×

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!

Evidence Points To Huge Underground River Beneath Amazon

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the how-they-do-the-prime-shipping dept.

Earth 116

chill writes "Researchers at the department of geophysics of the Brazil National Observatory have showed evidence of the existence of an underground river that flows 13,000 feet beneath the Amazon. The newly-named Hamza is said to be 3,700 miles long, flowing 13,000 feet below the Amazon. Both rivers flow from west to east, but the Hamza flows at only a fraction of the speed of Amazon."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

Hamza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226880)

Hamza? They couldn't come up with something more indigenous?

Re:Hamza? (3, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226902)

They named it for the Brazilian scientist who led the discovery team, Valiya Hamza. What more indigenous do you want?

Re:Hamza? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226968)

He's probably talking about a more indigenous Brazilian name, inspired by the thousands upon thousands of native tribes that did or still do inhabit the Amazon, rather than a name from somebody who may be descended from immigrants from Portugal or some other so-called "Old World" region.

It's just like the Grand Canyon is the European name for it, while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.

Re:Hamza? (4, Insightful)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227010)

It's just like the Grand Canyon is the European name for it, while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.

Cultural insensitivity aside, I think Grand Canyon is easier to remember.

Re:Hamza? (2)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227124)

It's just like the Grand Canyon is the European name for it, while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.

Cultural insensitivity aside, I think Grand Canyon is easier to remember.

Not to the Hopi inhabitant [wikipedia.org] of the region. And by the way, 'Weemoteeuktuk' is bullshit. The real name is Ongtupqa.

Re:Hamza? (3, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228274)

Ongtupqa is bullshit!

When the Grand Canyon was originally dredged by the Great Old Ones, it's name was Gthugl'ghulthahghfhgal.

Re:Hamza? (1)

LibRT (1966204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228418)

Gthugl'ghulthahghfhgal is bullshit! It's original name was "Bigfuckingcanyon".

joke for the spanish readers (1)

buanzo (542591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37230416)

Primer acto, aparece el colorado y sus 3 hijos. Segundo acto, aparece el colorado y sus 5 hijos. Tercer acto, aparece el colorado y sus 8 hijos. Como se llama la obra? El gran cañon del colorado.

Re:Hamza? (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227078)

It's just like the Grand Canyon is the European name for it, while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.

A name is an identifier. There's nothing inherently more legitimate or "proper" about a name just because it's the first name used for something. Variables can take on a new name in a new scope. A new group of people can use a different name. It may be that communication between the groups will suffer for it--sometimes intentionally (consider politicians using different phrases to mean the same thing, such as "tax subsidy," "loophole," and "job-creating tax break"). It may also be that under a particular legal regime, the first person to encounter or capture something has a right to it (there are old common-law cases about fox hunts, for example). But objectively, there is nothing improper about coming across a giant hole in the ground and calling it "giant hole in the ground," even if someone else already calls it--for example--France.

Re:Hamza? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227108)

So all the different Indian tribes found along the Grand Canyon, with all their different languages, used the one true proper name?

Re:Hamza? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227198)

Native Americans don't call themselves 'Native Americans' (the name would vary depending upon the tribe), and I think Brazilians call themselves Brasilianos (although that's not too much of a stretch). However, the indigenous people of the Amazon probably didn't call Brazil 'Brazil' or the Amazon 'the Amazon.' That sort of suggests the futility in trying to have a 'native' name.

Also, I can't seem to find ANY results on Weemoteeuktuk

Re:Hamza? (5, Interesting)

vbraga (228124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227708)

Brazilians call themselves 'Brasileiros' instead of 'Brasilianos'. Interesting, 'Brasiliano' would be more appropriate from a linguistic point of view (the '-ano' suffix indicates someone who belongs or as born in a given place) than 'Brasileiro' ('-eiro' suffix indicates someone who performs a given action). 'Brasileiro' is used because the first (European) inhabitants used to perform the Brazil wood trade, hence the '-eiro' instead of the '-ano' suffix.

Well, on a second though, that's not interesting at all.

Re:Hamza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227382)

So, I assume all tribal groups who were aware of the area shared its name? Or would you just be picking a name out of your ass in order to show our supposed lack of respect for first nations culture?

Re:Hamza? (3, Informative)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227992)

...while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.

Proper to whom? Which group of Native Americans, there are tons of them up there. The Navajo, the Ute, the Hopi, the Paiute, the Havasupai, the Hualapai? I'm sure I'm missing some tribes.

I wasn't aware that names weren't allowed to change. The first name something is given, is its name forever. I'm sure this is going to make me loose some "cultural feel good woo" points, but I'm past the point of caring. A name is a name, it isn't a magical identifier. The proper name for the Grand Canyon, in English, is "The Grand Canyon". Why is this proper? Because if I mention it to another English speaker they will know what the hell I'm talking about. If I say "Weemoteeuktuk", no one (even most natives) won't have a damn clue. If, in whatever language, "Weemoteeuktuk" is meaningful, and common, then that is the proper name within the smaller community, though they too will recognize what I'm referring to what I say "The Grand Canyon", making the term much more useful and ubiquitous. And thus superior, and this closer to "proper".

No, I don't think some mythical sense of inclusion is more important than clarity and the ability to communicate. The latter are the point of language, the former is for the the sociologists and odd Caucasian apologists.

There are no Native Americans (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228062)

It's just like the Grand Canyon is the European name for it, while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.

There are no Native Americans. We're all immigrants peoples here. Now, some of them got here a lot sooner than others...

Re:There are no Native Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228684)

There are no Native Americans. We're all immigrants peoples here. Now, some of them got here a lot sooner than others...

Well, sure, but by that standard there are no native peoples anywhere but in Africa.

Etymologically, "native" just means you were born there. So the children of immigrants would be "Native Americans" just as much as any tribe member.

Realistically, though, it means the people who already live in a place. By that standard, there's nothing wrong with European explorers and colonists referring to these tribes as "natives."

Re:Hamza? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37231622)

I am part Cherokee, you insensitive clod!

I really resent you lumping me in with a bunch of totally different cultures just because we all have brownish skin and had the same caricature in your children's books.

Do you want to know the Cherokee word for the Grand Canyon? It's two words, actually: Grand Canyon! No idea what the Hopi name is.

And while you're at it, get off my lawn.

Re:Hamza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227152)

Valiya Hamza is a east indian.

Hamza.com - for all your underground publications? (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227062)

Compete with Amazon.com! "Prices? We're miles below them!" Oops - too late - someone else already took it (back in 1999).

Hamza? They couldn't come up with something more indigenous?

It's under a few miles of rock. Here, let me fix that for you.

"Hamza? They couldn't come up with something more igneous?"

Try the fish!

Re:Hamza.com - for all your underground publicatio (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228450)

Hamza.com may have below bargain basement low low prices, but at 1mm per hour their delivery service sucks worse than a vacuum cleaner set to "blow".

-

No a river, it's called an Aquifer (5, Informative)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226896)

Geesh.... the term "underground river" evokes an image of a continuous flow of only water perhaps going through a long cave or something... not water travelling through rock, also known as an "Aquifer"

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227128)

Damn it, that is all I need, a damned aquifer!
Now how am I supposed to get precious metals for my dorf military.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

vortex0 (859250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227364)

An aquifer does not flow, a river does. From TFA this mas of water has a flow and it also goes further to state that its direction is the same of the amazon river. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer [wikipedia.org]

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227410)

An aquifer definitely does flow... Those handy arrows in the picture on your linked Wikipedia articles indicate direction of flow.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227686)

Yet you still miss the point.
Those flow arrows indicate how the water gets into and out of the aquifer. Yes, this is a "flow". It is not the same type of flow that one thinks of when one thinks about rivers. Think aquifer = lake and underground river = river. They all have flows and currents, but only the rivers move the water "downstream".

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227982)

According to the articles I've read that's exactly what it does. This moves downstream, following a particular flow, mirroring another river.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228622)

Really? Because the Flroda aquifer (in both north and central/south that feeds into the everglades) flow towards the ocean, just like the rivers do. There are springs and seeps in the sea from it all over the coast.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227384)

not water travelling through rock, also known as an "Aquifer"

And whatever you do, do NOT try to dig through it.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (2)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228176)

Aquifer is just the european name for it. We should be more sensitive and at least find an indigenous word to use. And perhaps have an argument over what native americans would have called it if they had the chance

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37231642)

Aquifer is just the european name for it. We should be more sensitive and at least find an indigenous word to use. And perhaps have an argument over what native americans would have called it if they had the chance

Hamza's Lie, is that closer?

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228652)

Yes. this BBC article [bbc.co.uk] gives a more informative and balanced explanation.

Even the evidence for unusual amounts of subsurface groundwater flow is equivocal. It looks like a rather ordinary aquifer.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37231660)

Well, it is very salty, it at least has that to distinguish it from the more useful aquifers.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 2 years ago | (#37230208)

Also 13,000 feet = 4 km beneath the Amazon.

3,700 miles = 6,000 km long.

Re:No a river, it's called an Aquifer (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37230940)

Who wants to go on an expedition to follow it back to the Great Underground Empire and see the mighty works of Lord Flathead?

Naming breaks ethical rules (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226900)

As a scientist you're not supposed to name things after yourself or have your students name them after you.

"The underground river is now named after Valiya Hamza, the scientist of Indian origin,who has been studying the Amazon region for more than 40 years. The discovery is part of the work of doctoral student Elizabeth Tavares Pimentel, under the guidance of Hamza."

Another word for this river is, of course, a "water table".

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226972)

Isn't naming stuff after yourself the entire reason to become a scientist? It's not like it'll get you laid...

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (1)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227008)

I think the proper scientific way is to discover something, only to have someone else steal your work and then THEY can name it after themselves.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227218)

Isn't naming stuff after yourself the entire reason to become a scientist? It's not like it'll get you laid...

Not such a great idea if your field of expertise is sexually transmitted diseases.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226988)

Yeah, I got all excited about this until I looked at the flow rate. About the same as most aquifers. While it is an important discovery and it's mapping may turn out to have useful applications, it's not at all surprising. The planet isn't made of concrete (despite what New Yorkers think).

But I don't think many people really have any sort of concept of what the subterranean world looks like so articles like this are useful. And I'm not sure that it's so bad to name it after Hamza. He seems like one of the earlier pioneers in Amazon hydrology and (I'm guessing) one of the few 'native' scientists.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (1)

the_bard17 (626642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228200)

*snip*(despite what New Yorkers think)*snip*

Talk to someone upstate. Especially someone in or around the Adirondack Park.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (1)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228528)

*snip*(despite what New Yorkers think)*snip*

Talk to someone upstate

Or... anyone. Not everyone is a brilliant geologist like the GP, but most people know that the world isn't made out of concrete. Even people in New York, who are obviously all drooling morons. Thank you for pointing that out GP.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (3, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228370)

The planet isn't made of concrete (despite what New Yorkers think).

Christ! We are not IDIOTS.
Stuff above ground like buildings and raised sidewalks are made of concrete. Any blind idiot knows the ground is made of asphalt.

-

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227106)

> As a scientist you're not supposed to name things after yourself or have your students name them after you.

What ethical rule? Is this in your institution's IRB materials?

And why not? It's not like being forced to not put one's name on something by a committee is going to make one less of a jerk if one is a jerk.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227116)

> As a scientist you're not supposed to name things after yourself
> or have your students name them after you.

Why not? It's better than naming a planetoid after Mickey Mouse's dog.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227380)

You're wrong. The planetoid is named after a greek God. Which of course was named after Mickey Mouse's dog.

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227692)

> As a scientist you're not supposed to name things after yourself
> or have your students name them after you.

Why not? It's better than naming a planetoid after Mickey Mouse's dog.

It sure is. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Naming breaks ethical rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228448)

Is this like a series of tubes?

let me SI it for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226904)

13,000 feet ~ 4 km
3,700 miles ~ 6,000 km

Re:let me SI it for you (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228872)

It'd be nice if you could also explain this vague linguistic invention:

The width of the newly-named Hamza is said to be 3,700 miles long[...]

Better article (4, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226924)

Here is a better article: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234077-Underground-River-Rio-Hamza-Discovered-4km-Beneath-the-Amazon [sott.net]

Flowing at a rate of 1mm/hour, this is more like a gigantic seepage of ground water. I suppose calling it a "river" gets them into the newspapers...

Re:Better article (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227574)

I was a bit surprised as well. This story has hit several of the social news sites, and from the headlines I was expecting some sort of freak underground tunnel caused by some interesting historical phenomenon. Then I saw the flow rate and tried to figure out how that made sense. Then I learned that it might not really be a river at all, at least not as a layman like me thinks of one.

Aside: Also, thanks for linking to a site that isn't covered in Facebook-related junk. It seems like social networking links are becoming the new banner ads, cluttering up web pages everywhere, but at least most pages have the courtesy to stick them all in one place, and not put a banner here, a like button there, and a feed somewhere else. It's completely wasted on me anyway since I don't use Facebook/Twitter/etc. [/goes to update AdBlock and wonders if anyone has a list of filters that get rid of at least most of this junk...]

metoo (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227644)

I live over an underground river just as unlike a river as this, except nearer to the surface. Our well is over 100 feet deep, though. And it's horribly rusty.

I've heard this routine before (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228078)

Flowing at a rate of 1mm/hour, this is more like a gigantic seepage of ground water.

You forget that I was present at an undersea, unexplained mass sponge migration.

One Question (4, Funny)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226928)

Is the water tessellated?

Re:One Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227054)

Just the stuff underground that doesn't make a difference to the games overall look.

We don't care what was said at reddit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227020)

Look, this is Slashdot. This is not reddit. We do not care what they have to say. We do not care what some 17-year-old pre-college hipsters think about this topic. If we wanted inane, shit-ridden discussion, we'd be over over at reddit instead. But we're not there, because that's not what we want. So please don't bring such utter crap over here. Thank you, and good night.

Re:We don't care what was said at reddit. (0)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227102)

Look, this is Slashdot. This is not reddit. We do not care what they have to say. We do not care what some 17-year-old pre-college hipsters think about this topic. If we wanted inane, shit-ridden discussion, we'd be over over at reddit instead. But we're not there, because that's not what we want. So please don't bring such utter crap over here. Thank you, and good night.

ahhhh.... Rob Malda, a.k.a. CmdrTaco ...so you're STILL lurking around. good for you.

Re:We don't care what was said at reddit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227210)

No, really, he has a point (i am a different AC).

That's completely irrelevant. You have brought nothing to the discussion other than snark. Who gives a fuck. If this was breaking news and slashdot was 5 days late, YES, make fun of things. Getting it up several hours later? That's completely within expectations, and unremarkable.

Nobody gives a shit if reddit scooped slashdot. that's how that site works. everything is on there, instantly. that's SORT OF why some of us AREN'T over there, because while you'll find a few interesting things occasionally it requires filtering through mounds of shit to get there.

Re:We don't care what was said at reddit. (0)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228620)

Exactly, we come here to find out what the 25-year-old basement-dwelling nerds have to say about things.

The great Ferengi river (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226964)

of the Continuum......or profit.

no doubt real history is racing up to help us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226970)

we'll soon be grasping just what having, or being part of, spirits, means? no prescriptions or gadgets needed? there are under reported alternatives.

Pretty wide! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227018)

The width is said to be 3700 miles long? Cool, how wide is the length said to be??

Re:Pretty wide! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37230276)

Also, mfw the scientists "have showed"... This is why I never pay attention to IBTimes, all the pieces I've read there so far are equivocal.

Aha! (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227048)

This must explain how they can ship so much merchandise so efficiently!

Re:Aha! (1)

DeeEff (2370332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228090)

I would argue the opposite. I don't think I've ever had an order on time, arguable that it's because of where I live, or what I order, but "we have to swim across a 3700 mile river underground" is somewhat better consolation than "the warehouse manufacturer apologizes for the delay, we are looking into figuring out what happened".

13,000 feet? Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227076)

How far below the amazon is it? And it's got a width of what length?

Isn't that about the depth... (1)

doug141 (863552) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227142)

at which "drinking water safe" fraking is done?

Depends on the type. (1)

sexybomber (740588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227700)

If you're fraking your significant other, I doubt that'll do any damage to the water table, unless you produce volume like Peter "Two Quarts" North, in which case there's a slight risk of organic contamination.

As for hydraulic fracturing, there is no such thing as "drinking-water-safe", just like there's no such thing as "clean coal". Cracks in the bedrock resulting from the frackage can propagate for thousands of feet above the well pipe, often unpredictably. That's kind of the point; the longer the cracks, the more gas-bearing rock is opened for collection in the well. Even if the well is drilled far below the water table, the cracks can still reach it, thus allowing hydrocarbon gases to enter and poison the water. Then there's the risk that the well casing can fail at the point where it crosses the water table, thus releasing gas and "frack fluid" (which is significantly more toxic than your "frack fluid" referenced above) into the environment.

Not surprising as one might think. (1)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227338)

Most people think water in rivers comes from snow and rain at the top of some mountain and just flows (Slashdot crowd is most likely not part of that "most people"). The reality is that the water comes 'up' from the ground into the river system after the precipitation over much much larger area http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrivers.html [usgs.gov] . This is why environmentalist (and everyone else should) get pist when people bury and improperly dispose of stuff that is toxic - it's feeding ourselves waste not fit for consumption.

With a river as long and wide as the Amazon it's not surprising that the not all of the saturated water in the soil wells up to the ground but goes through porous rocks into a sub river. That combined with aquifer regions can hypothetically coalesce(sp?) into an underground river or lake system.

Width = 3,700 miles? (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227690)

Could someone explain what they mean when they say the width is 3,700 miles long...

"The width of the Hamza is said to be 3,700 miles long..."

I can understand the length of the river being 3,700 miles long, wouldn't the width be another figure?

Is there some sort of "river nomenclature" I am missing?

Maybe I just need more coffee...

Re:Width = 3,700 miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227784)

I was just going to comment on the same thing. I just can't figure out how someone could type that. I fully understand a typo now and again - a wrong character here and there, a misspelled "definitely" getting changed to "defiantly" by auto-correct and all. But confusing length and width in the space of a single, short sentence is very strange.

Re:Width = 3,700 miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228164)

The word commonly used to describe a river length in Portuguese is "comprimento" which might under other contexts be translated as "width". Maybe the phrase comes from a badly translated press release, originally written in Portuguese.

WTF is wrong with you people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227928)

So much discussion over the units.. and still you have the nerve to put everything in feet and miles? Come on!

Underground City! (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228014)

And paddling upstream on this underground river it will lead us to the lost underground city, a city filled with gold, a city called ElDorado.

No? Can we then have at least a movie about it? Or better yet: any investors willing to pay me, so I can go looking for it? (And then do a book, a documentary, and an action movie.) -I must admit "underground river" invokes more interesting connotations than "slow flowing aquifier"

Re:Underground City! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228212)

Hehe, do you really think the mythical city of El Dorado that would have been built before the Europeans came over would have a Spanish name instead of one in the language of it's supposed builders/inhabitants? (Inca, Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, Olmec, etc. which were the native peoples depending on time.)

Not dissing you, just one of those things I find funny.

Probably a good thing I wasn't there (2)

Ethanol (176321) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228068)

'Cause I wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation to name it "Amazon Prime".

Re:Probably a good thing I wasn't there (1)

rubicelli (208603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228778)

'Cause I wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation to name it "Amazon Prime".

If it were named Amazon Prime, wouldn't it be faster than the regular Amazon?.

Jon Voight and a Large Snake (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228216)

Killing off clueless yuppies. Amazon II - Underground River. The snake is albino. Or glows, a genetic experiment gone wrong. Released by fracking. Great excuse for half naked girls in bikinis. This stuff writes itself!

The cameraman uses a tripod. The cuts are the right speed. The Game of Thrones guy lights it.

The snake and Voight symbolize the raw, untamed power of wild nature. The yuppies symbolize civilization and denial.

The underground river symbolizes the dark hidden part of the life force. In the end, reason frees man from his prison.

biznadtch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37228424)

As it Is lic3nsed

I thought Brazil used the metric system (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#37228550)

So why are the values given feet and miles?

Re:I thought Brazil used the metric system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37229874)

I'm just guessing here but maybe it is because both Slashdot and IB Times are US sites?

The river is not a river.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37231788)

Water flowing slower than a glacier, can not be called a "river"...
BBC also posted a more "in-depth" article on this subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14693637

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...