information gathered can be used to help prioritize early response to a disaster, but that's a far cry from being able to have knowledge of the disaster in advance of it happening.

  11. And what now? by Voulnet · · Score: 1

    So they're gonna sue the canaries and birds?

  12. A better patent would be ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    IBM says it has patented a natural disaster. (I just truncated the summary text).

    Any countries experiencing natural disasters would have to pay patent fees.

    "Yo! You want emergency relief help? You pay your patent fees first!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:A better patent would be ... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be fair, they already covered the "Unnatural disaster" with "Lotus Notes".

  13. How hard? by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    How hard is it to provide a data feed from HAARP?

  14. RTFA by RevWaldo · · Score: 2, Informative
    The headline sucks but the idea is in the "OK, that pretty clever" category:

    According to Big Blue, the invention would require a piece of software running on each machine in a data center that would gather data generated by vibration sensors, known as MEMS accelerometers, within computer hard disk drives to analyze information generated by seismic events. This technique is enabled by collecting hard drive sensor data and transmitting it via high speed networking to a data processing center, which can analyze the data, classify the events, and enrich the data -- in real time, IBM says.

    From there, it can be determined exactly when a seismic event started, how long a seismic event lasted, the intensity of a seismic event, the frequency of motion of a seismic event, direction of motion of a seismic event, IBM says. This invention is able to crowd-source important earthquake IBM stated.

    Combine this data with the WTF was that?" posts on Twitter and you're all set. (Also, don't many new laptops also have accelerometers? Quake@Home!)

    .

    --
    Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
    1. Re:RTFA by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember seeing the trick of using hard drive sensors for picking up and analysing seismic data a few years ago. If it wasn't them (from the article I remember reading) there's prior art out there for at least part of the patent.

    2. Re:RTFA by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that the MEMS sensors used in hardrives would tell you anything useful, in seismology 60 Hz is high frequency and 0.01 Hz is low frequency and it seems that this would be well out of the MEMS band of sensitivity, the amplitudes aren't always that high either. Additionally a data center seems like it would have massive amounts of audio frequency vibrations from cooling fans, lots of 60Hz noise from AC power and lower frequency rumbles from the HVAC systems operation. This just seems like a computational nightmare. I've thought that a seismograph could be constructed using laser mice as the detectors, instead of magnetic coils. easier to work with using retired computers.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:RTFA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you have a whole array of disks and precise understanding of when they fired (a clock with more resolution than the sensor) then you might be able to compare a whole bunch of sensors' data to get useful information.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Waiting for the lottery prediction software by drHirudo · · Score: 1

    They will be able to predict the nature? The nature is much more complex than the lottery. Why nobody released a working lottery prediction software? I am sure it will sell millions.

    1. Re:Waiting for the lottery prediction software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can predict sunrise/sunset times and eclipses down to one second a century ahead. It is lottery that is much harder.

  16. RRoD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft might save billions, then.

  17. no use that power for finding roulette wheel bias by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    no use that power for finding roulette wheel bias.

  18. Similar suggestion on Slashdot in 2008 by rotenberry · · Score: 1

    Didn't I suggest something similar to this on Slashdot back in 2008?

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=440258&cid=22283136

  19. There's no real "Launch" by Dreth · · Score: 1

    It will always be in Beta-Testing grounds until a natural disaster happens and it either fails or gives some indication that they're on the right track.

    --
    All glory to Arstotzka!
  20. Seismologist unshaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, to correct the usual /. misrepresentation, this doesn't predict natural disasters. Only their effects, such as tsunamis. And I doubt the prediction part is much more than vaporware at this stage. Anyway, the bigger news is that it crowdsources accelerometer data from hard disk drives.

    Here's what a traditional seismologist says. He seems a bit clueless about data processing.

    Laptops and computer hard drives, on their own, are not capable of sensing and relaying useful information about an earthquake, said David Oppenheimer, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in California.

    "I don't think there's any value in casually enlisting the public to install this software and expect to get any really useful seismological or structural data out of it," he said [...]

    The IBM researchers [...] say more data is always a good thing.

    But Oppenheimer said the data from the computers would just clutter people's thinking in the aftermath of an earthquake.

    "You don't need thousands of stations because the waves are traveling so fast," he said. "Thousands of stations actually complicate the matter because you have so much processing to do. It's overkill and unnecessary."
    (from an earlier CNN article)

    Too much data! It clutters my thinking! And then you have to process it! My head hurts!

  21. Who needs software? by futureguy5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Pat Robertson method just looks at the population density of homosexuals to predict the likelihood of catastrophe, no algorithm needed.

  22. News by mrops · · Score: 1

    In related news, IBM today filed a patent that uses random number generators to predict real world events. Study claims the accuracy of this new approach is already twice as accurate as weather forecasting.

  23. Re:no use that power for finding roulette wheel bi by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    roulette wheel bias? Before or after they push the button under the table?

  24. Sensationalist BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's something more useful, it's called CiviGuard. It actually helps vs. the sensational article cited...

    http://www.civiguard.com

  25. Richter scale...? by ProgramErgoSum · · Score: 1

    "IBM says it has patented a natural disaster warning system, which uses analytic techniques that accurately and precisely conducts post-event analysis of seismic events, such as earthquakes, as well as provide early warnings for tsunamis, which can follow earthquakes. " Without this invention, couldn't we have just read the Richter scale readings to do the prediction that this patent purports to do ?

  26. Just ask Sir Bedevir by th77 · · Score: 1

    "Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

    --
    Your favorite sig sucks
  27. Predict it? I can! by janerules · · Score: 1

    Natural disasters happen where construction standards are poor and people have built on poor foundations and in low lying areas. Earthquakes don't really destroy everything, unless we're talking about living in shantyville. Raise construction standards for the poor and cease disasters. Hell, raise standards for poor areas and remove hundreds of different disasters that come with being poor, like crime and violence.

    1. Re:Predict it? I can! by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      No, disasters don't go away because of better building standards. They are only mitigated. What you are talking about is the human toll of natural disasters. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like won't go away simply because we have built better buildings. They'll still eventually destroy anything and everything we can construct.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)