Slashdot Mirror


Tsunami Warnings Now Faster, More Accurate

CWmike writes "As the deadly tsunami generated by Friday's massive earthquake off the coast of Japan headed toward the United States, scientists at NOAA's Center for Tsunami Research tracked its progress in real-time. Dozens of deep-ocean tsunami-monitoring sensors more than three miles beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean picked up information on the silent swell of water and transmitted it by way of a satellite to the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Wash. Here, scientists crunched the data and quickly developed real-time predictions about how and when the tsunami would reach select locations in Hawaii, Alaska and the US west coast. The models predicted the wave arrival time, estimated wave height and the likely extent of inundation for about 50 communities likely to be affected." Another piece of useful infrastructure: reader JustABlitheringIdiot writes "Google has launched a version of its Person Finder service for people caught up in the Japanese earthquake. The website acts as a directory and message board so people can look for lost loved ones or post a note saying they are safe."

135 comments

  1. And? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    1. Re:And? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.

      Umm... the tsunami hit California approximately 9 hours ago. How much longer do you think we should wait to see when the tsunami will hit California?

    2. Re:And? by timeOday · · Score: 2
      No, the models don't have to be that accurate. The sensors and a rough model are the main thing - *immediately* knowing there will be an event and roughly where, so people can be warned. Was that helpful today? Yes!

      This wealth of data allowed scientists to estimate the intensity, wave height and projected time of landfall for the tsunami that struck Japan and then came ashore on the rest of the Pacific Rim. This lead time gave local authorities around the world the ability to close beaches and evacuate low-lying areas in advance.

      ...Hundreds of miles away, many people working in Toyko skyscrapers knew the earthquake was coming.

      We don't know how many lives it saved, but it seems, many. It's nice to know something was learned in 2004, and something was done about it.

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

      NoAgenda predicted the earthquake on Thursday morning. There was time.

    4. Re:And? by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      I'll give you an example. The model predicted a wave amplitude of 2.5 meters for Crescent City, CA. The observed amplitude was 2.47 meters. I'd say that's pretty good. Source: California Office of Emergency Services. It went around as an email today, but perhaps it's available on their website by now.

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

      Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.

      Umm... the tsunami hit California approximately 9 hours ago. How much longer do you think we should wait to see when the tsunami will hit California?

      What's the big deal about tsunami warnings anyway?

      I don't live on the edge of a coast for the same reason I don't live in a really big city. All the bullshit and all the disasters go down in coastal areas and big cities. Well unlike big cities coastal areas are actually pleasant and beautiful and don't smell like shit and might not have ridiculous crime rates that always happen when humans live in such high-density crowded conditions so thoroughly divorced from our hunter-gatherer small-clan origins ... but if I lived in a coastal area I wouldn't act shocked when a hurricane or a tsunami levels the place. That is where these things happen. It is a bit like sailing a ship in the Artic Circle and acting shocked that there are icebergs everywhere.

      It is sort of like people who decide that the very best place they can build their home is on a floodplain. Gee, what could possibly go wrong? Or the dumbasses who lived in New Orleans. Hey, I got a great idea, let's live in a coastal city BELOW SEA LEVEL with nothing protecting us except dikes that are not designed to handle hurricanes that we know will hit the area. What utter shock and amazement that this didn't work out. Somehow that was George Bush's fault that these numbnuts chose a dangerous place to live.

      The ability to plan ahead and prepare for eventualities and other foreseeable events is one of the major signs of intelligence. This is real intelligence, not the product of lots of repetition and memorization. If we lose people who don't have real intelligence then the rest of humanity is better off without them voting, driving, and collecting Social Security and other forms of welfare. Harsh but also the fuckin' truth. There are far too many morons fucking up the world for the rest of us.

    6. Re:And? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Cart before the horse.... so what, we can detect and make some guesses about Tsunami propagating.

      This is like saying we can predict the propagation of radiation fallout.

      What about the 500 pound gorilla in the room? Earthquakes?

      A lot of good Tsunami modelling did for the folks living near the coast of Japan

    7. Re:And? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      What's really funny about your spewing is that you are actually ignorant enough to consider yourself one of the rest of us and not a simple minded idiot that you ridicule.

    8. Re:And? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Cart before the horse.... so what, we can detect and make some guesses about Tsunami propagating.

      A useful thing.

      This is like saying we can predict the propagation of radiation fallout.

      Another useful thing.

      What about the 500 pound gorilla in the room? Earthquakes?

      What about it? Are you really claiming that we should completely ignore the more predictable dangers of earthquakes simply because we can't predict earthquakes. Should we then drop earthquake-resistant building codes? Disaster preparedness?

      The 500 pound gorilla isn't our inability to predict when an earthquake will occur. Even if we could predict to the hour when it happens, we still have various dangers to people and property. It's our ability to endure large earthquakes and respond to damage and dangers invariably caused by them that allows us to save lives and rebuild society.

    9. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, there are huge disasters and bullshit that go down in non-coastal, non-cities, like presumably where you live. These disasters, however, occur very slowly, over lifetimes - years of socially-inept fear-mongers breeding with their neighbors (who are statistically more like first cousins), producing aphasic, irrational beings such as yourself. THANK YOU FOR GROWING OUR CORN, now go away please. NO I DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WEATHER AGAIN OR THE FARM REPORT. And congratulations on figuring out the internet.

    10. Re:And? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      OK, it's now over 24 hours after the tsunami reached California. Please post the precise wave arrival time, actual wave height and the measured extent of inundation for about 50 communities predicted likely to be affected. Please use only data that were available to the public at 20110311-2010/Eastern.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  2. Thank goodness for NOAA by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A private service will charge a pretty penny for those warnings...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by wampus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure they will if trends continue the way they have been. No more socialized oceanography! No more Marxist weather!

    2. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Opps, sorry... <Linky>

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. Everybody expects to receive all this protection and information for free, and the fact of the matter is the agencies that provide this valuable service need to support themselves. This information is worth something, and should be charged for. If you don't want to pay, then you can die. Either way is fine with us. America was founded on freedom and choice: that is your choice to make.

    4. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hullo thar Commodore64_Love! (or possibly c6gunner, but probably Commodore).

    5. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by magarity · · Score: 1

      A private service will charge a pretty penny for those warnings...

      If only one person per oceanfront block subscribes to the fee service then whenever he comes running out of his house headed towards the hills the neighbors will know a wave is coming.

    6. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't count on NOAA for too much longer. Just wait, in the eyes* of the US house majority leader, NOAA (1) is inefficient and wasteful by virtue of being the government and (2) has dirty hands from climate research. Notice I didn't say climate change, just merely collecting day to day climate related data points is evil. This is the same crowd that thinks pretending that teenagers don't have sex will cause teenagers to stop having sex.

      * For the sake of simplicity I'm assuming that the politician(s) in question believe the views they espouse, since the outcome is the same either way.

    7. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His posts are as special as those of Kristopeit and APK aren't they?

    8. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Which is why there was no such warning system until the 2004 tsunami made it painfully clear it was well worth a public investment.

    9. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also that they employ people in blue districts. Don't think for a second that Republican cutbacks are anything more than punishing their political enemies. If they obviously cared about the deficit then Boehner would have argued against the F-35 engine program. But he didn't because it provided jobs in HIS district and made his political supporters rich. He doesn't care about the deficit any more than Bush or Reagan did, he is just out to silence those who dare oppose him.

    10. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, of course, the f****ng republicans will try to cut out all the funding that supports these warning systems and the research needed to improve/extend them. And Obama and the spineless Dems will let it happen.

    11. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by BearRanger · · Score: 2

      That must be why Congress voted to cut funding for earthquake monitoring and tsunami alerts just this week. Nevermind the fact that an event even larger than the one is Japan is possible along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. This region stretches from Northern California to British Columbian. A magnitude 9 event here won't give the US coast the 6 - 9 hours we had this time. It will be more like minutes.

      As ever it seems the Republicans are penny-wise and pound foolish.

    12. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by hedwards · · Score: 0

      You know, praying is a lot less expensive, and if God lets it happen no amount of money and monitoring is going to make a difference.

      The fact that so many Americans believe that bullshit is why we're going to ultimately cut funding to it and continue to do little to nothing about climate change.

    13. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5.5 Billon isn't a pretty penny?

    14. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to think about money and where it comes from. Under the fractional reserve system, the money multiplier is 10 for a reserve rate of 10%, so the banking system as a whole can create $100 out of $10. Why shouldn't government be allowed to do the same? The constitution gives Congress the power to 'coin money' (and if you take coin to mean actual coin, then look at the clause immediately following, which would make it constitutional to counterfeit bills) in Article 1 Section 8. Congress ceded that power to the banks, now it's time to really rethink and take it back. The Declaration of Independence makes the right to life unalienable, and government should protect the lives of the poor. Government is mandated to provide for the General Welfare (which founding father Alexander Hamilton interpreted very broadly), whereas the market is cold and heartless and doesn't care if people suffer.

    15. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 0

      They believe that God will make another world, more perfect that this if they pray loud and long enough. As a mexican, is in times like this when I can honestly say thank you to the american tax payer and take my hat off to the US scientists. This is a far better investment of tax dollars than new boomers.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    16. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by publiclurker · · Score: 2

      Actually, the republicans just chose to cut funding for tsunami monitoring, probably to pay for new paint job subsidies on corporate Learjets.

    17. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by swalve · · Score: 2

      Congrats. I think you just invented inflation.

    18. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      In Soviet Union, you change the weather.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center which covers the Pacific Ocean was established in 1949. The 2004 quake you refer to was in the Indian Ocean which wasn't covered at the time. Since then the PTWC has extended its coverage to the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean Sea until suitable centers can be organized there.

      The models the PTWC uses are quite accurate, especially as to time frames, and so are very useful in sending out timely warnings. But if you're close enough to feel the quake you shouldn't expect to get a warning. You should just head to high ground if you're in a tsunami zone.

    20. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center which covers the Pacific Ocean was established in 1949. The 2004 quake you refer to was in the Indian Ocean which wasn't covered at the time. Since then the PTWC has extended its coverage to the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean Sea until suitable centers can be organized there.

      The models the PTWC uses are quite accurate and so are very useful in sending out timely warnings. But if you're close enough to feel the quake you shouldn't expect to get a warning. You should just head to high ground if you're in a tsunami zone.

    21. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So do government-run services. The cost is just spread out over the entire tax-base. You do realise the money the government spends comes out of your pocket, right?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    22. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all of the world, you change the weather (by consumption habits and car-driving)

    23. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's quite a weeaboo name for a mexican, Kyusaku Natsume-san.

    24. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      You mean by cooperating and sharing the burden equally we can all have access to a service we all need and use? This sounds brilliant where do I sign up?

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    25. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...leading to a lawsuit for copyright infringement being brought against the people that shared the information with non-subscribers.

    26. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by sznupi · · Score: 1

      How could it be any different? (also, apparently, decently sound)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    27. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Not saying it's a bad thing. People just have a habit of thinking that if "the government" pays for it, it's free. If people felt more like the source of government funds was their own pocket, maybe we'd have more responsible government spending.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    28. Re:Thank goodness for NOAA by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      Well, telling someone something enough times can actually get them to believe it, otherwise no one would think Obama is Kenyan. Repeat something too much, and you begin to believe it yourself. Anyways, he, or one of his "friends" probably has a private company ready to take over as soon as the NOAA funding is cut. They'll only charge two to twelve times the original price- what a steal!

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
  3. That's great... by wampus · · Score: 0

    Until some stupid fucker uses them as an AWESOME PHOTO EARLY WARNING SYSTEM!1!!!1

    1. Re:That's great... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Already done, the only casualty in the US itself appears to be some guy in California that went out to the beach to 'get photos of the tsunami' and was washed out to sea.

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1TWby_VX05ZhuqBWleNvrMHSF3A?docId=CNG.282ada13094582f9a1838cc1441d70b5.3e1

  4. Well, obviously we can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cut the funding, because it's clearly not a problem!

    Major savings! Why ever American gets a quarter back! Or something like that.

  5. Well, they WERE more accurate by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fortunately, we decided that we could do without fripperies like the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042264-503544.html

    saving $126 million, fully .01% of this year's deficit. Now all we need to do is find 10,000 other equally useful programs to cut.

    1. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 0

      You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...

    2. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, there are a lot of interesting concepts, such as return on investment, public benefit, and signal to noise.

      As far as the debt is concerned, tsunami warning expenditure is noise. As far as return on investment for public benefit, it's pretty damn huge.

      Now if you're looking for "signal" on the debt, there are much better candidates:

      1. Artificially inflated drug prices which are in turn provided as untaxed income, based on age.

      2. The tax cut extension, and lower top marginal tax rates in general.

      3. War. And I didn't start out making it no. 3 on purpose; but consider the utter disaster of a 3rd middle east war that some buffoons would actually like to see us get into, or WW3. Use your imagination. Some sources say it's only 5%; but I have a hard time believing that.

      4. Badly fought wars on nouns, like "drugs" and "terrorism". What's our dope smoking granny-groping budget? I dunno; but I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than tsunami warning, and way too high. Let's throw a good chunk of our prison budget in with this, and more lost tax revenue...

      5. Subsidies. Yes, I'm not just goring the Republican oxen here. The government has no business subsidizing education (department of ed, which Reagan wanted to get rid of) or housing. Agricultural is about the only one that makes sense, because you don't want to run the risk of having the free market decide that underproducing food is a good thing.

    3. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by geekoid · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean you need to be stupid about what you cut.

      Since we are one of the leasts taxed countries in the industrialized world, may we could raise taxes to pay for stuff we want and need? How about we appropriately tax where the majority of the wealth is?

      There are better solution then making cuts they will turn us into a third world nation.

      You're simpleton views would be laughable if other people with the same views weren't using them to destroy this country.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However, if you were to boost revenue by doing something crazy--you know, like raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year---you could actually afford these things.

      I know, I know. We have to "starve the beast."

    5. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...

      You might try explaining that to the defense department. How many NOAA or NASA programs could be funded just by cutting back defense spending by 10%?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The headline is even more misleading than that. It makes it sound like this is something new, but this has been a capability that has existed for many years - in the Pacific ocean only.

      The Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago illustrated that the same coverage doesn't exist elsewhere.

      Perhaps a coalition of nations in that region should offer to pay the US to extend its network, or create one of their own?

    7. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many NOAA or NASA programs could be funded just by cutting back defense spending by 10%?

      All of them.

    8. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by raaum · · Score: 2

      The current budget debates like to talk about "the American family's" budget.

      So, we have a family whose budget is horribly over income. They have:
      - a huge house with an correspondingly large mortgage (military)
      - 3 fancy cars with correspondingly high monthly payments (social security and medicare/caid)
      - and they like to eat out once a week (other discretionary spending)

      The Republican response is to cut the dinner down from a fine dining establishment to fast food.

      Ok. So this is going to make a tiny difference, but is it really the place to focus one's efforts?

    9. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many NOAA or NASA programs could be funded just by cutting back defense spending by 10%?

      All of them.

      Several times over, even.

    10. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      That doesn't apply to governments, especially ours. The National Debt is the U.S. spending more than they can afford for decades now.

      Neither party can be held as the scapegoat for a problem that has been running so long, only the system itself can be responsible.

    11. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But a Tsunami will only take out those nasty Blue states on the coasts. The GOP doesn't care if they wash away.

    12. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by glodime · · Score: 1

      You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...

      The USA hasn't run up against that limitation yet. But it is planing on doing so in about 25 to 30 years to avoid "death panels".

    13. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...

      LOL. Typicaly Republican Anorexia strategy. Here's what you do when you're fat and unhealthy, you start working out in a sensible fashion, you eat healthy. You don't starve yourself to death while trying to run a marathon.

      This metaphor may offend you, but it really does seem to me that is the Republican mindset. A bunch of whiny Teenage hysterics, not a prudent, sensible course of action.

      You want to reduce the US deficit? Stop military operations in foreign countries. Cease undertaxing corporations that seek to use the US for their own private gain. Cease subsidizing them. It'll work a lot better than the "OMG, cut the programs for the poor!" plan which the Republican party has espoused. What they don't understand is that a lot of poor people are going to realize what is being done to them, and decide...hey, we're not going to take it anymore. And by poor, I mean pretty much 80% of the population, if not more. IOW, the people who do all the work, in comparison to the rich who just provide the initial capital then bask in the proceeds.

      I just hope it's not too late, and not too bloody.

    14. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by paiute · · Score: 1

      You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...

      Farkin' A! That's why I dropped my homeowners, my car, and my life insurance. Waste and fat trimmed from my budget.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    15. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      We just gave an $800 billion tax breaks to millionaires, and even before that, our tax rates were some of the lowest in the industrialized world. We can certainly afford these programs. We merely need to decide what's more important: millions for a few, or safety, comfort, and happiness for millions. Personally, I'm on the side of humanity.

    16. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only relates to point 1. and it's relatively late in the posting cycle . . and it seems to be an article done by a local rather than national reporter . . but I can't get over this:
      http://post-gazette.com/pg/11070/1131217-84.stm

      And it really relates to point 1.

    17. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should those making more than 250000 pay even larger taxes? They work just as hard, indeed even harder than the bum that makes 20000. The 250000 are the people who have the brains and the willpower, and the initiative to build their own companies, educate themselves... rather than sit on their ass, watch tron, and work in a cubicle. How about we take more taxes from whatever you and your parents are making?

    18. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean you need to be stupid about what you cut.

      Since we are one of the leasts taxed countries in the industrialized world, may we could raise taxes to pay for stuff we want and need? How about we appropriately tax where the majority of the wealth is?

      There are better solution then making cuts they will turn us into a third world nation.

      You're simpleton views would be laughable if other people with the same views weren't using them to destroy this country.

      Funny thing is, you are where the majority of wealth lies in America. By you, I mean people earning less than $250k per year. That is why a tax on the "rich" always morphs into a tax on the middle class. If you take the time to learn your history, you will find that the original income tax (you know, that IRS thing) was originally only supposed to be a tax on the "rich". Funny thing is, the "rich" have lawyers and accountants and lobbyists who buy government and make sure that hard-to-find loopholes exist for them. So where does government go to get it's dolleros? Why you of course. You don't have powerful lawyers and tax accountants and lobbyists.

      So yeah, lets raise taxes on the rich. Go on. Go heavy. Why not make it 90%. I'll sit back and watch as it slides on down to you.

    19. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah they worked so hard to crash the economy and then get bailed out by the govt and then start whining about deficits because that's the only thing that will get them attention anymore. Everyone knows Reagan proved deficits don't matter, especially the RNC with its $20 million deficit. Go back and study Alexander Hamilton and the American School of Economics (as opposed to the British School) which used debt to make America the world's number 1 economy.

    20. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government has no business subsidizing education (department of ed, which Reagan wanted to get rid of) or housing. Agricultural is about the only one that makes sense, because you don't want to run the risk of having the free market decide that underproducing food is a good thing.

      It's simply AMAZING that you acknowledge that a free market is not entirely good for the food industry, but it would be good for our children's education. We certainly need more poor uneducated people in this world, right, who else will eat all our $.99 cheeseburgers? Is that your plan, to create a lower class of enslaved, uneducated poor to compete with developing nations? What a fucking disgrace to humanity.

    21. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Gee that's not biased at all, we have a GOP budget now, not a national budget. I challenge anyone to find a single mention of this subject prior to today. It is not news, it is revisionist propaganda. The Republicans use the same reprehensible tactics.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    22. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analogy is false. The government is not like an individual. The Constitution grants the government powers that individuals don't have, such as the power to create money, or hold trials. Why shouldn't our elected reps create money like the banks do under the fractional reserve system? The idea that money has to be an artificially scarce resource is holding us back. The real focus should be on innovation and the advance of knowledge for that is what increases survival fitness by allowing us to better predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic changes. Economics is just a means to that end, and it is high time we gave up the old feudal notion that government can only spend as much as it takes in. Why doesn't that principle apply to banks? Japan with its 200% debt-to-gdp ratio is proving, as Reagan did, that deficits don't matter.

    23. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Unless the money goes towards helping your rich friends ship jobs overseas and kill them furiners in order to take their resources, right?

    24. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by swalve · · Score: 1

      That's what it was on the top bracket in the late 40's or 50's. (Forget exactly when.) The world didn't implode. The top 1% of earners pay something like 20% of the taxes.

    25. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is, you are where the majority of wealth lies in America. By you, I mean people earning less than $250k per year.

      I do not know where you got your numbers, but every breakdown I've seen is not in agreement with you.

      The top 5% has over 50% of the wealth, adding the next 20% gets it up to 87%. The bottom 50% of the population? Around 10% of the total wealth.

      I'm not sure where the number for your income figure lies exactly, but any REAL look at the statistics kinda puts your claims into a doubtful state.

      That is why a tax on the "rich" always morphs into a tax on the middle class. If you take the time to learn your history, you will find that the original income tax (you know, that IRS thing) was originally only supposed to be a tax on the "rich". Funny thing is, the "rich" have lawyers and accountants and lobbyists who buy government and make sure that hard-to-find loopholes exist for them. So where does government go to get it's dolleros? Why you of course. You don't have powerful lawyers and tax accountants and lobbyists.

      So yeah, lets raise taxes on the rich. Go on. Go heavy. Why not make it 90%. I'll sit back and watch as it slides on down to you.

      Indeed, that sort of thing IS a problem. The rich do have the assets to get what they want. It's part of why they keep getting richer and richer. They can buy all the good stuff first, then sell it at a markup to the rest of us. OTOH, at least it is putting more people with the accounting. I don't know if it's worth it though.

      Not sure how to resolve the trick. Maybe we make politicians more accountable, maybe we make laws more public.

    26. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee that's not biased at all, we have a GOP budget now, not a national budget. I challenge anyone to find a single mention of this subject prior to today. It is not news, it is revisionist propaganda. The Republicans use the same reprehensible tactics.

      http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/173365-gop-wants-defund-noaa-hurricane-tracking.html

      I believe that mentions more the hurricane aspects than the Tsunami ones but as you can see, it's not completely off everybody's radar. I'd try to find others, but it's drowning in a sea of today's recriminations.

      But maybe the GOP should just take it as a message from God, don't cut so blindly. Well, I wish they were cutting blind, but they're not, they're just cutting that which doesn't matter to them. If they cut blindly, then at least they might get rid of some real waste. Instead they still manage to spend money

    27. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      ... The bottom 50% of the population? Around 10% of the total wealth.

      Actually the bottom 60% of the population own 2.3% of the nations wealth according to a working paper by Edward Wolff.

    28. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unionized highschools dumb down students to the point where college is the new highschool.

      Uh-huh, and the problem with the performance levels dropping across the nation, unionized or not, shows that it's not...the unions causing the problem, or fixing the problem. But then...that's not their job, is it?

      Try your local school board. Your rathole is not in Washington DC, your rathole is right at home. And the sad thing is...there is no monopoly, as there IS no unified standard controlling school operations. Yeah, defunding the Department of Education won't do any good. They aren't making your local schools fail. Your local politicians ARE.

      Or maybe not, if you're in one of the lucky districts that isn't failing. Not that it will matter, the bad ones are indeed dragging the rest down.

      Luckily, it won't matter, robots are getting cheaper than workers all the time.

    29. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 1

      OK you call me views simple.. and they are, because they are based in simple facts. You cannot spend more than you make(without bad consequences). whether an individual or a government.

    30. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 1

      i'm fine with cutting just about anything personally, but everything you would cut, would get a response similiar to the gp. 'you can't cut x, it's too valuable or too important or it's morally wrong'. At the end of the day, if we can't afford it, we can't afford it, it's really irrelevant how badly it is or isn't needed.

    31. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 1

      that's only true because foreign governments are stupid enough to buy our debt. At some point they will not(when they realize we have to print the money to pay), and we will be in a world of shit.

    32. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating starving, i'd advocating eating the right amount.

      republicans have done little the lower the debt(with a few exceptions), as you may have noticed. So you're really just playing partisan politics.

    33. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 1

      a better analogy would be to say you've got 5 cars and now your monthly payments are 2x what you make in a month. Boo hoo if you have to cut your spending.

    34. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by gangien · · Score: 1

      of course. it would be impossible for anyone to advocate what i advocate, without want the rich to rape the poor.

    35. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The bottom 50% of the population? Around 10% of the total wealth.

      Actually the bottom 60% of the population own 2.3% of the nations wealth according to a working paper by Edward Wolff.

      Seems to be using a bit of a different metric there, not sure if it is more or less accurate, but it's certainly not congruent with the claim that the majority of the country's wealth was with the income earners under 250,000K.

    36. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      OK, Republican, I want to see your letter to your congressmember pointing out that we can't afford a $TRILLION+ every year spent on war + "intelligence", so it must be cut back to at most $250B a year.

      Then we can afford to protect ourselves from earthquakes and tsunamis.

      Where's your letter already?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    37. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      The government has no business subsidizing education

      The public has no business ensuring every child has the minimum education paid for? Why not? Why is "the free market" (whatever that is) qualified to decide that undereducating (some) children is a good thing?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    38. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So? Most of those responses are wrong. Most of them are simply paid for by the subsidized party, like the banks, the energy corps, the drug corps, the military corps, the telcos... AKA the US Chamber of Commerce. Who cares what responses you get that are wrong?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    39. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      As I've seen written 100's of time in sarcasm "think of the children" seems to apply here. And with all the observations out there that the US is losing its status in the "#1's in the world" like education and life expectancy, moving the US up from one of the lowest tax rates to a higher tax rate is totally acceptable? And we didn't just "give" an $800 billion tax break to the rich, we extended this law. To all the people out there that want to tax "other people" I say give till it hurts first. Voluntarily give more or all of your own money to the government and leave my paycheck alone. You got kids in a school that's not doing a good job teaching...slip the school district a few $1000 of your own money. You know "think of the children" but in this case, think of your own children. But of course there isn't a single person out there that will step up to the plate to personally solve their own problems.

    40. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The numbers are for net worth, not income. Here is the quote from the working paper:

      The share of the top 1 percent advanced from 34.6 to 37.1 percent, that of the top 5 percent from 61.8 to 65 percent, and that of the top quintile from 85 to 87.7 percent, while that of the second quintile fell from 10.9 to 10 percent, that of the middle quintile from 4 to 3.1 percent, and that of the bottom two quintiles from 0.2 to -0.8 percent. There was also a large expansion in the share of households with zero or negative net worth, from 18.6 to 24.1 percent.

      So, the top 20% own 85-87.7% of the nations total net worth.

    41. Re:Well, they WERE more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the money goes towards helping your rich friends ship jobs overseas and kill them furiners in order to take their resources, right?

      The reason you chose to lie about what gangien said is because you knew you are too stupid to refute what he really did say.

  6. Why do they even go at different speeds by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

    I don't know enough fluid dynamics or whatever; but I'm surprised "when" isn't just "distance / speed-of-waves", and "how big" is just "size * some 1/distance factor, or perhaps 1/distance-squared if energy goes down too.

    1. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I don't know enough fluid dynamics or whatever; but I'm surprised "when" isn't just "distance / speed-of-waves", and "how big" is just "size * some 1/distance factor, or perhaps 1/distance-squared if energy goes down too.

      Those calculations are easy. The problem lies in determining the size, direction, and speed of something that is invisible.

    2. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      http://gizmodo.com/#!5781040/see-the-japans-massive-underwater-earthquake-ripple-across-the-world -- Watch the video on this page, it might provide a little insight into how the waves travel. I didn't understand why Los Angeles wasn't given a more serious warning until I watched it. (I'm extra surprised that they were able to tell in advance that would happen...)

      --

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

    3. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Neither do I, but we're dealing with an irregular shape (the coast), Another irregular shape (the wave energy itself), refraction, superposition, differing ocean density (temp and salinity), and tides. My guess would be that the irregular form of the wave energy input makes it particularly difficult.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by geekoid · · Score: 2

      If you drove across country, and you left your house going 60 miles an hour, would your arrival time be distance / 60mph?

      No it would not because shit would get in your way and sometime slow you down.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      "When", for the initial wave, is almost as easy as you say: it's mostly a factor of distance and speed. "How big" is much, much harder. You need to take into account the source (a point source such as a landslide needs to be treated differently from a line source such as an earthquake fault), reflections (a wave might bounce off the Japanese coastline leading to a second, delayed tsunami in Hawaii), refraction (a wave front bending around Hawaii might increase the wave energy arriving at San Francisco while reducing the energy at Los Angeles), interference patterns (wave patterns in San Francisco Bay might destroy coastal Oakland while sparing Richmond), multipath effects (a reflection off the Alaska coast might stack with a refraction off Hawaii to amplify the wave height in Portland, and so on.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    6. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by sirrunsalot · · Score: 1

      Of course realizing something happened, computing predictions and distributing the information in a timely fashion is also non-trivial. I don't know exactly when they posted it, but there certainly wasn't much delay in getting predictions on the internet. The NOAA has some good information on their tsunami research program including information about today's event and a youtube video of the simulation

    7. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      If I left my house going 60 miles an hour, I would probably take a helluva spill. I think it would be better to pull over first.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, you're correct in that it's not the wave simulation itself that's difficult to model. It's reverse engineering the tsunami trigger event.

      Sort of like predicting where a bullet is going to hit without being able to see the gun.

    9. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by swalve · · Score: 1

      Another huge factor is the shape of the coast underwater. I forget what shape makes what difference, but a gently sloping coast is going to be affected differently than a dredged out harbor.

    10. Re:Why do they even go at different speeds by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      Answering my own question ---- wow - it's awesome how the pattern of the Tsunami wave is almost exactly like the radiation patterns of an antenna shaped about the same shape as the fault:

      http://i.imgur.com/Unyfz.jpg

      Wow math is cool!

  7. NOAA already on Republican chopping block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  8. Oblig xkcd by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 1

    Just thought I would add this. http://xkcd.com/723//url

    --

    Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
    1. Re:Oblig xkcd by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 1
      --

      Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
    2. Re:Oblig xkcd by karnal · · Score: 1

      What, a 404 not found???

      http://xkcd.com/723/

      --
      Karnal
    3. Re:Oblig xkcd by JustOK · · Score: 1

      best xkcd ever!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Oblig xkcd by JustOK · · Score: 1

      best XKCD ever!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  9. Not Impressive At All by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Here in the USA I've read in news of exactly one person dead, and yes I'll troll and point out he and his friends were total DUMBASSES taking photos of incoming Tsunami waves at mouth of river outlet to ocean. His friends are lucky to be alive and can now reflect for years on how their utter stupidity got their companion killed horribly and how they made all their families suffer. I'm much more concerned how this system could have been better to help the Japanese,there were minutes between the quake and when the tsunami hit there. in this age of instant comm could not have more been saved by instant messaging system?

    1. Re:Not Impressive At All by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      in this age of instant comm could not have more been saved by instant messaging system?

      I'm pretty sure the effectiveness of an instant communication system is directly proportional to the number of users of said system. Sure, text messages can be fast and cheap but exactly zero people who don't have cell phones will receive them. Even getting people to respond to tornado sirens is not a trivial matter...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Not Impressive At All by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      well, in 2007 the Japanese had 833 cell phones per 1,000 people. could even have land-line phone blast telemarketing style for those with no cell (i'm guessing the elderly maybe not plugged into the ether so much). Sure, there would be panic and the problems it causes, but some would get a chance

    3. Re:Not Impressive At All by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Japan has 95% cellphone penetration.

    4. Re:Not Impressive At All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to broadcast news sources, TV stations were actually able to provide warnings 30 seconds before the quake actually hit land. The problem wasn't lack of knowledge or notification, just the fact that area residents weren't wearing personal jet packs to allow for speedier evacuations...

    5. Re:Not Impressive At All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just 5% more and it'll fit all the way in...

    6. Re:Not Impressive At All by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      well, in 2007 the Japanese had 833 cell phones per 1,000 people.

      could even have land-line phone blast telemarketing style for those with no cell (i'm guessing the elderly maybe not plugged into the ether so much). Sure, there would be panic and the problems it causes, but some would get a chance

      You're talking about "reverse 911." They have it in a lot of major cities in the US now (including Dallas). It's a system that lets the government send emergency messages to blocks of phone numbers, like a robocaller but with things like Amber alerts or tornado warnings.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
  10. Tsunami warnings are also... by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

    ...harder, better, and stronger.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  11. Essentially, all models are wrong, by Slutticus · · Score: 1

    but some are useful

    --George Box

  12. faster and more accurate predictions than ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now only the day after they've happened!

  13. Japanese Reactor Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not an expert at all but I have a question.. the Japanese reactors that are said to be overheating since the pumps do not have the necessary power to cool the reactor core. How come they can't SCRAM meaning insert all the control rods into the reactor and stop completely the reactor? Why waste time trying to get power there to restart the pumps and in the meantime possibly increase the risk of leakage of radioactive material?

    Thank you for everyone's insight...

    1. Re:Japanese Reactor Question... by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert either. But my understanding of reactor operation is: even after a scram, the reactor core continues to produce decay heat and must be cooled for some time.

      Reactor installations are normally equipped with backup diesel generators of sufficient capacity to run the necessary cooling pumps. It may be that the quake or subsequent tsunami damaged them so that they were not able to start. It is possible to backfeed a plant over the outgoing transmission lines to power pumps as well and that may have been their backup to the backup plan.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Japanese Reactor Question... by swalve · · Score: 1

      I believe the issue is that the massive heat is already there. No doubt they dropped the control rods (or whatever the control mechanism is), but everything is still hot and needs to be continually cooled until no longer hot. There are other complexities, like the one facility that has 6 reactors and only one of them is down. And a different (I think?) facility where they had the generators to run the pumps, but a hose broke or something and there was no coolant.

    3. Re:Japanese Reactor Question... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, the unit is cooled with steam, so pumps aren't required. Unfortunately, power is required to control the valves. I'm guessing a manual override isn't possible or they've would have put that plan into motion.

      I think the fuel is encased with a ceramic shell. The fuel has a melting point of 1000c while the ceramic is 2000c. That would require some serious heat buildup.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  14. Re:Looks like Republicans tagged this with donotwa by 517714 · · Score: 1

    Looks like Democrats couldn't anticipate the consequences since there are zero mentions of this prior to this morning. This is political posturing, and a poor attempt at revisionist history, and seeking to capitalize on a natural disaster. No Democrats opposed the cut or made any statements on the subject prior to today. In the information age, I expect a group as powerful as the Democratic party to manipulate the media better than this.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  15. Re:Looks like Republicans tagged this with donotwa by hedwards · · Score: 1

    This is the same party that takes individuals seriously that say that oceans won't rise because God told them so.

  16. Just like hou you choose by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    to be a self serving morally bankrupt parasite.

  17. Re:Looks like Republicans tagged this with donotwa by PPH · · Score: 1

    True. For all we know, the GOP cuts were aimed at eliminating the National Weather Service tornado warning programs. After all, those tornadoes have been sent by God to punish the wrong doers in the states in tornado alley (primarily red states). The people on the west coast trust science and are less likely to put their fate into the hands of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re:Looks like Republicans tagged this with donotwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nah, well, it's hard to predict tsunamis and earthquakes - easier to predict the weather -
    Democrats did attempt to add more money to NOAA’s budget. Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., offered an amendment to the CR that would have directed “no less than $710,641,000 to the National Weather Service Local Warnings and Forecasts.” The amendment was one of several Democratic spending proposals that was found to be out of order, and not voted on.
    Well, someone tried to add money to the budget - the statement that no one objected is not true -

    There has been a huge redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy over the past 10 to 15 years - the government no longer has the money - the wealthy, top 1 percent have the money now. If NOAA wishes to survive, it must receive patronage from the top 1 percent. And, thus, the privatization of all government functions is complete.

  19. Hawaii, Alaska and the US west coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so glad that tsunami don't have anything against Canada.

  20. defunding the NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People, you DO you that the Repugnicans have already proposed massive cuts in the NOAA, right??

  21. ALMOST by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Next time, just say you solved all your budget worries by cutting food out.

    It works, absolutely 100% guaranteed.

    Now if only we could get republicans to follow what they preach, then the world would be a better place in, what... about 1-3 weeks?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  22. Re:Looks like Republicans tagged this with donotwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In an interview with Hawaii's Star Advertiser last month, Barry Hirshorn, Pacific region chairman of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, warned that the proposed budget cuts could result in the loss of lives.

    "People could die. ... It could be serious," he said, noting that Weather Service employees and employees of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center could be hit with furloughs and closures.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042264-503544.html

  23. Re:Looks like Republicans tagged this with donotwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From slate, copied into the wonkette article:

    Democrats did attempt to add more money to NOAA’s budget. Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., offered an amendment to the CR that would have directed “no less than $710,641,000 to the National Weather Service Local Warnings and Forecasts.” The amendment was one of several Democratic spending proposals that was found to be out of order, and not voted on.

    Since the continuing resolution passed the house well before the tsunami, it seems that you are wrong to say "No Democrats opposed the cut"

  24. RTFA by malakai · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, we decided that we could do without fripperies like the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042264-503544.html

    saving $126 million, fully .01% of this year's deficit. Now all we need to do is find 10,000 other equally useful programs to cut.

    From the article you cite:

    The budget, which proposed about $60 billion in budget cuts, would slash funding for the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That would potentially cripple the effectiveness of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii, which issued a series of warnings over the past several days regarding the situation in Japan, where an 8.9 magnitude earthquake triggered a massive tsunami along the nation's east coast.

    For PTWC to be killed because of a decrease in budget for NWS/NOAA is like saying a decrease in the NASA budget will guarantee all NASA related projects to be terminated.

    You know your point is weak when you resort to sensational journalism to make it.

    1. Re:RTFA by jfengel · · Score: 1

      And you didn't even try to google the $126 million figure I gave? Nothing? Not even an instant's query as to why I might have said this? No curiosity whatsoever? Just "Hey, they said something negative about Republicans, they must be stupid"?

      Try this one, from that bastion of flaming liberalism, the Associated Press:

      http://wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/201103120884