Aye, however I believe (I will admit, I could be wrong!) that equation finds the moment magnitude of a fault that has actually ruptured/already had an earthquake, and you can use this to find the MW of an earthqauke.
I am digging through my notes at the moment but also did some random searching on the web. Haven't found anything definitive at the moment, but here is some linkage:
Regarding the Seattle Fault Zone and calculating surface area to find possible magnitude Canadian Geological Survey FAQ site Scroll down and read: Is there a maximum magnitude for an earthquake? Though theoretically there is no mathematical limit with the magnitude calculation, physically there is a limit. The magnitude is connected to the surface area of the blocks of rock which rub and in doing so give rise to seismic waves. Since the tectonic plates have finite dimensions, the magnitude must therefore also reach a maximum. It is believed that the greatest earthquakes can reach magnitude 9.5, which corresponds to the magnitude of the Chilean earthquake described above.
Most things I am finding via google, deal with calculating the actual Mw of an earthquake based on the surface area of a fault rupture. Perhaps I could be wrong though?
But generally, geologists can find out the possible magnitude earthquake a fault can produce by looking at the total surface area of the fault, which is length x depth of the fault. The San Andreas can produce something in the area of a magnitude 8 while the area off the coast of Seattle can produce upwards of a 9.2 (which releases about 30 times more energy than an 8.0) since it is in a subduction zone and the surface area of the fault is much greater than that of the San Andreas. I don't know the exact forumla that they use to calculate this though, sorry.
In regards to determining when a fault last ruptured, you dig a trench across the fault and look at the layers of sediment across it. The layers near the surface will most likely be even, but as you go farther down, you'll notice layers are offset from each other. To determine a date, you look at the most recent offset layer and use carbon dating (providing you can find some decent material) and this will give you an approximate date.
It's obvious that God just got bored and went to the "disasters" menu. Granted, his menu seems to have a lot of cooler options than what is available to us in SimCity, but we'll get there one day.
The Richter Scale isn't really used anymore. It's originaly purpose was to measure vertical ground motion and it loses its accuracy above something like an 8.5
What is used now is something called the Moment Magnitude Scale that actually computes the amount of energy released in an earthquake. It is fairly similiar to the Richter Scale when you compare magnitudes of earthquakes. Obligatory linkage. One thing to note though is that each step up in the MMS is an increase of 30 the amount of energy an earthquake releases. So a 6.0 releases 30 times more energy than a 5.0
Basically what this comes down to is that people will think "Oh good! We had a 6.0 on the San Andreas Fault! So that should release some energy built up!" The SAF is capable of producing about an 8.0 here in Southern California, so it would take 900 6.0's to equal the energy of an 8.0:)
It seems like if you live in a fairly seismically active area, that people are pretty keen on the webpages. The USGS has a site showing earthquakes in California, located here. We had a decent sized earthquake here a few weeks ago in Big Bear at about 4:20 in the morning. It woke me up at the end and I couldn't be sure if there was an earthquake or not. So I got up, turned on the computer and sure enough, the site showed the earthquake immediately.
One of the cool things about that site is the fact that you can report what you felt in your area and they create a shake map based on the reports. Within 10 minutes there were already about 15,000 reports that people sent in and that number climbed quite a bit as the morning went on.
Part of my reason for logging onto the site after an earthquake is curiosity. I want to know where it was centered and how big it was. I think that has to do with a lot of other people's reasons for logging on as well.
Not to troll, but if you're losing money because of these pirates, wouldn't it be easier to go out and get a real job where you are guaranteed to make money, rather then having people steal your music everytime you release it, or wasting massive amounts of cash on lawyers to help prosecute them?
Just think, if most artists today did this, then there'd be nothing left to pirate and we wouldn't be in this position.;)
Heh. What the hell is so wrong with building it in basic HTML? Using basic HTML and maybe even throw in a couple of CSS will make the website look nice. It's not even that hard.
Hell, it seems to me like you'd have to specifically *TRY* to build it so it is incompatible with other browsers. That is harder than just freaking following regular HTML rules. Granted, I'm not specifically saying you should make it compatible no matter what, but the fact that making it compatible is just so damn easy, well...
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't really see how javascript or even flash "enchances" the viewing experience over straight HTML and your bmps/gifs/pngs/jpegs.
If in fact it was the falling insulation, and if they had figured that out within a couple of days of the launch, they would have had a full two weeks even without rationing.
But that is also the fallacy of this whole "send another shuttle up" argument. If it was the insulation that caused the damage to the craft, then what are the chances that this next external tank strapped to Atlantis is going to have a problem? Now we are going to risk a total of 2 space shuttles at $2 billion USD a piece and a total of 9 astronauts.
If it is the external tank, they need to find out what is wrong and possibly build new ones to replace the current ones. This would take substantially longer than the week or so that Columbia may have had.
Well the odds you cite are right. There was an article on that recently that said the original odds were 1/400 that there would be a catastrophic failure of the shuttle, then it they gave a more "cautious" estimate of 1/250.
However, when you're dealing with real life, those odds really have no bearing because we are currently at 2/113. So technically a rough estimated odd of 1/50 is right unfortunately. (1/56.5 actually):-/
That's interesting news (and I don't doubt you, I just checked out your link). However, the original poster is technically right.
Columbia was built before we had the whole shuttle building technique down. It was actually the heaviest orbiter in the fleet and because of this, it could not carry a meaningful load to the ISS.
Perhaps there was another another planned refurbishment or that payload is just lighter than most ISS payloads?
You don't have to trade your iPod in in order to get a "windows" version. You just need to download the appropriate firmware, which basically formats the iPod.
Though it isn't quite free (About $80 USD at the moment), X-Plane does a fantastic job at modeling aerodynamics for aircraft, even letting you design your own aircraft and test them. It is primarily maintained by one person, however Piper Aircraft finds it so useful that they have models on their site that you can "fly" in X-Plane and the Carter Copter was designed and tested using X-Plane.
It seems like no one is taking into account the fact that the more X-Boxes that people buy, the more likely Microsoft will be able to turn a profit on them.
When Sony initially released the PS2 they were selling at a loss. However, as time went on and more PS2's were sold, the process was refined and the cost to make a PS2 became substantially cheaper. Now Sony is making a profit on every PS2 sold.
So you can buy an X-Box, but eventually Microsoft is going to start turning a profit on them because the means of production will become cheaper. The more X-Boxes they sell, the faster the price will come down.
And it's like that with many things. Look at computers and electronics. A new Athlon XP 2800 is about $410, but once they become more mainstream, the prices will start to fall quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Aye, however I believe (I will admit, I could be wrong!) that equation finds the moment magnitude of a fault that has actually ruptured/already had an earthquake, and you can use this to find the MW of an earthqauke.
I am digging through my notes at the moment but also did some random searching on the web. Haven't found anything definitive at the moment, but here is some linkage:
Regarding the Seattle Fault Zone and calculating surface area to find possible magnitude
Canadian Geological Survey FAQ site Scroll down and read:
Is there a maximum magnitude for an earthquake?
Though theoretically there is no mathematical limit with the magnitude calculation, physically there is a limit. The magnitude is connected to the surface area of the blocks of rock which rub and in doing so give rise to seismic waves. Since the tectonic plates have finite dimensions, the magnitude must therefore also reach a maximum. It is believed that the greatest earthquakes can reach magnitude 9.5, which corresponds to the magnitude of the Chilean earthquake described above.
Most things I am finding via google, deal with calculating the actual Mw of an earthquake based on the surface area of a fault rupture. Perhaps I could be wrong though?
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article yet
But generally, geologists can find out the possible magnitude earthquake a fault can produce by looking at the total surface area of the fault, which is length x depth of the fault. The San Andreas can produce something in the area of a magnitude 8 while the area off the coast of Seattle can produce upwards of a 9.2 (which releases about 30 times more energy than an 8.0) since it is in a subduction zone and the surface area of the fault is much greater than that of the San Andreas. I don't know the exact forumla that they use to calculate this though, sorry.
In regards to determining when a fault last ruptured, you dig a trench across the fault and look at the layers of sediment across it. The layers near the surface will most likely be even, but as you go farther down, you'll notice layers are offset from each other. To determine a date, you look at the most recent offset layer and use carbon dating (providing you can find some decent material) and this will give you an approximate date.
Exactly... remember the CD burners? :P
;)
Did this student have a Pentium 4? Because then he could transfer music faster... ah hem.
Make sure to multiply the damages x 2 in that case!
Buahaha! And all you people saying "Who the hell needs an Athlon XP 2800+???"
Nope! Ever played SimCity?
It's obvious that God just got bored and went to the "disasters" menu. Granted, his menu seems to have a lot of cooler options than what is available to us in SimCity, but we'll get there one day.
You're very right!
:-P
However, I am a geek. And a geologist.
Well technically true :)
:)
The Richter Scale isn't really used anymore. It's originaly purpose was to measure vertical ground motion and it loses its accuracy above something like an 8.5
What is used now is something called the Moment Magnitude Scale that actually computes the amount of energy released in an earthquake. It is fairly similiar to the Richter Scale when you compare magnitudes of earthquakes. Obligatory linkage. One thing to note though is that each step up in the MMS is an increase of 30 the amount of energy an earthquake releases. So a 6.0 releases 30 times more energy than a 5.0
Basically what this comes down to is that people will think "Oh good! We had a 6.0 on the San Andreas Fault! So that should release some energy built up!" The SAF is capable of producing about an 8.0 here in Southern California, so it would take 900 6.0's to equal the energy of an 8.0
It seems like if you live in a fairly seismically active area, that people are pretty keen on the webpages. The USGS has a site showing earthquakes in California, located here. We had a decent sized earthquake here a few weeks ago in Big Bear at about 4:20 in the morning. It woke me up at the end and I couldn't be sure if there was an earthquake or not. So I got up, turned on the computer and sure enough, the site showed the earthquake immediately.
One of the cool things about that site is the fact that you can report what you felt in your area and they create a shake map based on the reports. Within 10 minutes there were already about 15,000 reports that people sent in and that number climbed quite a bit as the morning went on.
Part of my reason for logging onto the site after an earthquake is curiosity. I want to know where it was centered and how big it was. I think that has to do with a lot of other people's reasons for logging on as well.
Well the technical definition of a moon is a natural satellite orbiting a planet. Otherwise Earth would technically have about 10,000 moons. :)
Err yeah. But BMW and Mercedes don't suck.* ;)
http://www.happynowhere.net/extras.html
Click on "Apple Switch Parody" to download. (40mb or so)
*of course this is all a matter of personal opinion. . .
Not to troll, but if you're losing money because of these pirates, wouldn't it be easier to go out and get a real job where you are guaranteed to make money, rather then having people steal your music everytime you release it, or wasting massive amounts of cash on lawyers to help prosecute them?
;)
Just think, if most artists today did this, then there'd be nothing left to pirate and we wouldn't be in this position.
Because we have a sense of humor?
Thanks.
Heh. What the hell is so wrong with building it in basic HTML? Using basic HTML and maybe even throw in a couple of CSS will make the website look nice. It's not even that hard.
Hell, it seems to me like you'd have to specifically *TRY* to build it so it is incompatible with other browsers. That is harder than just freaking following regular HTML rules. Granted, I'm not specifically saying you should make it compatible no matter what, but the fact that making it compatible is just so damn easy, well...
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't really see how javascript or even flash "enchances" the viewing experience over straight HTML and your bmps/gifs/pngs/jpegs.
If in fact it was the falling insulation, and if they had figured that out within a couple of days of the launch, they would have had a full two weeks even without rationing.
But that is also the fallacy of this whole "send another shuttle up" argument. If it was the insulation that caused the damage to the craft, then what are the chances that this next external tank strapped to Atlantis is going to have a problem? Now we are going to risk a total of 2 space shuttles at $2 billion USD a piece and a total of 9 astronauts.
If it is the external tank, they need to find out what is wrong and possibly build new ones to replace the current ones. This would take substantially longer than the week or so that Columbia may have had.
Well the odds you cite are right. There was an article on that recently that said the original odds were 1/400 that there would be a catastrophic failure of the shuttle, then it they gave a more "cautious" estimate of 1/250.
:-/
However, when you're dealing with real life, those odds really have no bearing because we are currently at 2/113. So technically a rough estimated odd of 1/50 is right unfortunately. (1/56.5 actually)
That's interesting news (and I don't doubt you, I just checked out your link). However, the original poster is technically right.
Columbia was built before we had the whole shuttle building technique down. It was actually the heaviest orbiter in the fleet and because of this, it could not carry a meaningful load to the ISS.
Perhaps there was another another planned refurbishment or that payload is just lighter than most ISS payloads?
Shuttle Columbia's Future Uncertain
Heh. What does harming humans have to do with the laws of thermodynamics?
Well if you're going to be that pushy about it, we're also a theocracy. :P
"One nation, under God..."
Well no. But they do ride their bicycles naked.
Which naturally means nude Segway riding. Hmm.
You don't have to trade your iPod in in order to get a "windows" version. You just need to download the appropriate firmware, which basically formats the iPod.
http://www.the-midfield.com/ipod.aspx
Other random links
ipodhacks.com
ipodlounge.com
We actually still have a complete 286 laying around in our garage. I haven't booted it up in years, so I'm interested if it would still work.
:-/
In fact, I think we still have an old XT sitting around and rotting as well.
I'm sure this is common for a lot of geeks. How do you get rid of this old hardware? You couldn't even give some of this stuff away if you tried.
Though it isn't quite free (About $80 USD at the moment), X-Plane does a fantastic job at modeling aerodynamics for aircraft, even letting you design your own aircraft and test them. It is primarily maintained by one person, however Piper Aircraft finds it so useful that they have models on their site that you can "fly" in X-Plane and the Carter Copter was designed and tested using X-Plane.
It seems like no one is taking into account the fact that the more X-Boxes that people buy, the more likely Microsoft will be able to turn a profit on them.
When Sony initially released the PS2 they were selling at a loss. However, as time went on and more PS2's were sold, the process was refined and the cost to make a PS2 became substantially cheaper. Now Sony is making a profit on every PS2 sold.
So you can buy an X-Box, but eventually Microsoft is going to start turning a profit on them because the means of production will become cheaper. The more X-Boxes they sell, the faster the price will come down.
And it's like that with many things. Look at computers and electronics. A new Athlon XP 2800 is about $410, but once they become more mainstream, the prices will start to fall quite a bit.
I think the joke is that men don't get pregnant. :)