Also, disclaimer: geology is very much Not My Thing and I'm probably talking out my ass here, but...
Wouldn't a series of small quakes make a huge one slightly less likely by finding a bunch of midpoints for things to settle at instead of just smashing everything all at once? I mean it just feels conceptually like the difference between falling off a six-story building, and falling through a series of architecturally implausible canopies and unreasonably sturdy clotheslines along the way.
edited 20th Sep '11 12:28:31 PM by Pykrete
Yes. small quakes relieve pressure.d This is why scientists arent insanely worried about the new madris fault in the short term. theres quakes daily. The only question is if enough stress is being bled off or not.
But even figuring that out isnt a fast process.
The thing is though. we need evidence of if that happened or not. problem is, the average person doesnt realize that we have nowhere near enough data to be sure of when one will occur. Or even anything past "reasonably confident one will occur eventually"
edited 20th Sep '11 12:28:32 PM by Midgetsnowman
On the other hand, you do sometimes get foreshocks before the main quake. I think it may depend on what type of plate boundary it is. I don't know, I'm not knowledgable about seismology.
The prosecutors apparently thought that they have sufficient evidence to require a process; now I suppose that we will just have to wait and see.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
I still see it pretty much as idiots who dont understand science trying to beat science to death for not being omniscient enough to save grandma.
How do you know that they are idiots?
How do you know that the prosecutors and the accusers are ignorant louts, instead of people who did their research and honestly believe that the scientists in question may have behaved improperly?*
How do you know that you are not, not to put too fine a point to it, insulting people who do not deserve it in the least? Have you studied, or even just read, the acts of the investigation, and do you have the required background in Law and in Geology? Or are you saying that some people who you don't know basically anything about are "idiots who do not understand science" because of the reason you attribute them for accusing some other people, even though you do not know the details of the accusation?
Look, sorry if I sounds overly defensive. But once in a while, these "whacky Italians do insane and stupid stuff" news come up on the international news, typically with utterly deranged misrepresentations of the situations — I still remember the whole "tight jeans mean it's not rape" thing, for example...*
I mean, come on — if you need to laugh at us, laugh at us for our horrible choice of Prime Minister. That was most definitely idiotic.
edited 21st Sep '11 7:22:38 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
I know a small amount about law, and a few college courses worth of science related info on general geology. I still side with the scientists specifically because the idea that you can accurately predict an earthquake warning sign is so absolutely Insane given current levels of knowledge in the field that the claim itself rings to me was "what?"
This isnt about making fun of italians, I frankly couldnt give a shit about them. This is about what reads to me as science being under attack from peiople who think earthquake prediction is as easy as the weather forecast.
edited 21st Sep '11 7:24:31 AM by Midgetsnowman
Well, if this is really the case, the judgment will be over really quickly. One of the very first things that judges do in these cases is name a few experts (and there are criteria for doing that, they cannot just name a random pundit) and ask them to go over the evidence and give them their opinions.
edited 21st Sep '11 7:28:33 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.And even weather forecasts are more "future weather best guesses if everything keeps moving like it is instead of going bugfuck like it is wont to do".
i. hear. a. sound.
which is still better than earthjquake forecasts. Best we can do with that is "Uh...San Francisco will see a devastating earthquake...sometime in the next 100 years..ish"
edited 21st Sep '11 7:35:33 AM by Midgetsnowman
"Maybe."
i. hear. a. sound.Kavorka Men, Magnificent Bastards, and corrupt politicians alike.
I'm still stuck back at the part where the Italian government is pretending to care about the public good.
I'm a skeptical squirrelChampion of evil??? Because it is actually quite cool name for a demonic knight IMO.
"Here to welcome our new golden-eyed overlords," said Addy promptly.Champion of hilarity when viewed from afar. But really, in the general sense "he's a champ" - an expression that other Tropers are perhaps unfamiliar with.
My ancestral homeland seems to be losing it.
I'm baaaaaaackHey, in ancient China they would behead astronomers who failed to predict an eclipse properly. These guys are getting off easy.
Bunga bunga bunga bunga bunga bunga
...And now I'm glad I don't live in Italy. Not as romantic as every cappicuino-slurping socialite makes it sound...
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio^Hey, Italy is the home of Ferrari, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Lamborghini, Pagani...
edited 15th Nov '11 6:00:53 PM by RocketDude
"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific MackerelBasically half the good foreign cars on Top Gear.
I'm baaaaaaackAnd the food's nice.
Besides, have you seen just how batshit insane romance novels can get? Link totally NSFW, by the way.
edited 17th Nov '11 6:18:17 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?Canola oil and wine are good for longevity.
I'm a skeptical squirrelThat's the most NSFW link I've seen on this wiki yet. I don;t think I want to find worse.
I'm baaaaaaack
Why does it matter whether they thought that they were completely safe?
People probably used the geologists' statements as one of the ways in which they estimated the risk, and their took the precautions that they deemed opportune. If these statements were incorrect, and if the geologists should have been capable of making better predictions in this particular case, then their negligence has indirectly caused the deaths of people. And that's what manslaughter is.
edited 20th Sep '11 12:14:25 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.