Saturday, May 01, 2010

A(nother) geek's interpretation of the "boobquakes"

Over at Ars Technica, they have an analysis of one woman's attempt to test the validity of a Muslim edict about women's modesty - or lack thereof.
Assumption #1: The earthquake arbiter has good aim. What good would an earthquake punishing us for indecency be if it couldn't a) be felt in a populated area, and b) kill someone? Therefore, we only count earthquakes of a magnitude of 5 or more that have a death toll of at least 1 person. If looks can kill, then they should.

Cutting to the chase:
It turned out that there were four earthquakes with a 5.0 or greater magnitude on Monday, which is an average number, and none of them were lethal. That is to say, the Boobquake claimed no lives. And since the pure chance of a deadly earthquake was low anyway, this style of analysis casts the effects of cleavage, exposed ankles, and elaborately coiffed hair on earthquakes as inconclusive at best. By these standards, the Boobquake was a disappointing scientific, as well as geological, failure.
[emphases added]

No comments: