Japan Earthquake May Have Shifted Earth's Axis

On the positive side... by Albert+Sandberg · 2011-03-16 04:29 · Score: 5, Funny

... the work day got about 0.6 microseconds shorter, woo! Oh, wait....

Re:On the positive side... by Dachannien · 2011-03-16 05:12 · Score: 5, Funny

That's coming out of your paycheck.
Re:On the positive side... by ciderbrew · 2011-03-16 05:16 · Score: 1

/collective shoulders dropping in realisation *sigh* ...
Re:On the positive side... by FroMan · 2011-03-16 05:20 · Score: 1

More realistically, it come out of your sleeping time.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:On the positive side... by sexconker · 2011-03-16 05:28 · Score: 1

More realistically, it come out of your sleeping time.
Oh please, you know they're make you lose the microseconds during the night, AND cut them out of your pay as well.
Re:On the positive side... by surzirra · 2011-03-16 05:32 · Score: 1

Oh, great job! Now it's 0.7 milliseconds of pay.
Re:On the positive side... by MikeDirnt69 · 2011-03-16 05:34 · Score: 1

You mean coffee time.

--
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
Re:On the positive side... by The+Great+Pretender · 2011-03-16 06:08 · Score: 1

I'd be interested if it would help my 5 year old deal with daylight savings time

--
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Re:On the positive side... by cayenne8 · 2011-03-16 06:50 · Score: 1

Ok, earthquakes, tsunamis, nuke meltdowns, earth off axis, daylight savings time....
Can we all face the fact this is a HUGE government coverup?
I think we now have proof that there is a Godzilla, and this is all Godzilla related turmoil. Sheesh..can we not get a senate investigative committee together?
I mean, if they're willing to put so much time, money and effort into steroids in baseball, surely we rate at least as much time into the Godzilla effect?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:On the positive side... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 07:37 · Score: 0

Another realization? The "Work" part of the day remains the same, this comes out of your "Free time"
Re:On the positive side... by petermgreen · 2011-03-16 08:53 · Score: 1

AIUI deviations between the earths rotation and the SI second are grouped up and presented in the form of leap seconds (which may be either positive or negative) at midnight UTC. Whether these come during the working day or not will vary depending on where you live.
2 microseconds per day is a pretty small change though. Other changes such as the gradual slowing of the earths rotation will have a far more significant impact on the frequency of leap seconds (assuming that is that the proposal to make civil time entirely tied to atom time doesn't go through...)

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:On the positive side... by tehcyder · 2011-03-16 22:59 · Score: 1

2 microseconds per day is a pretty small change though.
Thanks for that, I was starting to panic.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Damn! by Locke2005 · 2011-03-16 04:29 · Score: 1

Now I need to recalibrate my clocks!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Damn! by HTH+NE1 · 2011-03-16 04:44 · Score: 2

It won't add up to a whole second for about 1711.2 years.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Damn! by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2011-03-16 05:07 · Score: 2

So what? Some of us prefer to be ahead of time.
Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:09 · Score: 0

Is that in metric time?
Re:Damn! by subanark · 2011-03-16 05:41 · Score: 0

Isn't a second defined to be 1/60th of a minute which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day? And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth. For this reason, it won't add up at all since this change will have redefined what a second is.
Re:Damn! by X0563511 · 2011-03-16 05:48 · Score: 2

Isn't a second defined to be 1/60th of a minute which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day? And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth. For this reason, it won't add up at all since this change will have redefined what a second is.
- queue sound of crickets chirping -

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Damn! by nedlohs · 2011-03-16 05:50 · Score: 1

No. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom (at rest and at 0K). Which will not have changed due to an earthquake.
Re:Damn! by gutnor · 2011-03-16 05:55 · Score: 1

Probably a big woosh for me but just in case you are serious: [second is] the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second)
Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:04 · Score: 0

Wow, I guess science class isn't offered in your town.
Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:05 · Score: 0

That's okay. IT workers will boom when they have to fix the Y3K722.2 bugs.
Re:Damn! by subanark · 2011-03-16 06:05 · Score: 1

The earth revolves around the sun, the sun revolves around the earth. Both statements are true, its all point of view.
Re:Damn! by Joce640k · 2011-03-16 06:09 · Score: 1

I'm just hoping it means I won't have to adjust my watch so often any more.

--
No sig today...
Re:Damn! by X0563511 · 2011-03-16 06:24 · Score: 1

But either statement is not related (regardless of your frame of reference). One governs year, the other day.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Damn! by hajus · 2011-03-16 06:27 · Score: 1

And the Earth's rotation isn't constant anyways. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/earth_rot.html The second is (as posted by others) constant.
Re:Damn! by Dragonslicer · 2011-03-16 06:33 · Score: 1

Isn't a second defined to be 1/60th of a minute which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day? And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth. For this reason, it won't add up at all since this change will have redefined what a second is.
- queue sound of crickets chirping -
Is there a bunch of crickets lined up waiting to make sound?
Re:Damn! by subanark · 2011-03-16 06:39 · Score: 0

As a second is traditionally defined in terms of a day, it is related. If you were to visit some isolated community in the world and they asked you what a second was (assuming you had no devices on you) you could describe to them in a sufficiently accurate way, that there are 86400 seconds in a day. If they asked you what a day was, you could say its the amount of time it takes for the sun to be directly above from one day to the next, and there would be no confusion.
Re:Damn! by Jauffre · 2011-03-16 06:45 · Score: 1

1 day = time it takes for moon to revolve around the earth 1 earth = time it takes for earth to revolve around the sun
Re:Damn! by subanark · 2011-03-16 06:47 · Score: 1

At least in High School, the teachers didn't focus on these "minor details." For instance I was taught the order of the planets, including that Pluto was the last planet, even though at the time it wasn't. They also taught us that the earth does not revolve around the sun, its the other way around, and it was a misconception in history that it did. When in actuality its all a point of view, and all the teachers wanted to do is to convince us that we aren't the center of the universe.
Re:Damn! by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-16 06:49 · Score: 1

It used to be. That was once right. All of the metric units were once defined in terms of some physical measurement which was, at the time, thought to be absolutly constant*. It later turned out that none of them were actually are and so all of them with the exception of the kilogram are defined now by some reference to an intrinsic physical effect which can be measured. In the case of the second, it's defined as a specific number of ticks of a cesium atomic clock. The meter is defined as the distance traveled by electromagnetic radiation in a precise fraction of a second**. Newton is defined in terms of the kilogram, meter and second. Ampre by newton and meter. And so on - every unit can be defined using only the kilogram and second.

The kilogram remains defined as the mass of a lump of metal in a vault in France. There have been several proposals to redefine it, but none have yet been accepted.

*As opposed to the old imperial units, which were defined in terms of some physical measurement which everyone knew was inconstant but just didn't care enough to worry about.

**There was an interim stage in which it was defined as a given number of wavelengths of light from a ruby laser, but the wavelength of a laser can actually be altered slightly by imperfections in the material used, so this replaced it.
Re:Damn! by X0563511 · 2011-03-16 06:53 · Score: 1

Yes. It's not easy to keep them all in order, and training them is not the easiest thing to do either. Not even bringing the relatively short lifespan of them into it!

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Damn! by X0563511 · 2011-03-16 06:56 · Score: 1

And what does that have to do with the heliocentric or geocentric rotation? That's on the scale of a year, not a day. We are apparently thinking of different yet similar things here...
further to the point though - the argument is garbage. Gravity, inertia etc all back up the fact that it is the earth moving about the sun, with the other planets. Your perspective doesn't change fact, only color your perception of it.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Damn! by thedonger · 2011-03-16 06:57 · Score: 1

Isn't that measurement just the closest thing to how we define a second? I'm pretty sure the concept of time existed prior to the concept of atoms.

--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Re:Damn! by subanark · 2011-03-16 07:17 · Score: 1

Gravity, inertia etc all back up the fact that it is the earth moving about the sun, with the other planets.
This statement is not false, and neither is mine. Moving (and rotation) is relative to other objects. If A moves relative to B, then B moves relative to A.
Re:Damn! by david_thornley · 2011-03-16 07:28 · Score: 1

Straignt-line unaccelerated motion is relative. Rotation is absolute. You can tell from the forces involved.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Damn! by davester666 · 2011-03-16 07:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's like getting to live in the future, all the time.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Damn! by robot256 · 2011-03-16 08:16 · Score: 1

This is equivalent to writing down an oral history. Sure, before modern science we could say there are 86,400 seconds in a day and a day is one revolution of the earth, but that is no longer good enough for the experiments we do. So the international scientific community decided to make a more precise definition of a second based on something else. They made measurements so that the new definition is as close to the old definition as it could possibly be, but now it is fixed and it is many times more precise than the old standard, so it is more useful for scientific experiments.
Frankly, if you are worried about 1 second every 1700 years then I think you should already give more weight to the scientific definition rather than the colloquial definition. Otherwise, it doesn't matter one bit which way you choose to express the value of one second. But if you ask a scientist, he will say the only correct *definition* is the Cesium atom, because in science there is only one right answer (no matter how hard that is for some people to understand).
Re:Damn! by _0xd0ad · 2011-03-16 08:27 · Score: 1

You missed his point. The earth revolves around the sun once per year; the sun revolves around the earth once per day. The two statements are completely different. They are not two ways of saying the same thing; a year is not the same as a day.
To put the latter statement into a heliocentric frame of reference, you'd have to say that a day is the length of time required for the earth's rotation to carry a point on the earth's surface all the way around its axis and return it back to the same position relative to the sun.
Re:Damn! by tophermeyer · 2011-03-16 08:37 · Score: 1

If kids go home and spouting off facts like the earth does not rotate around the sun, parents tend to get really upset and start complaining.
One of my most profound insights into my (American) education came when my high school physics teacher explained that to me. Teachers don't just teach kids facts; they have to teach kids truths that their parents accept, or be very prepared to explain gravitation to an well-meaning but under informed parent.
Re:Damn! by WWWWolf · 2011-03-16 08:40 · Score: 1

It's all in the refinement of already agreed-upon units. Basically, what happened was this: 1) Some people came up with a convenient 1 day = 24 hours = 60 minutes = 60 seconds division. 2) People who wanted precision defined second in an exact manner that is closest approximation of the commonly used definition of second. 3) Newer, more accurate methods were devised, again maintaining as-exact-as-possible match to the already established definition of second.
Notice that people stopped talking about days and instead talk of seconds.
This is mostly because people noticed there are multiple definitions of "day". Millennia ago, it was easy to just decide that there's 24 hours to the day and divide that further, because that was accurate enough for most tasks. Then they got the crazy idea of actually measuring how long the days are, and noticed the damn things don't seem to have a constant length. Sure, we're talking of minutes of differences here, which people wouldn't notice much anyway, but everyone agreed that this 24-hour system is pretty good because it's convenient. Days are of same length. Years are about the same length too. And the astronomers said "sure, OK, we'll, um, make a good calendar system that won't confuse the hell out of you."
If you want to be really accurate, you can define day based on Earth's orbiting around the Sun (sidereal day) or based on the position of the Sun in the sky (solar day). Sidereal day is shorter than solar day, so using that for calendar-keeping would be highly confusing. Solar days aren't entirely problematic either, because the Sun's apparent motion on the sky differs at different times of the year (i.e., if you stare at a sundial, days are shorter in spring and autumn). So calendar days are based on mean solar days, which are basically averages. To keep the wallclock time as close as possible to the "real" timekeeping, when the Earth orbit fluctuates, leap seconds are inserted as needed.
At this point, you start noticing that things are all a little bit relative: you can define a second - a single, short unit of time with a definite length - precisely using another predictable natural phenomenon... but it's far more convenient to keep "days" as best estimates as long as they don't fly too far from real values.
Re:Damn! by subanark · 2011-03-16 08:46 · Score: 1

One day, some day, the US elementary education system will move to the metric system. But as long as parents expect teachers to teach what they know and use, it will never happen.
Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 08:53 · Score: 0

"No. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom (at rest and at 0K). Which will not have changed due to an earthquake."
That is the atomic SI second. The prior definition was derived astronomically and most people didn't get the memo 40-some years ago that we are on an atomic time scale because they still say GMT which is the time scale for the old definition of the second.
Re:Damn! by lwsimon · 2011-03-16 08:57 · Score: 1

We're moving to metric where it makes sense, slowly - liquid volume, weight, most scientific measurements - but staying with Imperial where that makes sense - namely, length.
SI/Metric make sense when you're doing lots of complex computations and unit conversion, but when you're measuring a 2x4, it's far easier to divide 4' 3 3/8" by 2 than it is to divide 1.267 meters by 2.
(I have no idea if those measurements are close, I pulled them out of the air.)

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:Damn! by RightwingNutjob · 2011-03-16 09:25 · Score: 2

One day, some day, the US elementary education system will move to the metric system. But as long as parents expect teachers to teach what they know and use, it will never happen.
Never! You can have my feet when you pry them from my cold, dead legs!
Re:Damn! by thedonger · 2011-03-16 09:44 · Score: 1

I have nothing against Cesium atoms. In reality, seconds don't exist anyway. Time is just a construct within which we can understand the world around us. Precise measurement is required as a scientific standard to help launch us into space and chat with guys posing as underage girls as we pose as underage girls. I can bake a loaf of bread without our time construct ever getting involved simply by seeing and feeling the loaf of bread. Hm, maybe I should start a new branch of time: The new unit of time is how long it takes to bring to 200 degrees F the center of a 1500g boule in a 450 degree F oven. BTW - the trip to grandma's house takes 4.3 loafs.

--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Re:Damn! by EkriirkE · 2011-03-16 09:51 · Score: 1

wat

--
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Re:Damn! by tompaulco · 2011-03-16 11:28 · Score: 1

Yes, and it appears that at the current rate of change of the rotation of the Earth, this was less than 1 days worth of change in the opposite direction.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:Damn! by Archwyrm · 2011-03-16 12:17 · Score: 1

Easier? I disagree:

>>> 4' 3 3/8" / 2
File "", line 1
4' 3 3/8" / 2
^
SyntaxError: EOL while scanning single-quoted string
>>> 1.267 / 2
0.63349999999999995

--
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Re:Damn! by cowboy76Spain · 2011-03-16 13:14 · Score: 1
but when you're measuring a 2x4, it's far easier to divide 4' 3 3/8" by 2 than it is to divide 1.267 meters by 2.
I understand that everybody usually likes more the systems they are more used to, but:
- Anybody can divide 1268 (m, km, cm, $, whatever) by 2. How do you divide 4' 3 3/8"?
- If instead by 2, you divide by 1268 m by 8000, you have 0,1585 m that are easily converted into 15,85 cms (because you won't find rulers marked with meters). With Imperial (*1), you'll probably have to translate the distance into a common unit (inches?), then divide and then translate back into a unit that makes sense in the scale of the result (and AFAIK none of the conversions is easy).
Of course, I am not saying that US is doing it bad by staying with Imperial (historical reasons are very real, and such a change affects a lot of things). But that does not mean length units are easier to manage with Imperial.
IMHO, the other units might have been changed because most of goods purchased (and imported/exported) are defined by volume or weight rather than by length.
*1: Not familiar with Imperial myself, but AFAIK I am pretty sure that there is no "golden rule" to simplify the operation.
--
Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
Re:Damn! by Zancarius · 2011-03-16 13:42 · Score: 1

Isn't a second defined to be 1/60th of a minute which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day? And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth. For this reason, it won't add up at all since this change will have redefined what a second is.
No, a second is defined as:

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
Source.

--
He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
Re:Damn! by Zancarius · 2011-03-16 13:51 · Score: 1

Whoops. Please mod down my original post as redundant. I checked to see if I could find references in the Slashdot comment tree and I totally missed the two previous comments that said the same thing. Slashdot 3.0 (?)'s threading confuses me even with "classic" mode enabled, which doesn't often seem to do what I expect.
My apologies for repeating something that was already well known.

--
He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
Re:Damn! by turbidostato · 2011-03-16 14:00 · Score: 1

" when you're measuring a 2x4, it's far easier to divide 4' 3 3/8" by 2 than it is to divide 1.267 meters by 2."
You are kidding, aren't you?
Re:Damn! by mavasplode · 2011-03-16 14:40 · Score: 0

Like a New Zealander...

--
ACTUAL SIZE!!!
Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 23:59 · Score: 0

I think you failed to see subanak's point. A day is defined by the time the Sun takes to appear twice in the same position in the sky (say from being overhead to being there a second time... a day later). This phenomenon is due to the Earth's own rotation around its axis, not due to its revolution around the Sun. Since you can choose a point of reference as you wish (See here), you could say the Earth is rotating around itself, or you could say the Earth is static and the entire Universe revolves around it. Both points of view are legitimate and both can be used depending on context, since sometimes the Geocentric view is easier for calculations.
Posting as AC since I already modded on this thread.
Re:Damn! by nedlohs · 2011-03-17 02:40 · Score: 1

Of course it did, and it was once defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day. But the definition was changed before I was born and the topic was the definition not the old definition of the common usage.
Re:Damn! by X0563511 · 2011-03-17 03:43 · Score: 1

I see that. I'm just picking nits because even if that's what he meant, he did not write that.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Damn! by Kilrah_il · 2011-03-17 17:42 · Score: 1

He said, and I quote:
"And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth."
Can't get any clearer than that. I don't think he needed to add the disclaimer "From a Geocentric POV."

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Re:Damn! by X0563511 · 2011-03-18 04:52 · Score: 1

He was comparing years to days. Rotation about the sun (years) to rotation about the earth (days).

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Troll comment by Skatox · 2011-03-16 04:30 · Score: 0

Now i will live more miliseconds.

Re:Troll comment by Brigadier · 2011-03-16 04:56 · Score: 2

Now i will live more miliseconds.
not too smart this one, kinda like what's heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks.
Re:Troll comment by Tr3vin · 2011-03-16 05:16 · Score: 1

It really depends on who you are buying your bricks and feathers from. I would suggest buying either in bulk. You will get a lot more for your money.
Re:Troll comment by sexconker · 2011-03-16 05:31 · Score: 1

Now i will live more miliseconds.
How is this a troll?
Because the Earth is rotating faster, we all just sped up a bit. You'll still live the same # of vibrations of a cesium atom on Earth, but to an outside observer, our cesium atoms are doin their thang a tad slower than theirs, and we will live a bit longer, relatively.
Re:Troll comment by camperdave · 2011-03-16 05:34 · Score: 1

A pound of feathers may weigh as much as a pound of bricks, but an ounce of gold weighs more than an ounce of feathers, and a pound of gold weighs less than a pound of feathers.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Troll comment by Hammer · 2011-03-16 06:28 · Score: 1

A pound of bricks is heavier.... Try dropping it on your toes :-P
Re:Troll comment by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-16 06:51 · Score: 1

It doesn't help that there are about six completly different measuresments call the 'ton' or 'tonne.' The metric system was introduced to replace the terrible mess of often contradictory units that were in use before - and remain in use in the UK, and just about nowhere else.
We do use imperial in the UK for a few things - speed limits, beer - but most measurements are metric now.
Re:Troll comment by AlamedaStone · 2011-03-16 07:20 · Score: 1

It doesn't help that there are about six completly different measuresments call the 'ton' or 'tonne.' The metric system was introduced to replace the terrible mess of often contradictory units that were in use before - and remain in use in the UK, and just about nowhere else.
We do use imperial in the UK for a few things - speed limits, beer - but most measurements are metric now.
Fortunately the US has adopted a simpler, more consistent set of measurements. For example, my car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Troll comment by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-16 07:53 · Score: 1

Remain in use in the US, rather. One letter, so much change in meaning.
Re:Troll comment by camperdave · 2011-03-16 10:04 · Score: 1

Consistent my eye. There are two different lengths called rods (survey and international) and a hogshead varies by the type of liquid, even varying by the variety of the type. For example, a hogshead of ale is 665.44L and a hogshead of beer is 748.62L. For wine, a hogshead of claret is 209L; port, 259L; sherry, 245L; and Madeira, 209L. So, is that 40 survey rods to the premium gasoline hogshead or 40 international rods to the regular gasoline hogshead?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Troll comment by AlamedaStone · 2011-03-16 12:02 · Score: 1

If I say I don't know are you going to throw me off a bridge?

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Troll comment by ae1294 · 2011-03-16 12:30 · Score: 1

If I say I don't know are you going to throw me off a bridge?
That depends on if Schrodinger's cat likes you or not... God help you if something would happen to that cat before the trial...
Re:Troll comment by turbidostato · 2011-03-16 14:04 · Score: 1

"If I say I don't know are you going to throw me off a bridge?"
I'll try. Then, if you manage to stay afloat that will mean you are made of wood, therefore you are a witch.

Human beings by olsmeister · 2011-03-16 04:31 · Score: 0

I wonder how much (if any) effect human activities have had on the earth's axis and rotation. Things like mining, the damming of rivers, heck even the rising sea levels (if you believe in climate change).

Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:43 · Score: 1

Tee Three Gorges Dam.
http://www.theenergywatch.com/2010/06/18/three-gorges-dam-and-the-earths-rotation/
Bam.
Re:Human beings by SJHillman · 2011-03-16 04:43 · Score: 0

If all of the people waiting in line at McDonalds jumped at once, the day would get about 8.3 microseconds shorter.
Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:51 · Score: 0

Dad, why are you still posting on Slashdot?
Re:Human beings by dimeglio · 2011-03-16 05:02 · Score: 1

Each time a meteorite hits the moon, it shifts it slightly which might likely have a bigger impact on earth than human activity does (affecting tides and waves). Also dinosaurs were MUCH bigger that humans. Defecating Brachiosaurus were likely the first cause of global warming (being endotherms).

--
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:05 · Score: 0

Really now - I'd be more concerned about the earth shattering.
Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:08 · Score: 0

wait until after they've had their meals...
Re:Human beings by Oceanplexian · 2011-03-16 05:18 · Score: 1

I really doubt that any recent human activity really plays a significant part in the scale of the Earth's rotation/axis. The earthquake released an equivalent energy of ~300mt of TNT. That's the equivalent of thousands of nuclear weapons being exploded.

On the grand scale of things, we don't play that big of an impact on a geological scale. Mother nature is a lot more awesome than anything we could come up with.
Re:Human beings by DriedClexler · 2011-03-16 05:19 · Score: 1

Also, what if someone wanted to deliberately slow down the earth's rotation? Say, by turning a motor against it?
I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation that suggests someone could slow down the earth's rotation by 5% by spending $30 billion on electricity to turn a motor in the appropriate direction.

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Re:Human beings by lambent · 2011-03-16 05:32 · Score: 1

"I really doubt that ..."
You would be wrong: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n7_v149/ai_18051356/
Re:Human beings by guruevi · 2011-03-16 05:35 · Score: 1

All mechanical engineering students know you can accomplish that with a 1HP motor. Finding the gears might be somewhat more of a challenge though, maybe we could use the moon as a gear.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:36 · Score: 0

Could you please express that in terms of Libraries of Congress ?
Re:Human beings by arth1 · 2011-03-16 05:48 · Score: 1

Well, if you climb a mountain, or move towards the equator, you will slow down the earth's rotation.
This in turn reduces the centrifugal force, and makes everybody slightly heavier.
Lawsuits will follow.
Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:50 · Score: 0

What is the motor attached to?
Re:Human beings by 517714 · 2011-03-16 06:00 · Score: 1

Only problem is Chao is wrong about the direction of the impact. Raising water increases the mass moment of inertia slowing the earth's rotation except at very high latitudes. He did not do a rigorous analysis. Melting icecaps would also slow rotation.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Human beings by 517714 · 2011-03-16 06:01 · Score: 1

Gyroscopes would be far more effective.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Human beings by Unkyjar · 2011-03-16 06:11 · Score: 1

Well, I guess he could be wrong, or you could be wrong?
Re:Human beings by hajus · 2011-03-16 06:35 · Score: 1

Just because water rose up due to a plate under it rising doesn't mean something else that was heavier didn't go under that plate. That would decrease the moment of inertia. After all, this was due to a plate sliding under another plate.. (Not saying that is just what happened, but there may be other factors.)
Re:Human beings by spitzak · 2011-03-16 07:06 · Score: 1

As the article explains, the water is moved closer to the earth's axis despite being at a higher altitude. The north pole, for instance, is zero distance from the axis.
This is due to the majority of reservoirs being further away from the equator than the majority of the water sources and thus water is being moved closer to the axis.
Melting land-based ice caps certainly would slow rotation, but this is because they are at the poles, not because they are higher up.
Re:Human beings by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 07:52 · Score: 0

A turtle.
Re:Human beings by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-16 07:57 · Score: 1

But nothing to attach the motor too. Maybe you could use a series of railguns on the equator, shooting mass at a shallow angle and above escape velocity like a catherine wheel firework? Or change the orbital velocity through an interaction with the sun's magnetic field? Or you could try moving an ocean around just a little bit ahead of the tide, thus speeding up the moon's orbit at the expense of the earth's rotational velocity.
Re:Human beings by DriedClexler · 2011-03-16 08:12 · Score: 1

I didn't mean the rotor would press against the earth (like a moving gear). If you just attached it to a frame and had electricity flow in to power it, then the alternating magnet on the stator would apply a moment on the magnet, and a moment in the opposite direction on the frame. As long as the frame doesn't rotate relative to the ground, there is another opposite moment at its interface with the earth's surface.
Or did I just really doze off in my reasoning there?

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Re:Human beings by 517714 · 2011-03-16 09:15 · Score: 1

I believe I understand the situation, and I stand by my original conclusion: For a spherical shell (the reduced volume of the ocean) I=2/3mr^2 for a point (the reservoir) I=mr^2 the mass put into the reservoir is the same as the mass taken from the ocean so if the radius of rotation of the reservoir is greater than 2/3 the effect is an increase in I. So acos(2/3)= break even point, assuming the reservoir is at the original sea level and not higher. So any reservoirs below 48 degrees slow the earth. As a point of reference, the US-Canada border is at 49 degrees and only a small part of China is above 48 degrees. Since land masses affect where the water would come from latitude-wise the math is not exact, but I would expect that to alter the position by only a fraction of a degree. The top nine man made lakes slow the earth's rotation based on their volume and latitude and ignoring altitude which would further increase the effect. Knowing how much of the water in each lake is impounded due to the damn and what portion is natural would be required to precisely determine the effect, but I expect it would further increase the slowdown. List of reservoirs by volume
1. Lake Kariba (180 km3 or 43 cu mi; Zimbabwe, Zambia)
2. Bratsk Reservoir (169 km3 or 41 cu mi; Russia)
3. Lake Nasser (157 km3 or 38 cu mi; Egypt, Sudan)
4. Lake Volta (148 km3 or 36 cu mi; Ghana)
5. Manicouagan Reservoir (142 km3 or 34 cu mi; Canada)
6. Lake Guri (135 km3 or 32 cu mi; Venezuela)
7. Williston Lake (74 km3 or 18 cu mi; Canada)
8. Krasnoyarsk Reservoir (73 km3 or 18 cu mi; Russia)
9. Zeya Reservoir (68 km3 or 16 cu mi; Russia) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_largest_man_made_lake_in_the_world#ixzz1GnVTwRD4

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Human beings by ae1294 · 2011-03-16 12:35 · Score: 1

Could you please express that in terms of Libraries of Congress ?
Wet or Dry?
Re:Human beings by ae1294 · 2011-03-16 12:37 · Score: 1

Well, if you climb a mountain, or move towards the equator, you will slow down the earth's rotation.
This in turn reduces the centrifugal force, and makes everybody slightly heavier.
Lawsuits will follow.
So wait, what you're saying is we have to slashdot a mountain now?
Re:Human beings by turbidostato · 2011-03-16 14:07 · Score: 1

"Wet or Dry?
Weeeeeeeaaahhhh!

It's a dupe! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:31 · Score: 1

We had the same story about a year ago: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/0114236/Chilean-Earthquake-Shortened-Earths-Day

Re:It's a dupe! by travdaddy · 2011-03-16 04:37 · Score: 3, Funny

That's OK, now we can repost all the comments from that story and get modded up!

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

Hm, maybe I should have changed the date on that one.

--
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
Re:It's a dupe! by GodfatherofSoul · 2011-03-16 04:46 · Score: 1

Great! I can go home a few microseconds early today.
Hope this works, I need the karma!

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:It's a dupe! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:35 · Score: 0

Just decided to troll the moderation system (+1 Informative). Drink a beer, think of me. Cheers.

Know your reader by lxs · 2011-03-16 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Did I read that correctly? Did the summary explain to us what a microsecond is?

Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:43 · Score: 0

Apparently some of us aren't engineers. I guess that explains a few things.
Re:Know your reader by CastrTroy · 2011-03-16 04:44 · Score: 1

Many people don't know what the common SI prefixes mean. When we were kids, we used to refer to the partial seconds (hundreds of a second or centiseconds?) as microseconds. I'm sure that common mistake stuck with a bunch of people into adult hood. For many people microseconds probably has no meaning at all, or they have the wrong meaning.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:56 · Score: 0

You have to keep in mind that many readers of /. are from the US and thus handicapped when it comes to metric systems ;)
Re:Know your reader by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2011-03-16 04:57 · Score: 1

I bitched about a mangled printing of a number, and suggested scientific notation, 5.0e-06 m for 5 micrometers. A biologist replied saying, "I know micro is smaller than milli and that is enough. 5.0e-06 looks scary to me". He is not dumb, after all, he is a biologist. It would have taken him less than two minutes to understand the exponent notation and thus get a much richer understanding of numbers. But still SI notation somehow is seen very unfriendly.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Know your reader by should_be_linear · 2011-03-16 05:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Thats was translation of metric units for US readers. Otherwise they would think microsecond is 1/12 second.

--
839*929
Re:Know your reader by idontgno · 2011-03-16 05:15 · Score: 1

Most people look at SI and wonder when the Swimsuit Edition is coming out.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:34 · Score: 0

Don't you know anything? A microsecond is 1/60th of a second.
Re:Know your reader by Machtyn · 2011-03-16 05:46 · Score: 1

The problem humans have, in general, is understanding large numbers. The inverse is also true, humans have, in general, a difficult time understanding small numbers. Comprehending that 1.3 million earths fit in the sun is really mind-blowing (and the sun, itself, is incredibly small compared to some stars). But so is understanding a particle is one billion times smaller than a millimeter.

It's enough for most of us to abstract that out. There is one AU of distance between the Earth and the Sun, mm is larger than a nm is larger than a um.
Re:Know your reader by DrChandra · 2011-03-16 05:47 · Score: 1

Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+a+microsecond+is%3F&l=1

--
Words, words, words ... Buz, buz! - Hamlet, Act II, Scene II
Re:Know your reader by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-16 05:57 · Score: 1

You're forgetting about leap microseconds!
Re:Know your reader by XiY47 · 2011-03-16 05:58 · Score: 1

Oh of course, I forgot they measure time differently everywhere else on the planet.
Re:Know your reader by Chelloveck · 2011-03-16 06:05 · Score: 2

If the Système international had a swimsuit edition there'd be much more interest in science. Among males, anyway. But hey, I'd go for equal time for guys in Speedos if it'll bring more females into science.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Re:Know your reader by Amouth · 2011-03-16 06:19 · Score: 1

A biologist ... He is not dumb, after all, he is a biologist. It would have taken him less than two minutes to understand the exponent notation
I'm sorry how does one work in a science related field and not understand exponent notation - and even if they did why would it take anywhere near two minutes for them to understand it?

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Know your reader by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2011-03-16 06:28 · Score: 1

Here is the posting: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2019470&cid=35359752 We need to ask him. I was riffed by the posters for having a too Fortran-centric view of the universe by others on that thread ;-)

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Know your reader by Shikaku · 2011-03-16 06:36 · Score: 1

http://www.google.com/images?q=ubuntu+calendar
(Likely NSFW) It didn't work too well with Ubuntu, apparently.
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:43 · Score: 0

That will only bring gay men to science. They are the only ones who like guys in speedos. For further information see:Europe.
Re:Know your reader by Machtyn · 2011-03-16 06:48 · Score: 1

That reminds me of the episode in "The IT Crowd" where Roy almost gets to do a calendar shoot of the hot girls at Reynholm industries, but ends up getting quite the different type of subject for the calendar.
Re:Know your reader by matt_hs · 2011-03-16 06:48 · Score: 1

(and the sun, itself, is incredibly small compared to some stars).
Like Charlie Sheen.
Re:Know your reader by Amouth · 2011-03-16 06:59 · Score: 1

thats kinda scary to me.. i just went and looked up the math requirements for Cell Biologist degree.. basically intro to calc one and some stats classes, but then based on the number of chem classes they should know exponent notation..

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Know your reader by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-03-16 06:59 · Score: 1

Did I read that correctly? Did the summary explain to us what a microsecond is?
Only on Slashdot will a summary explain an easily parsed term, yet another summary will simply assume a technical word from some obtuse field known to a few hundred people is common knowledge (and so be left uninterpreted).

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Know your reader by StikyPad · 2011-03-16 07:14 · Score: 1

mm is larger than a nm is larger than a um.
Hah. Way to illustrate the point.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Know your reader by StikyPad · 2011-03-16 07:21 · Score: 1

Yes, but how many microseconds are in a microscope?

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 07:26 · Score: 0

Did the summary explain to us what a microsecond is?
Well, slashdot readers would probably think that a kilosecond is 1024 seconds!
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 07:27 · Score: 0

You never know, what crazy Imperial units those Americans may use. Maybe they're measuring time in shnirkels and yougts.
Re:Know your reader by cababunga · 2011-03-16 07:29 · Score: 1

You should feel lucky they couldn't compare microsecond to human hair or Library of Congress, or something.
Re:Know your reader by chispito · 2011-03-16 07:47 · Score: 1

If the Système international had a swimsuit edition there'd be much more interest in science. Among males, anyway. But hey, I'd go for equal time for guys in Speedos if it'll bring more females into science.
...which would indirectly make science a little more appealing to men as well.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 08:52 · Score: 0

nm is larger than a um.
No, it's not.
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 08:56 · Score: 0

It's down the 'e' - it makes people think of confusing equations from physics and the like.
If you said 5.0x10-6 they might find it less scary? That is assuming /. allows superscript which apparently it doesn't :/
Re:Know your reader by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2011-03-16 09:01 · Score: 1

Sure you do - unless you're just really forgetful. We haven't changed them at all in the past zillion years (which is more than you can say for your metre).
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 14:32 · Score: 0

The problem humans have, in general, is understanding large numbers. The inverse is also true, humans have, in general, a difficult time understanding small numbers. Comprehending that 1.3 million earths fit in the sun is really mind-blowing (and the sun, itself, is incredibly small compared to some stars). But so is understanding a particle is one billion times smaller than a millimeter.
It's enough for most of us to abstract that out. There is one AU of distance between the Earth and the Sun, [b]mm is larger than a nm is larger than a um[/b].
Assuming that you mean mu when you write u, then you have it wrong. A nanometre is 10-9 m, while a micrometre is 10-6 m.
You should have your SI licence revoked :-)
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 14:58 · Score: 0

Stupid Americans and their Imperial system...
Re:Know your reader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 15:52 · Score: 0

a nm is smaller than a um
Re:Know your reader by Mal-2 · 2011-03-17 02:51 · Score: 1

If guys in speedos would bring the next Alan Turing to science where it wouldn't have otherwise, it's a worthwhile price to pay -- so long as it doesn't drive off an equivalent number of other people (which it shouldn't). If it scares away the intolerant and homophobic, that might even be a side benefit. Also, it's not possible to blackmail someone for being gay (and make them into a security risk) if they know that NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Re:Know your reader by Machtyn · 2011-03-17 08:36 · Score: 1

haha! good, easy catch. I was typing too fast, apparently.

Damn "fair and balannced" journalists. by rtfa-troll · 2011-03-16 04:34 · Score: 1

May have? Every time you move an apple from one side of the room to the other it'll shift the axis. Something like this has done it for sure. The only question is: how much? This is a perfect example of journalists needing to have two viewpoints and just not understanding which are the possible differences. Anybody who thinks there are two (rather than one or many) possible right answers is in need of either and anti-lobotomy or a brain transplant....

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();

Re:Damn "fair and balannced" journalists. by Quirkz · 2011-03-16 04:49 · Score: 1

Or they're solving a quadratic equation?

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:Damn "fair and balannced" journalists. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:12 · Score: 1

Though causality would imply that you are correct, modern quantum mechanics shows that you may or may not be right.
Re:Damn "fair and balannced" journalists. by nowen2dot · 2011-03-16 05:41 · Score: 1

Does the axis shift if it can't be measured? We can know fair or balanced, but not both. :)
Just open the box and see if the cat's alive already!

--
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx
Re:Damn "fair and balannced" journalists. by rtfa-troll · 2011-03-16 08:01 · Score: 1

Well, quantum mechanics says we can't be sure what has happened exactly or more importantly will happen. However, we can clearly exclude some things which will not happen (e.g. if we have a waveguide with a single wavelength width, the particle will not be in the middle; almost anywhere else, but not exactly in the middle (see the second of the images on this page; e.g. the electron in a semiconductor will not have an energy in the bandgap). In this case, conservation of angular momentum will apply, so solutions in which Japan moved and the world did not are ruled out. A large number of people observed that Japan moved, and so the rest of the world must have moved proportionally.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Damn "fair and balannced" journalists. by rtfa-troll · 2011-03-16 08:03 · Score: 1

Does the axis shift if it can't be measured?
That depends on whether we're trying to prove that our policies are "stable and determined" or "flexible and intelligent" today. It's all a matter of communication priorities you see.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();

Will this speed up global warming? by DigiTechGuy · 2011-03-16 04:35 · Score: 1

Because it's been a long winter and I'm ready for warmer weather.

Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microsecond by OzTech · 2011-03-16 04:37 · Score: 0

The world really has gone to hell in a hand-basket when a news site that promotes itself as being "for nerds" needs to tell readers what a micro-second is.

Does anyone proof read or edit this "news for nerds" before it is posted?

Just when you think you're having a good day... by Drakkenmensch · 2011-03-16 04:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Shift happens.

Re:Just when you think you're having a good day... by tibit · 2011-03-16 05:11 · Score: 2

We got shifted by our own planet. Go figure.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Just when you think you're having a good day... by Drakkenmensch · 2011-03-16 05:19 · Score: 2

It just put its foot up our axis.
Re:Just when you think you're having a good day... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:52 · Score: 1

Shift happens. Your quip about the earthquake is groundbreaking.
Re:Just when you think you're having a good day... by Drakkenmensch · 2011-03-16 06:00 · Score: 2

Didn't think it would be earth shattering, but apparently it moved some people.
Re:Just when you think you're having a good day... by petteyg359 · 2011-03-16 09:12 · Score: 1

It kicked itself in the ball.
Re:Just when you think you're having a good day... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 03:12 · Score: 0

Something 1.8 units long was shoved into our annus.

Shifting the axis? by Superdarion · 2011-03-16 04:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Everytime I heard that the Earth's axis had been changed during the Chile earthquake, I figured it was the rotation axis. I thought it was a little far-fetched, but I wasn't one to argue with the data. However, it is NOT the rotational axis that was shifted and this article finally clarifies that. I read many others before (probably regurgitations of the real scientific paper) and they never said that.

Apparently, the axis that shifted is that of mass, called the Figure Axis, meaning the axis of symmetry in the Earth's mass distribution. We're still rotating in the same direction (defined by an axis which is not the Figure one), though.

Re:Shifting the axis? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:09 · Score: 0

It's like what happens when a figure skater moves their arms closer to their body. Their mass has shifted and they don't wobble but they do spin faster.
Re:Shifting the axis? by plover · 2011-03-16 05:47 · Score: 1

It's like what happens when a figure skater moves their arms closer to their body. Their mass has shifted and they don't wobble but they do spin faster.
Since the earth didn't actually gain any new mass, I assume it had been slowing down as subduction shifted the crust in the build-up to the quake. Correct? Or did the shape of the globe change such that the north and south poles are now a tiny bit further apart, while the circumference at the equator shrank?

--
John
Re:Shifting the axis? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 22:34 · Score: 0

Figure skater's angular velocity increases when his/her moment of inertia decreases. The moment is proportional to the sum of m * r^2. Arms are relatively heavy, so bringing the arms in has a large effect on angular velocity.
However, in the case of the earthquake this is really a non-story, since we already knew that seismic activity can involve plates moving up and down, and we know that the plates have fairly large mass. Therefore, any non-vertical-zero-sum seismic activity will produce a non-zero change in the Earth's moment of inertia, which in turn will affect the length of the day.
1.8e-6/1440 = 1.25e9. In other words, some tiny fraction of the Earth's mass moved a tiny fraction of the Earth's radius. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Doom, doom, DOOOOOOOM! by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-03-16 04:40 · Score: 2

Eh, it's just God setting us up for 2012. Just needed to tweek the axis a bit before he could start destroying us all. It's like tuning a set of rabbit ears on an old television.

Re:Doom, doom, DOOOOOOOM! by cpu6502 · 2011-03-16 05:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

>>>It's like tuning a set of rabbit ears on an old television.
Old??? Hey! Some of us still use "rabbit ears" aka antennas, you insensitive clod!

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Doom, doom, DOOOOOOOM! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:43 · Score: 0

Isaiah 24:19-20
The earth is violently broken,
The earth is split open,
The earth is shaken exceedingly.
The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard,
And shall totter like a hut;
Re:Doom, doom, DOOOOOOOM! by antdude · 2011-03-16 07:16 · Score: 1

Ditto. I use OTA for my DTV feeds since I am under 20 miles from the transmitters. :)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Doom, doom, DOOOOOOOM! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 11:19 · Score: 0

IM SORRY to say but the world ISNT EFFING ENDING. SO PLEASE JUST GET OVER THAT... why is it that people are so oblivious to life?
This shit happens all the time around the world. but perople are/where blind to seeing it, and now with thew whole fuss bout 2012 people are just seeing it more often. Its like youse have been brainwashed into the whole scham...
AND as far as im concerned.. EFFING YES to the fact that they have wiped out some of the EFFING ASIN population. Because those little arse holes are trying to take pover the world and we all know it. pretending to be all friendly and move into your countries and show you all this fancy shit that THAY are making and we are oblivous to that to. They will take over they will rule and we are doing nothing bout it so something had to/... The world is so over populated itself anyways, and we are destorying the planet but the world isnt going to end because of it. we will all die off eventually but not in 2012.. prob not for another hundred thousand years.. simple as that.
Re:Doom, doom, DOOOOOOOM! by Macrat · 2011-03-16 11:54 · Score: 1

Old??? Hey! Some of us still use "rabbit ears" aka antennas, you insensitive clod!
Then I guess you don't live in the US as rabbit ears were for the old lower analog frequencies which have been phased out. The digital frequencies use the UHF band requiring the loop antennas.

rounding error by Necroloth · 2011-03-16 04:41 · Score: 1

1.8 microseconds....give or take a second

Re:rounding error by ArundelCastle · 2011-03-16 05:31 · Score: 1

You'd have to be on crack to make that kind of mistake.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by JustOK · 2011-03-16 04:43 · Score: 0

they didn't have enough time, days are shorter now, ya know.

--
rewriting history since 2109

Could Japan Future Earthquakes (+1, Helpful) by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:45 · Score: 0

split the Earth into separate pieces?

I can wait for the movie.

Yours In Novosibirsk,
Philboyd Studge

It evens out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:46 · Score: 0

Surely this counteracts the rotational speed drop and wobble caused by all the fat-asses in the US, right? I mean, talk about shifting masses....

This is good by countertrolling · 2011-03-16 04:47 · Score: 1

A bunch more like this, and we can get rid of the leap year..

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:This is good by pauljlucas · 2011-03-16 08:02 · Score: 1

A bunch more like this, and we can get rid of the leap year.

The leap year is to correct for the Earth's not revolving around the Sun in an even number of days. It has nothing to do with compensating for the Earth's rotation. The leap second, however, is used to compensate for the Earth's not rotating exactly 360 degrees in one "day."

--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Re:This is good by countertrolling · 2011-03-16 08:08 · Score: 1

My bad. It should be reversed. Speeding up the rotation a little can make the year exactly 366 days every year, instead of the 365.25 we have now.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:This is good by pauljlucas · 2011-03-16 08:27 · Score: 1

Again, the rotation rate of the Earth has nothing to do with how long the year is. The Earth's rotation rate could go to zero and it would still take the same 365.25 "days" to go around the sun.

--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Re:This is good by AvitarX · 2011-03-16 12:41 · Score: 1

If tge earth stopped rotating, a day would be infinity years long in my oppinion.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:This is good by pauljlucas · 2011-03-16 12:47 · Score: 1

True, but that's why I put "days" in quotes. By "day" I still mean a 24-hour period which is has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation.

--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:48 · Score: 0

I guess you'll have to switch to the news site "for smug elitists" instead.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by wbav · 2011-03-16 04:49 · Score: 0

But your life expectancy just went up.

So you have more days to complete everything. Remember, you can sleep when you're dead.

--

=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.

So...... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 04:51 · Score: 0

Maybe with enough of these, we can get rid of leap year?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-03-16 04:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Now at the 3.8us increase after 2004 and 2011 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:02 · Score: 0

Sped up in 2004 as well.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041230/full/news041229-6.html

GPS affected? by skylerweaver · 2011-03-16 05:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Many of the comments on here are "1.8 microseconds, oh no I get less sleep! What a stupid finding."

But seriously, does this have an effect on GPS? GPS satellites need to be corrected for relativistic effects that cause their clocks to tick 38 microseconds/day different than the ground; which would cause error to accumulate at 10km/day. Does 1.8 microsecond difference in our day cause error to accumulate in GPS at the rate of 0.5km/day if not fixed?

Re:GPS affected? by tibit · 2011-03-16 05:18 · Score: 1

You're certainly right to an extent. What you imply is a special event is in fact the daily bread and butter of keeping up a positioning system satellite constellation. The GPS system's frame of reference is being constantly kept in sync with Earth's rotation. After all, the satellites are simply orbiting the Earth in some arbitrary orbits, and the ground stations constantly monitor their orbits. The orbital data -- the ephemerides -- are broadcast to GPS receivers. The net effect of changing Earth's rotational speed or axis or whatever is simply a change in ephemerides -- they are Earth-relative, not Sun-relative. Any ephemeride updates are automatic, and -- if needed -- would have already happened.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:GPS affected? by DerekLyons · 2011-03-16 06:42 · Score: 2

But seriously, does this have an effect on GPS? [...] Does 1.8 microsecond difference in our day cause error to accumulate in GPS at the rate of 0.5km/day if not fixed?
A very small and temporary one. When effects like this are discovered, the ground stations uplink corrections to the birds which then downlink them to your GPSr.

Re:physics explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:07 · Score: 0

Yes, Conservation of Angular Momentum. What a shame you had to explain it!

It is embarrassing how few people on this site understand basic high school science.

Effect on GPS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:08 · Score: 1

I wonder if anyone has taken into account this change in the length of the day on GPS position data. It seems on the face of it, that the GPS satellites that are in geo-synchronous orbit would need to have their orbits adjusted to compensate. Otherwise, position data will slowly drift. Anyone have any information (or expertise) regarding this?

Re:Effect on GPS by skylerweaver · 2011-03-16 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

BTW: GPS satellites are NOT in geo-synchronous orbit.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by gstoddart · 2011-03-16 05:11 · Score: 1, Funny

Remember, you can sleep when you're dead.

That's not 'sleeping', that's 'dead'.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

This opens up possibilities by JTsyo · 2011-03-16 05:12 · Score: 1

We need to fund research on how we can use this mechanism to create the 25hr day so I can get an extra hour (preferably for sleep) each day.

Re:This opens up possibilities by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:22 · Score: 0

Move to Mars. It's not an hour longer, but close enough.
Re:This opens up possibilities by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 09:19 · Score: 0

Shoot, it doesn't have to be that hard to make a 25 hour day. You can do it right now, but the catch is you have to use a 57.6 minute hour.

In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by Idarubicin · 2011-03-16 05:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Angular momentum conserved!

Newton still right!

Basic principles of mechanics remain sound!

Film at eleven.

The speed of the Earth's rotation changes every time I ride an elevator, too. (Please resist the temptation to make a fat joke here; it's too obvious to be worth the trouble.) On a more impressive scale, there's a significant and variable amount of angular momentum stored in the atmosphere. Changes in major air currents year over year (things like El Nino, for instance) can change the length of the day by close to a millisecond: hundreds of times more than this little earthquake.

--
~Idarubicin

Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:14 · Score: 0

Except nobody measured anything to confirm the basic principles of mechanics, they made calculations based on those principles...
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by arth1 · 2011-03-16 07:21 · Score: 1

The speed of the Earth's rotation changes every time I ride an elevator, too.
That depends on the type of elevator.
If it's counterweighted, not so much, and possibly not at all if it's balanced for the payload of one passenger weighing the same as you.
If it's a telescoping or wall-riding type, far more, because then the mass of the elevator itself also counts.
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 07:23 · Score: 0

(Please resist the temptation to make a fat joke here; it's too obvious to be worth the trouble.)
The speed of the Earth's rotation changes every time your mom gets out of bed!
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by dgriff · 2011-03-16 08:37 · Score: 1

Changes in major air currents year over year (things like El Nino, for instance) can change the length of the day by close to a millisecond: hundreds of times more than this little earthquake.
Or when a couple of little buildings get knocked over by planes.
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 08:45 · Score: 0

Seriously? I would like to see a source for that.
Sounds like an interesting read.
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by feufeu · 2011-03-16 10:09 · Score: 2

You're aware that lots of elevators have counterweights that go down while you go up, are you ?
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by youn · 2011-03-16 14:38 · Score: 2

Not sure by what amount, but I believe it also changes when some people fart too ;)

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by nahdude812 · 2011-03-17 01:21 · Score: 1

The counterweights exactly equal the mass of the elevator plus whatever passengers are on board? Must play hell with the system when people take the elevator up but take the stairs down.
=)

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by feufeu · 2011-03-17 01:49 · Score: 1

What stairs ?!?
Re:In the news: Angular momentum conserved! by AJNeufeld · 2011-03-22 02:54 · Score: 1

Let's simplify this. Person takes elevator to top floor, then elevator returns to starting floor. No need to worry about counter weights. There has been a net change in the height distribution of mass, which will have caused a change rotation. Vehicles that accelerate (including deceleration and mere changes in direction) on a road will have an effect as well. Add driving to a different elevation for greater effect. Pumping oil out of the ground should also have an effect, as will other types of mining.

Didn't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:14 · Score: 0

This news came out like the day of the earthquake or maybe the day after.

Oh right, this is Slashdot where they get news from another site that got their news from some other site.

Re:physics explanation by tophermeyer · 2011-03-16 05:15 · Score: 1

The older I get and the more I learn, the more I appreciate straightforward explanations of things in laymans terms.

My noggin only has so much storage. Having to remember the academically approved (sometimes obscure) technical terms for every phenomena in physics is a burden.

It's the beginning.... by GnomieHomie · 2011-03-16 05:15 · Score: 1

Just the start of 12/21/2012....DUN DUN DUN

Change of Mass? by BradleyUffner · 2011-03-16 05:16 · Score: 1

How did an earthquake change the mass of the earth? I didn't think it was strong enough to eject debris in to space.
Changing the density, shape, or distribution of mass of the earth I can understand, but as far as I know all the mass is still here.

Re:Change of Mass? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:24 · Score: 0

It didn't. It seems you have no clue what you are talking about.
Re:Change of Mass? by theBully · 2011-03-16 05:39 · Score: 0

How did an earthquake change the mass of the earth?
The article talks about "distribution of mass". Of what I can tell there was no mention of the mass itself to have changed.
Re:Change of Mass? by icebraining · 2011-03-16 05:45 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Change of Mass? by BradleyUffner · 2011-03-16 07:44 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum
I'm well aware of that, but that isn't what I'm talking about at all.
If I go ice skating and start spinning, when I pull my arms in and spin faster i DID NOT change my mass, I redistributed it. I still weigh the exact same amount as did before the maneuver.
Unless the earthquake managed to throw stuff in to space the mass of the planet did not change (not accounting for chemical changed caused by things burning, etc...)
Re:Change of Mass? by _0xd0ad · 2011-03-16 08:07 · Score: 1

If I go ice skating and start spinning, when I pull my arms in and spin faster i DID NOT change my mass, I redistributed it. I still weigh the exact same amount as did before the maneuver.
So you obviously understand how earthquakes increase the speed of the earth's rotation without changing its mass...
Re:Change of Mass? by BradleyUffner · 2011-03-16 09:05 · Score: 1

If I go ice skating and start spinning, when I pull my arms in and spin faster i DID NOT change my mass, I redistributed it. I still weigh the exact same amount as did before the maneuver.
So you obviously understand how earthquakes increase the speed of the earth's rotation without changing its mass...
Yes... but again, it said that the earthquake changed the mass of the earth. That's what I'm asking about, how could it CHANGE the MASS. We are apparently talking about very different things.
Re:Change of Mass? by _0xd0ad · 2011-03-16 09:54 · Score: 1

Yes... but again, it said that the earthquake changed the mass of the earth.
I think you'd better read it again.

Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has determined that by changing the distribution of the Earth's mass, the earthquake that devastated Japan last Friday should have sped up the Earth's rotation
Re:Change of Mass? by BradleyUffner · 2011-03-16 10:18 · Score: 1

I think you'd better read it again.

Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has determined that by changing the distribution of the Earth's mass, the earthquake that devastated Japan last Friday should have sped up the Earth's rotation
Damn... I don't know how I managed to misread that. Thanks for the correction.
Re:Change of Mass? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 02:48 · Score: 0

Damn... I don't know how I managed to misread that. Thanks for the correction.
Dude, you're not supposed to admit your mistakes on Slashdot. You're supposed to take the unity100 route and accuse all replies of not understanding what you are saying and repeating your question with more and more caps, vulgarities, and ad hominem attacks until the thread is 27 layers deep and your karma has cratered greater than the Chicxulub.

NEO and asteroids by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:16 · Score: 0

Have the new orbit been taken into account when calculating asteroid hit probabilities?

Nice to refocus on a longer term view but... by Fallen+Andy · 2011-03-16 05:17 · Score: 1

This englishman is feeling horribly sad about our cousins over there in Japan

If you live on a mostly island nation, there is nowhere to run , nowhere to hide

Personally, as an atheist, i'm tempted to pray for my (potentially future) friends over there

Different cultures, they don't matter...

Even now in the 21st century on earth we can have our "chestnuts" rattled quite easily

5.2,5.3 richter here in athens feels like nothing at all to worry about....

and btw, don't forget our new zealand friends who are facing even more aftershocks...

Andy

and you are not full time = no health insurance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 05:29 · Score: 0

and you are not full time = no health insurance

Re:and you are not full time = no health insurance by Albert+Sandberg · 2011-03-16 09:05 · Score: 1

I live in sweden, I don't have to care about stuff like that.
Re:and you are not full time = no health insurance by aliquis · 2011-03-16 10:56 · Score: 1

Only because it's already considering "full time work" actually managing through the damn winter in Sweden ;)

Re:physics explanation by smelch · 2011-03-16 05:31 · Score: 0

You mean as you get older being a know-it-all jackass loses its appeal? I'm shocked!

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by ocdscouter · 2011-03-16 05:33 · Score: 1

Remember, you can sleep when you're dead.

That's not 'sleeping', that's 'dead'.

You mean Vinnie is actually going to send me sleep with the fishies?

Get rid of Leap Years! by smbell · 2011-03-16 05:35 · Score: 1

Yay, with this 'newfound' knowledge all we need to do is build some space elevators, push enough mass far enough out to slow the earths rotation to be evenly divided by it's rotation around the sun, and we can get rid of all the crazy leap day rules. Make computer time actually doable in a real way.

Re:physics explanation by DrMaurer · 2011-03-16 05:43 · Score: 1

I know people in my high school that never took a physics class. That was almost 20 years ago. I think it's probably worse now.

This is not something to be proud of.

--
Dan

Now that the day is shorter... by nowen2dot · 2011-03-16 05:54 · Score: 1

can we get rid of daylight savings time!??

http://www.standardtime.com/

--
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx

immeasurably small by at10u8 · 2011-03-16 06:02 · Score: 1

Look at the amount that the pole moves and the length of day changes annually. The normal variations are 1000 times greater than anything the earthquake has caused. See the IERS saying "hardly discernible" because a large snowstorm can cause a greater change.

Lake Victoria by mangu · 2011-03-16 06:05 · Score: 1

The largest hydroelectric power plant reservoir in the world is actually a natural lake, lake Victoria in Uganda. This lake serves the reservoir for the Nalubaale (formerly Owens Falls) dam.

The large total volume of water and the fact that it's located at the equator makes it the reservoir with most influence on the earth's rotation rate.

So can we get rid of leap seconds? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:08 · Score: 0

Oh, wait, they already started that vote 6 years ago.

What's a second? by mangu · 2011-03-16 06:08 · Score: 1

1.8 microseconds (1.8 millionths of a second)

Second? I don't care for a second, the second is the first loser!

What I want to know is who is on first.

Ah hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:12 · Score: 0

I wondered why I was a little more tired than normal.

a+b+c=? by ashvagan · 2011-03-16 06:18 · Score: 1

Indeed, it's a very small shift, but looking at the past 30 odd years and the calamities and "jitters" earth has faced, don't you think it's adding up to something significant? I really believe that the number of natural disasters will increase in the future, since we have royally screwed up things under the sea (oil), above the clouds (ozone) and everything in between.

Easily corrected by return+42 · 2011-03-16 06:22 · Score: 1

We just have everyone do this: http://xkcd.com/162/

Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 06:25 · Score: 0

This was pointed out Friday or Saturday all over the internet and it was still accepted as a story on Slashdot on Wednesday of the next week? Come on...

hmm second shift by josepha48 · 2011-03-16 06:43 · Score: 1

This is the second KNOWN possible shift. The first was the one off of Indonesia that was a 9.1 (about). So I wonder, does this mean that a quake of magnitude over 9 will cause a shift in the earths rotation. I wonder if the meteor that hit the earth that 'killed the dinosaurs' caused such a shift or larger which resulted in the climate change that changed this world forever.

--

Only 'flamers' flame!

Great by revlayle · 2011-03-16 07:20 · Score: 1

Now my iPod *really* won't wake me up in time!

Re:physics explanation by _0xd0ad · 2011-03-16 08:03 · Score: 1

Yep, earthquakes always do this. It's only the really big ones that affect it enough for us to bother talking about, though.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by gstoddart · 2011-03-16 08:12 · Score: 1

You mean Vinnie is actually going to send me sleep with the fishies?

Nope, that's a euphemism.

Which, in this case "That's not 'sleeping', that's 'dead'." still applies. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Nope, your apple isn't going to do it by ackthpt · 2011-03-16 08:26 · Score: 1

Simple equal and opposing forces.

Now, on the other hand, if you lay down on the floor from a standing position, you have had an impact on speeding up the rotation of the Earth.

Ultimately the net effect of all of us moving ourselves (and apples) around all day has little cumulative effect. However, if you engage in the fun activity of burning petrol in your automobile, which was once deep in the ground, you have actually contributed to change in the Earth's rotation. Also, if you climb a hill, pick up a hand full of rocks and move then down the hill, you have also had an effect. I'd go so far as to say the erosion of mountains, if not offset by new mountains rising up, is having a rather large effect and has been going on for quite a long time.

This fits neatly into my theory that the Earth once spun slower and has since sped up, thus casting the last living dinosaurs into space.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Fruit flies like a banana by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 08:28 · Score: 0

According to this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration, the length of a day increases by about 2 milliseconds every one hundred years, meaning the earthquake set us back about a month.

Re:Good God, Slashdot needs to explain a microseco by JustOK · 2011-03-16 08:48 · Score: 1

He's not dead, he's just pining for the Chryslers.

--
rewriting history since 2109

Re:physics explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 08:54 · Score: 0

Rock is being drawn inward from the rise of large amounts of magma coming to the surface. I call it the Lava Lamp effect.

Will this affect GPS? by mmell · 2011-03-16 08:58 · Score: 1

Just askin'.

[geologist rolls eyes] This is entirely normal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 09:27 · Score: 0

Of course it did. Any significant change in the position of mass on the Earth has an effect, analogous to the effect when a figure skater changes the position of their arms while spinning. Move a large area (~400km x 100km) of Japan by ~2m, and if you have very sensitive instruments, you can detect the difference it makes to the Earth's rotation. There are also detectable effects from hurricanes, the seasonal changes in weather, air masses, currents, temperature, volcanic eruptions, etc. Heck, the rotational axis changes it's position continuously every single day! This is basic physics, albeit quite refined when you can instrumentally detect changes in the position of the Earth's axis on the order of mere centimetres. While that detection feat is impressive, it doesn't mean it's anything out of the ordinary, and it's something that has been actively measured at that scale for decades now.

The mundane nature of this change hasn't apparently stopped some people in the fringe media from thinking it's the end of the world or something. In reality, while it has scientific interest, it doesn't have much everyday practical effect because it's so incredibly small. You may as well also worry about the fact that Santa Claus will have to move the candy-striped North Pole at his workshop a few centimetres from time-to-time to keep it in the right position.

Happens All the time. by dadelbunts · 2011-03-16 09:58 · Score: 1

I remember this same thing happening with the indian quake not long ago. Shift Happens.

Irrelevant. by pclminion · 2011-03-16 10:55 · Score: 1

The length of the day already slows by about 15 microseconds per year due to tidal friction. To equal that effect, we'd need about 8 quakes of this size every year.

Re:physics explanation by recharged95 · 2011-03-16 11:36 · Score: 1

"The radius of the planet shrinks"

But wouldn't it grow back to the original size since there's land being created... like in Hawaii or by some volcano? Therefore the speed should return back to normal.

Change is normal I say.

Better than CNN by JakartaDean · 2011-03-16 12:36 · Score: 1

I've been watching CNN International for the last few days, tracking the probably meltdowns. For several days, on the ticker at the bottom of the screen, they've been informing me that the earth's axis tilted by 10cm as a result of the quake. Every time I see it I want to slap someone and ask pointedly how big an angle 10cm is.

Thanks for letting me vent.

--
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)

Re:physics explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 13:55 · Score: 0

I stopped believing your credibility when you misspelled "excellent".

Easier by Mateorabi · 2011-03-16 15:46 · Score: 1

It's just easier to keep a recording of them on your iPhone, ready to play at the push of a button. Like my friend does whenever I tell a joke.

--
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

Re:Easier by Kilrah_il · 2011-03-17 00:03 · Score: 1

And yet you persist.

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.

Slashdot is dumbing down by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 17:50 · Score: 0

If they aren't explaining who John Carmack is, they are explaining what the Turing Award is.

If they aren't explaining what the Turing Award is, they're explaining what a microsecond is.

If they aren't explaining what a microsecond is...

Remember to set your clocks forward by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-16 19:45 · Score: 0

Every 30 million years or so you'll have to set your clocks forward an additional minute.

Oh bother.

I just moved the Earth's rotation axis ... by RockDoctor · 2011-03-16 23:02 · Score: 1

By putting my tea cup down.

No, seriously. I did.

Any movement of mass on (or in) the Earth results in a change in the moment of inertia, and therefore in the location of the Earth's rotation axis and rotation rate.

This is not news, and hasn't been for decades. I recall in the 1970s seeing work that demonstrated a shift of the rotation pole consequent on (IIRC) the 1964 Alaska earthquake.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 02:25 · Score: 0

I recall reading somewhere that whenever a space shuttle or a space rocket uses the earth gravitational well for propulsion, that it slows down the earth a little bit.
Now I am reading that earthquake can speed it up on demand.
It's like the earth is self-balancing from the man-made slowdowns. That's quite an odd coincidence.

AC

Slashdot Mirror

Japan Earthquake May Have Shifted Earth's Axis

253 comments