Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Fish Species Discovered 4.5 Miles Under the Ocean

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the how-does-it-taste dept.

Earth 96

eldavojohn writes "The University of Aberdeen's Oceanlab (a partner in the recent census of marine life) has discovered a new snailfish. That might not sound very exciting, unless you consider that its habitat is an impressive four and a half miles below the ocean's surface (video). If my calculations are correct, that's over ten and a half thousand PSI, or about seventy-three million Pascals. The videos and pictures are a couple years old, as the team has traveled around Japan, South America and New Zealand to ascertain the biodiversity of these depths. The group hopes to eventually bring specimens to the surface. It seems the deepest parts of the ocean, once thought to be devoid of life, are actually home to some organisms. As researchers build better technology for underwater exploration, tales of yore containing unimaginable monsters seem a little more realistic than before."

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About seventy-three million Pascals (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33912782)

Or over 3.6 trillion Cobols.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33912948)

Or half a Python?

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913224)

METRIC FTW

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913928)

Seriously, why not just say 73 MPa? Kind of negates one of the major reasons to use SI by leaving off the prefix.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916238)

A true geek would use MiPa (MibiPascals)

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916528)

If he was about units that are easy to understand, he would use Metric.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33922064)

I don't understand your comment. He did use a metric unit. Pascals are newtons per square meter. I also used a metric unit: megapascals. I think atmospheres would be the easiest to understand unit of pressure, but that is not a metric unit. Bars are metric and 1 bar is close to 1 atm. 1 atm = 1.01325 bars.

big deal (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913952)

that's only like 8 perls

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (4, Funny)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914138)

Or, as any seasoned coder would tell you, a single line of C.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914202)

4 characters in K.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33919550)

Or, as any seasoned coder would tell you, a single line of C.

C? APL or Perl maybe, but C is not really known for terseness...

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916204)

They went to some effort to convert the pressure to something large.

They could have said 10,587.7549 pounds per square inch and sounded American.

They could have said 73 atmospheres and sounded wimpy.

And I think if you do it in Cobols you have to divide pascals by the weight of Cobol programs when printed out on green bar in the Cobol probrams history to 1995. That's a measly .05 Cobols. Now that we have conflicting definition for a Cobol when used as a unit of pressure can we get an SI uint and call it Bocobol with Bibibocobols Chibibocobols and Mibibocobols?

Oh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_(unit) [wikipedia.org] care to covert it to dynes/sq cm?

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916416)

73 MPa is not 73 atmospheres, it is a bit more than 720 atm.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916556)

> They could have said 73 atmospheres and sounded wimpy.

Not wimpy, but wrong by exactly one order of magnitude.

Re:About seventy-three million Pascals (1)

Puppet Master (19479) | more than 3 years ago | (#33918170)

You sure it's not 12 parsecs?

Where the is water (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33912792)

there is life.

And there is a lot of water in the universe.

good reason to get rid of people (0, Troll)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33912866)

these, and many other species, will be gone in few years. we need to significantly reduce the worlds population, starting now.

That doesn't mean kill the already living, but restrict reproduction to no more than one child per couple, no exceptions. Perhaps even give a subsidy to those are willing to stay childfree.

Re:good reason to get rid of people (1)

JacTheSandAngel (1895980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33912966)

And just how do you propose that happen?

Peak biodiversity (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913130)

these, and many other species, will be gone in few years. we need to significantly reduce the worlds population, starting now.

If a high quantity of species is desirable (big if), selection pressure (human competition, for example) would be a Good Thing, as it would drive speciation. BTW, in which era would you place peak biodiversity? Was it really that nice back then?

Re:good reason to get rid of people (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914240)

Any specific reason why this has to be NOW, not 50 years ago, not 50 years in the future ? Are you selling a book, or buying too many of *those* books ?

Re:good reason to get rid of people (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914540)

Is that you James Lee? I thought the police shot you when you did that thing at the discovery channel.

Re:good reason to get rid of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33914548)

these, and many other species, will be gone in few years. we need to significantly reduce the worlds population, starting now.

That doesn't mean kill the already living, but restrict reproduction to no more than one child per couple, no exceptions. Perhaps even give a subsidy to those are willing to stay childfree.

I can tell you're willing to lead by example.

Immediately.

Right?

RIGHT?

No?

Fucking brain-dead hypocrite.

Re:good reason to get rid of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33914766)

Perhaps even give a subsidy to those are willing to stay childfree.

Nice try, but the government isn't going to give you money just because you're a virgin basement-dweller.

Re:good reason to get rid of people (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33919260)

It's not needed. Nearly all estimates predict human population will peak at about 9 billion sometime this century, then start declining. This is entirely due to education and a higher standard of living. With those, people naturally have less children.

Lowering population by a couple of billion will not necessarily preserve species. If there were only one billion people who consumed the amount the average American does now, we'd be in a worse position than we are now with 6 billion.

probably a fish researcher fake fish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33912888)

He made it up! Damn fish researcers always making stuff up just to make headlines. 20 years from now many will still be talking of this fake fish as if it were real. May the Greek God Neptune rain on his parade.

Re:probably a fish researcher fake fish (2, Funny)

alangerow (610060) | more than 3 years ago | (#33912946)

There's a Slashdot article! "Science debunked because Anonymous Coward on Slashdot says so!"

Re:probably a fish researcher fake fish (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913068)

May the Greek God Neptune rain on his parade.

Neptune was Roman. Poseidon is the Greek analogue. Besides which, Poseidon (or Neptune) have nothing to do with rain... that would be Zeus (or Jupiter).

Yes, yes, you were trying to make a joke... but please do be accurate lest Poseidon's horses carry you away (yes, the greek god of the sea was also the god of horses. Go figure.).

Re:probably a fish researcher fake fish (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913250)

I thought Poseidon was the manufacturer of nicely-made Swedish regulators.

Re:probably a fish researcher fake fish (1)

illumastorm (172101) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914114)

I thought Poseidon was the name of a cruise ship

Re:probably a fish researcher fake fish (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33918124)

I thought Poseidon was something bad guys put in James Bond's martini...

Units (2, Informative)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33912932)

That's about 715 atmospheres, in case anyone else is interested in remotely relatable units.

-Peter

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913048)

Thanks, given how many useless units we get here, it's ashame that the submitter didn't use the most useful, valid unit and instead listed all the others.

Re:Units (2, Informative)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913150)

Although it's an astonishing pressure, it's static, and equilibrated. That is, just as atmospheric pressure is balanced by the pressure in our bodies, and therefore individual cells and organs do not have to withstand much if any of a pressure differential, the same will be true of these creatures despite the massive depths. The creatures aren't pressure vessels: Bringing them to the surface creates a huge pressure differential, causing them to rupture.

Re:Units (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913788)

The creatures aren't pressure vessels: Bringing them to the surface creates a huge pressure differential, causing them to rupture.

No they won't! They'll grow to hundreds of times their original size, and then they'll start stomping all over Tokyo. Why, oh why did those scientists have to bring back a sample to the surface?

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33977914)

Even if they are relatively incompressible, bringing them to the surface would probably be very bad for them. The lipids involved in things like cell membranes, nerve coatings, etc., would behave very differently at changed pressure, i.e. the difference between an oily liquid and a hard wax.

Re:Units (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913298)

I get 721:

(4.5 miles * 5280 feet / mile ) / 33 feet per atm + 1 atm = 721 atm.

Eh, let's call it "more than 700" and be done with it.

Corrections to my math or methods are posted below:

Re:Units (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913444)

I didn't know we were showing our work [google.com] .

-Peter

Re:Units (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913654)

I would say that we're both right if we used totally different methods for getting approximately the same number.

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33914342)

no, your calculations are inaccurate, since you assumed the value of the constants.

Re:Units (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913482)

How dare you convert the scientific units of the article to a lowly everyday unit that results to a very low number! I'll stay with my astounding seventy-three million Pascals, thank you very much!

Re:Units (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33919996)

or 725 Bar in real units i think you mean there

Re:Units (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33932278)

Oh goody, let's have this conversation again.

Slashdot is a US site. [slashdot.org] Yes, it has users from around the world, and it's great to have you all here. But bar aren't commonly used in the US and, therefore, are not relatable units in context.

-Peter

Wow, 4.5 Miles Under the Ocean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33912976)

"Discovered 4.5 Miles Under the Ocean"

Guess it's a Rock Fish then, eh?

"4.5 miles under the ocean" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33912980)

In the mantle beneath the oceanic abyss?

bring these to the surface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913002)

correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't something designed to take that much pressure, pretty much take years to adjust to the pressure involved in raising them to the surface?

Re:bring these to the surface? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913066)

I picture them just exploding they're raised above a certain depth.

Also, too soon to predict a future where there are pressurized water aquariums for these interesting fish?

Re:bring these to the surface? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913076)

Then keep it pressurised while it is raised, it has already been done with other species.

Re:bring these to the surface? (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913084)

If the fish was brought up without proper pressure then yes it would take a significant amount of time to rise and live (maybe even impossible). I belive that they typically manage to store them in some kind of pressure vessel so that they can keep them at least close to the same pressure until they can perform a study on them. either that or they just let them explode i don't know.

just, please (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913024)

whatever these well meaning scientists do, make sure they do not awaken the one waiting, dreaming, in his house at R'lyeh

Re:just, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913646)

Yeah! Someone might get the idea to make a hack film of it and never complete it. Right circletimessquare?

Jeez how hard is it to use USI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913030)

PSI ? Miles ? FFS when does the US rejoin the *REST* of the world ?

Re:Jeez how hard is it to use USI (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913164)

What is this "world" thing you speak of?

Sounds like.. (4, Funny)

nilbog (732352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913148)

Sounds like this snail works well ...
...

(puts sunglasses on)
...

under pressure.
...

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......

(Sorry I seem to have gotten lost on my way to reddit...)

Re:Sounds like.. (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914806)

does anyone know the origin of this meme? of course http://xkcd.com/626/ [xkcd.com] comes to mind, but i doubt that's the original...

Re:Sounds like.. (1)

harley78 (746436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914954)

Some cop drama...CSI Miami, I think. The lead detective always put sunglasses on and made a bad pun at the end of the episode.

Re:Sounds like.. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33915196)

CSI?

Re:Sounds like.. (1)

dragin33 (529413) | more than 3 years ago | (#33959600)

lol.. Had to stop watching that show because of lines like that.

How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913234)

How long would it take to reel one of those in? I sure hope they have electric reels!!!

Better adapted to space as well? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913242)

I wonder how these snailfish would fare if exposed to the 'vacuum' of space? Would they fare better than the near instant death of terrestrial creatures? It seems to me that any creature that lives at pressures of 10K PSI must not have an internal pressure differential at all. Gills are certainly a better adaptation for both immense pressures and vacuums than lungs.

Re:Better adapted to space as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913296)

I think it would dry out pretty quick though, and die that way. I get your point though. Now all we have to do is go get one. I wonder how they taste.

Re:Better adapted to space as well? (1)

ichthyoboy (1167379) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914088)

Considering that most organisms living in the deep sea under these intense pressures basically pop when you bring them up to 1 atmosphere, probably not.

Re:Better adapted to space as well? (2)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914492)

I didn't realize that was the case. There's a lot I don't know about biology.

Re:Better adapted to space as well? (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33918218)

There has to be a counter to that extreme pressure, after all. It's sort of like letting a rope go when another person is pulling on it - they go flying a bit further than they meant to. With that said, I don't know how it works exactly; the mechanism somehow keeps their internal pressure the same as the ridiculous pressure outside.

Depth is irrelevant. (3, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913254)

Stop thinking about it like what would happen to you at that depth because thats not what happens.

Everything in the body of the fish formed at that pressure, which means it doesn't really feel the pressure. Your body didn't. Its internal pressure is about 14psi, if you took it down there, it would be crushed until it reached equilibrium with the outside pressure.

Likewise, if your brought the fish to the surface, or tried to, it would literally explode before it got to the surface as the internal pressure would be too great for its cells to contain.

You can see the same thing if you pull a fish up from even 150 feet too quickly, its eyeballs will pop out of its skull and its internal organs sometimes pushed out of its mouth.

We need to stop thinking that theres something special about life at these pressures or depths like its rare. We've known for 50 years there are fish down deeper than that, there were fish at the bottom of the Marianas trench, this one is slightly more than HALF that deep.

When you are born at such pressures, anything else seems insane ... kind of like going into space without a space suit, which is pretty much what the fish would need to survive at the surface since its body is designed to operate at much higher pressures.

Re:Depth is irrelevant. (2, Insightful)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913538)

Depth is relevant... Because there is no light that deep. What is their food source? how do they survive? How did their species evolve to make sure they were born with the same internal pressure? Like your example states, these fish didn't just swim on DOWN there one day and decide to call it home...

Re:Depth is irrelevant. (3, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913878)

What is their food source?

Apparently there's a steady rain of nutrition from above, basically. Feces, skin cells, plant material, cast off crap... they live in a constant of surface particles wending their way down, much of which is edible to them.

How did their species evolve to make sure they were born with the same internal pressure?

You don't decide to be born at the same internal pressure as your parents, any that you, the poster, decided to be born as an oxygen breathing mammal. Fish at that pressure necessarily breed more fish at the same pressure--any who leave the safe pressure zone die rather than breed. How did you decide not to be born underwater? Your parents avoiding death by drowning in order to give birth to you.

Re:Depth is irrelevant. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33916552)

Apparently there's a steady rain of nutrition from above, basically. Feces, skin cells, plant material, cast off crap...

And whale carcasses. A single whale carcass can keep an ecology of thousands of critters alive for many months. (it doesn't rot immediately - things are slower down there.)

Re:Depth is irrelevant. (3, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914152)

Obligatory Mythbusters reference [wikipedia.org] .

More importantly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33913456)

How do they taste?

Re:More importantly... (1)

drkim (1559875) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916034)

Great question!

If they taste good I'm marketing them as a new product.

Sealed in a special pressurized container, you pop it open and...
Blam!!
INSTANT SUSHI! (tm)
[Protective bib sold separately]

Not for years (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913664)

" It seems the deepest parts of the ocean, once thought to be devoid of life, are actually home to some organisms."

Do we really have to hear this every effing time a new deep sea species is discovered? The deeps haven't been thought of as being devoid of life for decades, if ever.

Re:Not for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33916112)

It's the same pre-Copernican-like mentality that led to harsh debates regarding the "possible" existence of exoplanets.
Why argue such matters or even think that life cannot exist in conditions that would be unsuitable for humans and livestock?

Wow that's amazing (4, Funny)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913864)

A fish that can live in solid rock. (I know, you meant 4.5 miles under the surface of the ocean.)

get to the important part (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913970)

What does it taste like?

Re:get to the important part (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914394)

Given the fact that it lives life under the sea at "over 700 atmospheres," and any attempt to bring it to the surface and prepare it for consumption would cause every cell in its body to rupture, then the answer to your question is very likely, "fish goo."

Re:get to the important part (1)

Buzzo (678060) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914932)

Chicken!!!!!!!!!---chicken of the sea

Re:get to the important part (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33915176)

I'm going to go with "like piss." Deep sea and arctic sea creatures tend to have significant amounts of ammonia in their flesh, thus making them quite nasty. Thus the reason the Japanese haven't started fishing for giant squid.

The fools, they brought it to the surface! (1)

darth_borehd (644166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914120)

I for one, welcome our new snailfish overlords.

Re:The fools, they brought it to the surface! (1)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914652)

Would it not be an underlord instead of overlord? Tim S.

Dopefish is not a lie! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914164)

Dopefish is not a lie!

But is it delicious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33914290)

That was the critical piece of information missing from the summary!!

eh? (1)

scarface71795 (1920250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914432)

Who lives in a pineapple under the sea (no not spongebob but your close)

Re:eh? (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33915024)

Richard Nixon, of course

Fish have been reported deeper before (2, Informative)

AC-x (735297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33914968)

An expedition to the Mariana Trench back in 1960 [wikipedia.org] at a depth of 6.8 miles reported "a number of small sole and flounder swimming away". so it's been known for 50 years that vertebrates can survive at extreme depths (the deepest part of the ocean no less)

Goldilocks & exoplanets (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#33915060)

Does 700+ atmospheres constitute 'goldilocks' in the search for exoplanets? 'Goldilocks', apparently refers to a set of conditions capable of sustaining life. I've often been struck by the near-religous arrogance of defining the conditions capable of sustaining life. Someone who didn't drop biology in (very) high school will hopefully clarify this. From casual reading, it seems that we find life on this planet everywhere we look. From SO2 vents on the ocean floor, to the rim of volcanoes, the ocean trenches to the upper atmosphere, the hottest desert to the coldest poles.

Should the perspective be "life can happen anywhere; the onus is to define where it can't"?

Re:Goldilocks & exoplanets (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#33915444)

Here is the issue: We (now) know that life on Earth has expanded into pretty much any environment that doesn't denature DNA and proteins. From the bottom of the ocean, to near the stratosphere to miles deep in rock.

We presume that when life started off on this planet 4 billion years ago, give or take a week, there was water, heat, little oxygen and a lot of minerals and dirt. Life started and then colonized, and dramatically changed, the planet. The question now is whether life can form in other environments and if so, what is the range of those environments (the Goldilocks zone). Can you do it in high pressure and cold temperatures? Probably. Can you do it without water? Maybe. Can you do it under denaturing conditions for DNA and protein (temperatures greater than a couple of hundred degrees, significantly acidic or basic, significant ionizing radiation)? Perhaps not at first. But we certainly don't know that. We don't even know that life exists anywhere else. Most of us assume that it does, but until Kreel shows up on the Rover camera, we have to go digging around. That's why it's important to get our asses to Mars and beyond.

Or at least our sensors.

Re:Goldilocks & exoplanets (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33915580)

I can reply as an astronomer: 'Goldilocks' more ore less only refers to conditions that allow liquid water, which on earth seems to be the the only condition that must hold. An energy source will always be found, but afaik, no water == no life.

Astronomers are not so close minded as you seem to suppose they are, but you have to start somewhere. It is hard enough (==impossible atm) to determine whether a planet can sustain life as we know it. Once we are able to do that, we will also look for other signs of life. From an astronomers perspective the entire habitable-planet-finding race is mostly a technological thing.

Quite interesting research though: Detecting seasons, atmosphere variations (clouds), elements in the atmosphere (oxygen), pictures and spectra of individual planets.

4.5 Miles Under the Ocean (1)

Dabido (802599) | more than 3 years ago | (#33915200)

Title needs a little revision - "New Fish Species Discovered 4.5 Miles Under the Ocean"

That's a lot of deep ocean digging to get to it.

That's great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33915224)

... does it taste good with wasabi and soy sauce?

What are the orange specks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33916132)

What are the three bright orange specks on the ground around the first picture of the fish on the site?

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/fish-discovered-45-miles-deep-in-ocean-0639/

"If my calculations are correct" (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33916286)

That tiny snippet of a sentence sums up the problem with Imperial.

I need exactly _one_ non-trivial calculation to fix this:

4.5 miles = 7.24 km

So it's 725 bar. (ten meters of water = 1 bar. plus the ~1 bar of air)

Why is it that the US still prefers Imperial over Metric? I really don't get it.

Go deeper to find "Starfish" (1)

cellocgw (617879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33917040)

or {beta}ehemoth
sorry - I don't know how to html a greek letter. So go read the Peter Watts series, already!

Over/Under (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 3 years ago | (#33918214)

Miles Under the Ocean

Well, that's interesting, a fish under the ocean. Usually there's rock under the ocean.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>