Slashdot Mirror


ESA Plans Test of Asteroid Defense System

vinlud writes "It has been announced by Dutch television ESA has chosen the Don Quijote programme to investigate the possibilities of altering the collision course of asteroids heading for Earth. The program, selected among five other studies, contains two spacecraft: Hidalgo and Sancho. Hidalgo will impact an asteroid of approximately 500 m diameter at a relative speed of at least 10 km/s while Sancho will retreat to a safe distance to observe the impact. An animation of the mission sequence (6.49 Mb) can be downloaded from here."

305 comments

  1. That's NOT important by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's important is a very efficient backup of slashdot so I can still post in the case of a continent size meteor hitting earth.

    1. Re:That's NOT important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just in case there isn't a backup look on the bright side. All those people who post lame "in Soviet Russia" jokes will be blown to smitherines in the cataclysm.

    2. Re:That's NOT important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bah! In Soviet Russia, the cataclysm blows YOU to smitherines!

    3. Re:That's NOT important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a continent size meteor destroy the ENTIRE planet? Where would you store the backup? Or for that matter, where would you be posting from?

    4. Re:That's NOT important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the mod thought it was so funny that the poster deserved to gain karma for it. Stupid slashdot doesn't give karma for +1 Funny any more. :/

    5. Re:That's NOT important by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      I've always thought some of the trolls couldn't be from Earth.
      ;-)

    6. Re:That's NOT important by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't that be "In Soviet Russia, you blow the cataclysm to smitherenes!"

    7. Re:That's NOT important by goingtalkies · · Score: 1

      Sancho: Main screen turn on
      Hidalgo: You are on the way to destruction

  2. Bull's eye! by zeux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I RTFA (however, I'm not new here!) and it seems all the other five studies were about observation only missions. This one is the only one to propose an actual 'impact'.

    It's definitively more exciting but I wonder if it's not too hard to make such a millions miles away 'bull's eye'. 500 m in diameter is pretty small at this distance...

    1. Re:Bull's eye! by Rob+Carr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's definitively more exciting but I wonder if it's not too hard to make such a millions miles away 'bull's eye'. 500 m in diameter is pretty small at this distance...

      With the ability to correct the flight enroute, it shouldn't be too difficult at all. When Cassini went into orbit around Saturn, the navigation was so precise that they did not need to do a corrective burn.

      Still, if for some gosh-awful reason you can't hit a 500 m target, this is the perfect time to find out!

      Here's a bunch of folks that will probably have fun looking to see what effect the collision might have: The folks on the Minor Planet Mailing List are really into tracking the orbits of these rocks. I wouldn't be surprised if their data is the stuff that narrows the error bars on this experiment!

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    2. Re:Bull's eye! by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny

      I did NOT RTFA re: asteroid defense systems. So I am left puzzling over just what asteroids need to be defended from?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Bull's eye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asteroids need to be defended from the planets that keep colliding with them, of course. :)

    4. Re:Bull's eye! by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not very hard. After all there will be multipple course corrections over the length of the mission. So it is likely to be as hard as it was for the Hidalgo to hit one of the Wind Mills. With similar results.

      All I can say is hats down and apploads to the cynicist who thought of the name for this program. It is a near perfect description of our current technological ability to change the orbit of a NEO.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Bull's eye! by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a near perfect description of our current technological ability to change the orbit of a NEO.

      You know what they say - practice makes perfect.

    6. Re:Bull's eye! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think the ESA had managed to make a probe orbit an asteroid, and even managed a soft landing or near-landing as well with the same probe. Granted, it was a larger asteroid, but I think that is about as difficult as hitting a 500m target, with the benefit of carefully calculated course corrections.

    7. Re:Bull's eye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      onder if it's not too hard to make such a millions miles away 'bull's eye'. 500 m in diameter is pretty small at this distance.

      It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womprats with my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than 500 meters.

    8. Re:Bull's eye! by EnormousTooth · · Score: 1

      500 meters? That's one big rat...

      --
      I don't use Emacs; it uses me.
    9. Re:Bull's eye! by mozzis · · Score: 0

      Even "two meters" would be a big rat, Luke.

      --
      This is not a self-referential sig.
    10. Re:Bull's eye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your small wimpy-ass chemical rocket doesn't exactly transform into a huge one that's needed to change a course of gigantic asteroid no matter how much you practice with it.

      Practice may make your skills perfect, but skills aren't the problem here, technology is.

    11. Re:Bull's eye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To those who say it's impossible, even for a computer; you should know I used to bulls-eye womp rats in Beggar's Canyon back home; they're not much bigger than 2 metres...

    12. Re:Bull's eye! by Your+Anus · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how we can build an asteroid defense system that doesn't involve Bruce Willis.

      --

      In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    13. Re:Bull's eye! by papercut2a · · Score: 1

      Don't think ESA has done that yet. NASA, OTOH, landed the NEAR probe on the asteroid Eros after orbiting/studying it for several weeks.

    14. Re:Bull's eye! by Thomas+Charron · · Score: 1

      And.. You have first hand experience in modifying the trajectory of large objects hurling thru space? Over millions of miles, a small nudge can move any objects possibly enough..

      --
      -- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
    15. Re:Bull's eye! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      And for the tinfoil hat brigade. I hope they don't pick the one the aliens are hiding in whilst observing the shennanigans of the humans and cause and interstellar incident ;-}.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Bull's eye! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Well, that is certainly true, IF you find it early enough.

      Spotting objects on collision course may be something that you get better at by practising, but it's still hardly the only factor in it.

  3. Low expectations? by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do they have low expectations or why is the project named after a fictional character who was rather bonkers and fought windmills?

    "The full original title was El ingenioso hidalgo don Quixote de la Mancha. The adjective "quixotic," meaning "idealistic and impractical," derives from his name, and the expression "tilting at windmills" comes from his story."

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Low expectations? by joeykiller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, Don Quijote believed he were fighting knights, while he actually was fighting windmillds.

      Most people would say that it would be impossible if not futile to attack windmills and believe you could win over them. But Don Quijote never doubted his abilites, no matter what Sancho Panza thought.

      Maybe this is what ESA has thought about when they named their mission: Keep hope up, no matter how impossible the task seems.

    2. Re:Low expectations? by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

      Not knights, Giants. Pedantic yes. But your point is still good.

      --
      That's right. All your base.
    3. Re:Low expectations? by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      I had the same thought. Do we really want Earth's defenses named after a character who hallucenated that windmills were evil giants?

      On the other hand, IIRC, one of the themes of the book was many people tended to humor Don Q. and --in the humoring-- they joined him in his fantasy world. Maybe the name is an attempt to get buy-in on the project?

      I have to admit that Sancho is appropriately-named, since throughout the entire book, Sancho held back and observed instead of joining Don Q. in action.

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    4. Re:Low expectations? by Kirsha · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...if I remember well, Don Quijote thought he was fighting giants, not knights.

    5. Re:Low expectations? by ttsalo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do they have low expectations or why is the project named after a fictional character who was rather bonkers and fought windmills?

      Well, since the impactor weighs nearly nothing compared to an 500m asteroid and is going to have negligible effect, it's named very accurately. The whole point of this thing is that it's easier to scale up from something than to start completely from scratch.

      --

      --
      If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
    6. Re:Low expectations? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people would say that it would be impossible if not futile to attack windmills and believe you could win over them. But Don Quijote never doubted his abilites, no matter what Sancho Panza thought.

      Personally, I love the name. It's good to know that the ESA scientists have a sense of humor. Especially when Sancho sits back and watches the fireworks while our brave hidalgo charges into battle! :-D

    7. Re:Low expectations? by Resident+Netizen · · Score: 1

      As to whether 'Don Quick-Oats' is a good name or not...

      The mission involves a 'charging' to the target, similar to the fictional character's jousting.

      What other choices do we have?

      'Kamikazee' doesn't sound as romantic or as appealing, although the parallels are more easily found.

      I'm referring to 'kamikazee' as the USA interprets the word: suicide dive bomber.
      I'm not referring to 'divine wind', which I understand is the direct translation from Japanese.

      --
      My other sig is a Porsche!
    8. Re:Low expectations? by Lazyhound · · Score: 1

      Actually, he thought the windmills were giants.

    9. Re:Low expectations? by core+plexus · · Score: 1
      I believe the primary goal is to determine the composition of the asteroid, not have any expectations to destroy it. From the article: "We must know in detail the internal structure of asteroids, and how they respond to impacts before we can design effective mitigation methods."

      -cp-

      Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets

    10. Re:Low expectations? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do they have low expectations or why is the project named after a fictional character who was rather bonkers and fought windmills?

      This makes perfect sense to me. now that I've actually read a summary of the story written by a Spaniard,

      • The mission has two main players: Hidalgo and Sancho. Hidalgo is the (fictional) title of Don Quixote (the lowest rank of nobility). Sancho is his squire and, at a critical point in the story, the source of the narrative switches to him.
      • Don Quixote tilts at imaginary enemies...
        The enemy that Hidalgo 'attacks' will also be imaginary in that the asteroid that gets 'attacked' will probably *not* be a threat to earth.
      • Hidalgo Don Quixote mistakes the windmill for a giant.
        The relative sizes fit here.
      • Don Quixote was pretty much trashed by his first encounter with such a giant.
        We can expect much the same here.
      • In the original, it would appear that Sancho is the brains of the outfit, and the scribe of the adventure In the modern version of the tale, Hidalgo, will have just enough brains to fly head-first into his imaginary enemy.
        Meanwhile, Sancho will stand back at a safe distance chronicling the setup and the aftermath.
      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    11. Re:Low expectations? by barakn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you suppose tilting is? Aiming or thrusting (a lance) in a joust. Hidalgo will tilt at an asteroid exactly like don Quijote tilted at windmills. They have not low but high expectations that Hidalgo will not survive the experience, much like one would expect someone tilting at a windmill to have an unpleasant experience (imagine having your lance shatter in your hands). The mission is beautifully named.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    12. Re:Low expectations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don Quixote also died when he looked in the mirror.

    13. Re:Low expectations? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      If they REALLY had a sense of houmour, they would add "using proven Beatle2 technology".

      (Thereby applying "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" to a beatle)

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    14. Re:Low expectations? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      If they REALLY had a sense of houmour, they would add "using proven Beatle2 technology".

      Maybe I'm tired, but I'm completely missing the joke here. My first thought is that you're referring to the "Beagle Mars Probe" that failed. That would kind of ruin the whole "it's a bug" joke though.

      My next thought is that you were referring to the new VW Beatle. My only problem is that I don't understand how that pertains to anything. It's a "trendy" car that has none of the features of the original. Can't see how that relates to two space probes where one is *supposed* to crash.

    15. Re:Low expectations? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      I hate it when that happens! ;)

      The point was that Beagle2 crashed into Mars... ESA now uses 'crashing technolgy'....

      I admit, it sounded funnier when I wrote it down.. 8-)

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    16. Re:Low expectations? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Ah well. You win some, you lose some. (Or should that be loose some?) ;-)

    17. Re:Low expectations? by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess they know that asteroids are just as dangerous to us as windmills were to Don.
      It's funny, they are wasting *our* tax money, they know it and even have the nerve to lable the projects accordingly.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  4. I love my european brothers dearly, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This animation is like something out of high school. Look as the stuff JPL does.

    The animation is so poor, and spends so much time on irrelevance (half is spent watching a crude stick drawing of the launch) that the point is lost.

    Frankly, it makes the ESA look like its being run by a bunch of amateurs on a shoe-string budget. It does not inspire confidence.

    And I say this knowing that the work they're doing is top notch. But this animation is so bad its spooky.

    1. Re:I love my european brothers dearly, but... by fore1337 · · Score: 0

      maybe the animation would be more believeable is the soundtrack was done by Aerosmith. [film: armageddon] This project looks like the next evolution of the EKG (Exo-Atmospheric kill Vehicle) Project.

    2. Re:I love my european brothers dearly, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah Aerosmith.
      Part of the soundtrack is from the great game Outpost. 'nuff said

  5. lets all hope by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1, Funny

    they dont have to convert any units.. don't want them accidentally redirecting anything back this way!

    1. Re:lets all hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at my school. (university of toronto.. engineering to be exact.. in the sanford flemming building, the main engineering building) all the water fountains are below waist high.

      Why, you ask? because original inches were converted ...

  6. Hidalgo's ultimate goal... by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Hidalgo will impact an asteroid of approximately 500 m diameter at a relative speed of at least 10 km/s...

    ... altering its trajectory into a orbit scheduled to collide with Earth in 2006 at which point the real test will begin.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:Hidalgo's ultimate goal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the plot of the comedy "Spies Like Us", in which American secret agents are sent to the Soviet Union to initiate a nuclear missile strike on the United States, in order to test the U.S. missile defenses.

    2. Re:Hidalgo's ultimate goal... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      ... altering its trajectory into a orbit scheduled to collide with Earth in 2006 at which point the real test will begin.

      You shouldn't have revealed that this is all part of a conspiracy to get their funding pumped up to $1-trillion to solve the problem for real. Don't answer that knocking at the door!

    3. Re:Hidalgo's ultimate goal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps Hildago will destroy the lifeforms on that asteroid causing them to wish they had some system of preventing impacts...

    4. Re:Hidalgo's ultimate goal... by papercut2a · · Score: 1

      perhaps Hildago will destroy the lifeforms on that asteroid causing them to wish they had some system of preventing impacts

      The Martians have started to think that, too.

  7. Don Quixote? by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Don Quixote was a story character (see the book by the same name) who saw things that weren't really there. He was driven insane by reading too many tales of knights in shining armor, and pretended he was one himself. Hmm!

  8. Hope they don't knock it *into* our path by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... yes I know, space is big... [grin]

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Hope they don't knock it *into* our path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if it would be feasible/a good idea to knock rocks heading for earth into the moon. That way they'll be safely disposed of. It may only work if will be passing close by the moon in the first place.
      It would be a cool experiment to knock a large rock down on the moon even if it doesn't threaten earth.

  9. I have a better solution by zeux · · Score: 0

    [Insert a joke about Bruce Willis crashing on an asteroid at 10 km/s here]

    1. Re:I have a better solution by faldore · · Score: 1, Troll

      I can't imagine that Bruce Willis crashing into an asteroid can in any way be construed as funny. Gee Dubya on the other hand...

    2. Re:I have a better solution by Gorilla_Man · · Score: 1

      Great idea! And Aerosmith can provide the inspirational soundtrack.

    3. Re:I have a better solution by Jugalator · · Score: 1
      [Insert a joke about Bruce Willis crashing on an asteroid at 10 km/s here]

      Umm...

      A group of astronauts are on a mission. One of them are Bruce Willis, and decides to leave to stop an asteroid arriving at 10 km/s. The others turn around and says, "ketchup!"

      :-P

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  10. Direct link to 6MB file - clever by Sanity · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Will /. editors never learn?

    1. Re:Direct link to 6MB file - clever by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Direct link to 6MB file - clever by Agret · · Score: 0

      Suprisingly enough this server has very phat bandwidth, I still downloaded this file at my connections max speed.

      --
      Have you metaroderated recently?
  11. Don Quijote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they even read the book before they named this program?

    In the English translation that I read, the Don was a bit soft in the head from reading too much trashy fiction and Sancho was a near imbecile.

    I see great successes ahead.

  12. Another solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is to send Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis to the asteroid. One could make an animation of this, but it might result in a god-awful, 2-hour-long mistake.

    1. Re:Another solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative would be to have Morgan Freeman and Tea Leoni stand around with goofy looks on their face.

    2. Re:Another solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tea Leoni could just stand around on the asteroid itself and would still look good :-D

    3. Re:Another solution... by Anspen · · Score: 1
      I'm very much in favour of this idea. Yes, sending Affleck and Willis to an astroid is a briljant idea.

      What? bring them back after they've altered the course of the astroid? Now why would you want to do that?

  13. LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These "asteroid defense" systems are lies told by weapons makers. They are designed to be expensive systems that can be pointed at the Earth. When the "missile defense" lies (eg. that they work) fail, as they always have in Europe, weapons makers turn to another irrational fear: asteroids. The odds of an asteroid damaging Europe are so much lower than many other preventable crises that the entire sham is transparent. The odds of AIDS killing millions is much higher, and more preventable. The odds of climate change killing millions are also much higher. The odds of a generation of people learning to watch TV rather than learning to read or think are much higher. There are known solutions to these likely crises that will cost less, and benefit much more. But they don't play on the kind of irrational fear that lets governments spend billions of people's money without accountability. So we'll pay for these lies once when we fund the sham, and again when the real threats come home to roost.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:LIES about space weapons by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      you clearly know nothing of the consequences of fat tails and outliers

    2. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only difference is that a worldwide annhilation of all life resulting from a massive asteroid impact is not something you can fix after the fact.

    3. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you saying that the odds of the Earth suffering nation-scale damage from a meteorite are higher than the odds of crippling illiteracy, plague, drought/flood, or any of a number of other affordably solvable problems? You clearly know nothing but the exotic details of your planetoid fetish. Don't expect the rest of us, more interested in our home planet's fortunes, to be similarly dazzled.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How do you propose fixing worldwide annihilation of human life by plague or Greenhouse after the fact? When you are dead, you won't care about the rest of the planet, but while you're alive, you can do something about the real threats.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:LIES about space weapons by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      The odds of an asteroid damaging Europe are so much lower than many other preventable crises that the entire sham is transparent. The odds of AIDS killing millions is much higher, and more preventable. The odds of climate change killing millions are also much higher.

      There's still much to be learned about how likely an impact is. We don't know how many near Earth objects (NEOs) there are. We are especially uncertain about the number of smaller NEOs, because they are hardest to detect.

      The smaller but still deadly NEOs (around 500-1000m in diameter) are harder to find than huge asteroids, but also much easier to divert. That sounds to me like a good reason to spend some effort on better detection and defence.

      Nor is this limited to European interests. According to the British Near Earth Object Task Force a 1km asteroid would be sufficient to cause global climate change. It's true that the risk of such a collision is low, but that has to be multiplied by the potential of many millions of immediate casualties, followed by millions more who could die due to the after effects of an impact.

    6. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you propose fixing worldwide annihilation of human life by plague or Greenhouse after the fact? When you are dead, you won't care about the rest of the planet, but while you're alive, you can do something about the real threats.

      It is highly doubtful that either plague or Greenhouse effect could kill off all human life. There has never been a plague that was anything close to 100% fatal, and it is biologically doubtful that such a thing is possible, given the large diversity and wide distribution of our population. As for the Greenhouse effect, plausible worst-case projections are on the order of a few degrees warmer, occurring over a fairly long period of time, and possibly an increase in severe weather. No plausible projection has the Greenhouse effect producing more than a modest effect on the size of the human population. I would place the probability of annihilation of human life by either of these events essentially at zero.

      On the other hand, large asteroid impacts clearly have occurred in the past. There is credible scientific evidence that they have wiped out widely-distributed species in the past. Projections of consequences of a large impact suggest that it is plausible that such an impact could kill all human life. Asteroid impacts are the only known, credible, avoidable event that could potentially wipe out humanity. This would seem to justify significant investment in protection.

    7. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, you are confusing the damage done by a meteorite with the probability that it will hit. Are you proposing we build space arks, because it is possible that the Sun will expand ahead of its 6B year schedule? Why aren't you more threatened by the plagues and Greenhouse, which have a much higher probability of killing you, directly or through national collapse? Aren't you just more fascinated by the space lasers than by combination therapy, prophylactics, or carbon remediation?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:LIES about space weapons by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my opinion, AIDS is not a government problem.

      In many ways, AIDS is completely preventible and needs no government money. So many people are fully aware of the risks and yet continue to have unprotected sex and share needles. I don't see the point in spending government money to protect people from themselves.

      IIRC, auto accidents kill more people than AIDS does. I don't see the point in halting space research just because people are still willing to kill each other.

    9. Re:LIES about space weapons by 12357bd · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ironic to moderate the parent post as Funny?

      --
      What's in a sig?
    10. Re:LIES about space weapons by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      It's quite well established that an asteroid impact has a nonzero chance of happening, and that such an impact would cause a great loss of human life. Do you want to back up your assertions that plagues and the greenhouse effect will have similar consequences (such as: citing studies indicating probable loss of life), or are you just blowing hot air because it's the cool thing to do?

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    11. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'll leave aside the distinction without difference between Dutch and British interests in "Europe". Spending money tracking objects in the Solar system is worthwhile, in innovation, science, and exploration. SOme of those benefits will also help develop technology to protect us from the other threats of ignorance, pollution and disease. But spending the vastly larger amounts on systems which fraudulently target a negligible risk, instead of the real threats, is not just bad policy. It's a LIE: supporters' naivete and enthusiasm for space development is being exploited by weapons makers to fund their latest version of an unworkable, but profitably expensive, "missile defense shield". If the tracking system reveals, despite current evidence, that the odds of meteorite damage are high enough to prioritize a defense, we can make that analysis. Until then, we're just being conned again, our wallets jerked out of our pockets by chains of fear.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I get these "Funny" mods from time to time. Maybe it's a "clicko", as mods use the GUI poorly. I also get lots of inappropriate "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods, but I ascribe those to Anonymous moderator Cowards who mod rather than reply. Maybe an AmC who likes the post, but doesn't know why, rates it "Funny" rather than reply with support. That's the kind of mismoderation that could include ignorance that "Funny" doesn't add any points.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You don't understand public health. Large groups of people, who are subject to epidemics, don't behave simply as large numbers of individuals. The group needs administration as a group, or their behavior will be prey to "social diseases" like AIDS. Whether or not you personally get AIDS, the damage to the society in which you live, due to lowered productivity, morale and distraction of healthy caretakers, is worth protecting you from. Do you resent the taxes you pay that maintain ghetto fire departments, or schools?

      Auto accidents don't scale up like epidemics like AIDS. And only you have suggested halting "space research" because people are willing to kill each other. That's a weak response to the appropriate prioritization of corporate welfare weapons systems, cravenly masqerading as paranoid "space defense", far below public health.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      No, you are confusing the damage done by a meteorite with the probability that it will hit.

      No. I am suggesting that the preservation of the human species is a worthwhile endeavor quite apart from the preservation of individual lives, and should not be evaluated on the same cost-benefit basis as the preservation of individual lives. And I am arguing that an asteroid (not meteorite) impact is in fact the most probable preventable hazard to the human species as a whole.

      Are you proposing we build space arks, because it is possible that the Sun will expand ahead of its 6B year schedule?

      Obviously not. Are you? If so, there are a number of questions you must answer to demonstrate that this is a credible, preventable threat. What is the scientific basis for expecting the sun to expand ahead of schedule? Is there any evidence for such events in the past? Where, specifically, do you expect the arks to go. In contrast, there are a variety of possible approaches to protecting against asteroid impact.

      Why aren't you more threatened by the plagues and Greenhouse, which have a much higher probability of killing you, directly or through national collapse?

      I think we are already investing about the appropriate amount of money into basic biological research in pharmacology, bacteriology, biochemistry, and virology to defend against plagues, and that additional investment is unlikely to yield much additional benefit (although I probably shouldn't admit this, since I am a biologist myself and greater investment in these areas would almost certainly mean more money for me).

      Aren't you just more fascinated by the space lasers than by combination therapy, prophylactics, or carbon remediation?

      Space lasers do not seem to be a particularly good candidate for asteroid defense, although they might be useful for power transmission. I don't believe carbon remediation on the scale required to make an appreciable difference in global warming is politically feasible, I seriously doubt seriously that it is cost-effective, and I while I think that a slow increase in average temperature will be inconvenient and expensive (and probably more so for the US than most countries--we already have a great climate; almost any change would be for the worse), I think that people will be able to adjust; I do not see a realistic prospect of global disaster.

    15. Re:LIES about space weapons by 12357bd · · Score: 1

      I am not sure about missile efectiveness on a NEO episode, probably very low, but if you look at ancient history (miths and ancient traditions) there are clear traces of similar episodes in our past.

      Fire from sky, falling rocks, tidal waves and other catastrofic events are recorded in almost every tradition all over the world. In fact I don't know of any single ancient culture without this kind of memories.

      As someone said about a NEO impact; the question is not 'if', is just 'when'. Our traditions registers that survivers considered the events so paramount than they shall not be forgoten!. I am not pretending to favor armament industry, but self defense is something natural.

      --
      What's in a sig?
    16. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm bored by your demand for citations of plague and Greenhouse devastation which are well known, even to those who continue to groundlessly deny them. Show me something we haven't seen, like a credible study that shows a big (10+Kton) asteroid impact on a populated region in the next 100 years, with a higher probability than plague or Greenhouse causing similar human damage in the same timeframe. When you can't, accept that this "antiasteroid" propaganda is just another way to rob us of money to build space weapons, without a real threat or possibility they'll work.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    17. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And their traditional response to these events is to prey on the fear of their unsophisticated followers, telling a story to bolster the masses' faith in the leaders, claiming credit for defense and divine favor, while wasting everyone's time with lipflapping. They didn't get antiasteroid defense, and neither will we. We've got the time-honored tradition of lying about intimidating, but nonthreatening, heavenly events for money and power. Of course the official stories never forget these essential events of self-perpetuation.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:LIES about space weapons by a10t2 · · Score: 1

      The odds are low, but it's the potential impact (no pun intended) that an asteroid would have that makes these defenses worth the expense.

    19. Re:LIES about space weapons by 12357bd · · Score: 1

      Agreed on historic manipulation by religions and politics, but the lets not forget that the fact is that this kind of memories exist on every tradition, from the 'big' ones to the small aboriginal peoples.

      That excludes the posibility of being only local plots, and the simplest remaining explanation is that these are memories from natural events. The interesting part is that if even in our limited memories (just some thousands of years) we already have that kind of experiences, those episodes seems to be more frecuent that we use to believe today.

      --
      What's in a sig?
    20. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The odds of AIDS killing millions is much higher, and more preventable."

      And we're doing something about that. Billions go into research and prevention each year in the USA alone. Just because there' a more likely problem in one area doesn't mean we should ignore other possible problems,

      "The odds of climate change killing millions are also much higher."

      No doubt about that, but how do you suppose we prevent against that? Not sure if any research is being done in this area.

      "The odds of a generation of people learning to watch TV rather than learning to read or think are much higher."

      This is a social problem that science isn't going to solve.

      Now you are talking about people dying in the millions, which is scary enough in itself. If a reasonable sized asteroid collided with the earth you are talking about the death of closer to 5 billion people, and possible extinction of our species.

    21. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asteroid impacts are the only known, credible, avoidable event that could potentially wipe out humanity.

      Obviously, you don't know SCO's real plans! BWAHAHAHAkekaugh...hack....HAHAHAHA!

    22. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      From aborigines to corporate christians, we're all exploitable by faithmongers. I also infer a history of astronomy encoded in these myths. But the length of the history need not be so short: there's no reason that the recent (5Ky) stories can't be retellings of more ancient (14+Ky) ones. Or even older - recent acceleration of changes indicate that long-past generations were much more conservative of passed "wisdom", possibly extending back several iceages or more, perhaps in the 100+Ky range, or even older. The myths told while chipping arrowheads might refer to events in the 1+My range; our genetics (and therefore nervous systems) are pretty much the same as then, so why not our memetics? There's still no reason to believe that devastating impacts are more frequent than we did before.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    23. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point: the astronomically low odds (pun intended) deprioritize the crisis below other, much higher, odds, like the ones I'd prioritize. Who cares that we've got an asteroid defense laying idle for 50,000 years, when our species has barely survived the plague or Ice Age because we invested in the wrong solution? Once we've dealt with the real, imminent threats, we'll be in a better position to analyze the unquantified, but low, odds of asteroid threat. Finite (though large) resources require prioritization and real choices. That's why the weapons makers are blowing all this smoke - because they chose the wrong business.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:LIES about space weapons by sjs132 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think the real problem is that we all worry about some threat (aids, greenhouse, astriods, etc..) killing off all life on earth ... (dot, dot, dot.) AS WE KNOW IT. Who cares... If environmentalists really cared, they'd commit suicide the minute they realize that they impact the planets ecosystem negativly, just by existing... In reality, no matter what we do, we may kill a LOT of life, and even exterimate ourselves, but in the end, the earth (GIA therory?) will survive, with or without us... So why waste your time worring about things?

      Come on, you know I'm right...

      Just head down to the local pawn shop and get a little pistol

      Yep, just put it to your head and end all your worries about your impact on the environment...

      No more Gas to get back and forth to work

      No more wasted water by drinking or bathing...

      Thats it, just pull that trigger a bit more...

      No more emmitions of Carbon Dioxide by breathing...

      No more Methane emmitions from too many beans...

      Stretch that tendon just a biiiit more.....

      No more usage of questionable energy supplies...

      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

      Ok, now that thats done, only the sane people should be left.. Now lets build that spacecraft to cover up our arms race... And maybe actually kick some AStroid while we're at it... :p

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    25. Re:LIES about space weapons by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Plague

      Non-zero chance, and increasing as the climate gets nicer for mosquitos and such, as seen recently in NY.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    26. Re:LIES about space weapons by 12357bd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      astronomy is a clasical and easy explanation, the problem I have with this one, is that 1) is too simple and 2) is an opinion from our own culture, 'we' have astronomy but what about the ones that lived 20Ky before?.

      There's still no reason to believe that devastating impacts are more frequent than we did before.

      No, no more frequent, but if our memories are right, they already happened (ie: there are strong indications of an abrupt end of the Bronce Age (3.5Ky), that expanded across northen africa to middle east and extensive fiires on south europe). Those are not very ancient events, the problem is that our memories are very short.

      --
      What's in a sig?
    27. Re:LIES about space weapons by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      They didn't get antiasteroid defense, and neither will we.

      Um, they didn't get an antiasteroid defense because, well, they had neither a functioning and comprehensive understanding of celestial mechanics, nor a history of remote sensing, nor a well-developed rocket industry, nor nuclear weapons, nor...

      To say that the ancients were duped and that we are being duped in the same way is just simply silly. No matter what the evil overlords of religion had said 3Kyears ago, they could not have delivered an antiasteroid defense. We are not them -- so many people seem to forget that we live in an epoch without parallel in human history. There has never been a scientific, technological, industrial society in human history; don't oversell what you can judge from past capabilities.
    28. Re:LIES about space weapons by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Do you resent the taxes you pay that maintain ghetto fire departments, or schools?

      Are you kidding? This is slashdot, where we're all wide-swinging libertarians. What the heck is the repressive government doing in the ghettos, anyway? Why shouldn't the inhabitants have the right to burn whatever they want? And if conditions are bad, well, they should have chosen better when selecting their parents.

      In case it isn't obvious: {SARCASM} {/SARCASM} tags should be inserted.
    29. Re:LIES about space weapons by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      last I checked the dino's were more than nationwide, no?
      Illiteracy has not been a problem for what, 5000 years or so?
      If anything, the planet is at its most literate today. As for plagues, they come and go and are have a lot more to do with sanitation. Last check the septic system in N. America and Europe was pretty good. Droughts and floods have been going on since Noahs time, and frankly I think it a lot more likely we manage to deflect/blow up a big rock in space than change the weather in any significant way.

      In any event, none of the things you mentioned would ever
      wipe humans off the whole earth, yet an asteroid hit does have that potential.

    30. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the government spending the people's money to protect them from threats. There's a finite amount of money, and an infinite list of potential threats, so we prioritize for results. Before we spend any money on asteroid defense, we are obligated to reduce the threat of others, higher on the priority list, to a lower threat priority than asteroids. That means billions more to marginalize diseases, get a grip on reversing or coping with the Greenhouse, and educating people so all of these problems are less threatening. The political will do prioritize appropriately comes from people understanding the priorities, rather than just fearmongering and tech pimping. That's why we have our priorities wrong now, but there's no reason they should stay that way.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    31. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Everyone has astronomy, in the sense I use the word: names for the "stars" (distant objects in the sky). Ancients seem to have had much more sophisticated astronomy than pre-20th Century Eur/Americans, as detailed in books like Hamlet's Mill and The Orion Mystery, even if you reject the authors' inferences. Their framework was in the form of anthropocentric myth, but the encoded info guided them by starlight around the global seas.

      Information about predictive frequency requires both a mechanical model and data to form/tweak it. Single events don't provide frequency. But archaeology, geology and astronomy (recorded observations) can. Before spending money on antiasteroid weapons, we'd be sensible to spend more on the science and engineering to build those models. In the process, we'd contribute to solving more of our other problems. But that doesn't line the pockets of weapons makers, so we remain in the grip of faith/fear that has ruled us since time immemorial.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    32. Re:LIES about space weapons by LuckyStarr · · Score: 1

      You talk about odds and probabilities. What you confuse is risk and threat.

      A personal risk can not be evaluated on the same basis as a general threat.

      An impact of an extraterrestrial body is widely regarded a general threat to our very existence.

      --
      Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
    33. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We're closer to antiasteroid defense than were they, but not nearly close enough to be safe. But that doesn't stop the weapons makers from pretending we can buy that safety from them, just as they've been pretending for decades that they'll protect us from missiles. They'll sell it to us, and we won't be hit (for hundreds, thousands of years), and they'll take the credit for keeping us calm. It was ever thus. Don't let our fancy toys convince you that people are much wiser than our ancestors. If anything, our experience with modern "magic" out to teach us respect for its extreme limits. I'll get right back to this post, after I search my spam inbox for the patch to the IE bug keeping me from logging into Slashdot.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    34. Re:LIES about space weapons by 12357bd · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't line the pockets of weapons makers, so we remain in the grip of faith/fear that has ruled us since time immemorial.

      just to be fair: modern weapon makers are not responsable of inmemorial stupidity, just unlimited greed. :)

      --
      What's in a sig?
    35. Re:LIES about space weapons by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

      quote
      "Asteroid impacts are the only known, credible, avoidable event that could potentially wipe out humanity. This would seem to justify significant investment in protection."
      end quote

      I disagree, due to the energies involved and ranges to target I would suggest that asteroid impacts most certainly are NOT avoidable, because to have a sufficient level of space tech (and energy budget) to afford to alter the delta vee of an asteroid suggests a technology level that already has the human race (and hopefully genetic material from the majority of the bioshpere) so well established OFF earth that the population of earth represents a MINORITY of the entire population.

      Who knows, if the accountants, managers, lawyers and politicians are the ones who stay behind on earth (shades of douglas adams) maybe the human race as a whole will decide to say fuck it, and make no attempt whatsoever to avoid the collision....

      --
      http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    36. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The impact that apparently killed the dinosaurs was over 65 MILLION years ago. When was the prior one? With that kind of frequency, we can afford to eradicate AIDS and cope with the Greenhouse before we're actually threatened by an asteroid. And illiteracy is a problem everywhere. The plague we're talking about, AIDS, isn't affected by sanitation, it's affected by education - literacy - and expensive national health care. When we spend billions of dollars on defense, it's important to separate the size of potential damage from the miniscule probability of occurence, and consider them both when prioritizing the budget. That's what puts the smaller, but cataclysmic, damage of plague and the Greenhouse much higher on the TO DO list than a possible meteorite in the next 1000 years: the reality of the former threats, and the delusion of the latter. But you're getting the distorted antiasteroid priority from the weapons makers who pull the levers of government to protect their profits, not to protect the people.

      If you don't believe otherwise, I've got a $10T quantum fluctuation shield to sell you, keeping down the threat of spontaneous quark reversal to a manageable minimum. The prototype in my basement has been keeping us safe since it was started up by my Atlantean predecessors, but I'm running out of virgins to sacrifice to it. Hang on to this tinfoil hardhad, and I'll show you the specs...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    37. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The impact that apparently killed the dinosaurs was over 65 MILLION years ago. When was the prior one?

      I assume you have the Master Asteroid Collision Schedule and can confirm that we are in absolutely no danger in the short to moderate-term future. Otherwise, I think that after 65 million years without a major impact, it's quite possible that we're due for one. Bruce Willis is gettin on up in years now. We should be preparing a fallback plan.

    38. Re:LIES about space weapons by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but should read this.

      All life uses energy, and sustainable life doesn't create negative spirals.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    39. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about this dysfunctional moderation:

      Starting Score: 1 point
      Moderation 0
      50% Overrated
      50% Underrated
      Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)
      Total Score: 2

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    40. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is just not making much sense. You need to have a good solid idea before you go building entire systems to protect the planet, that's a given. But you have to do a lot of research to get enough info to design a solid system in the first place. If we don't keep experimenting with the various ideas for stopping an asteroid, we will never have a defense against them. Missile defense is a whole different problem really. You're trying to defend against an enemy that can react to your preparations and attempt to defeat them (which has always been the major weakness of proposed missile defense systems, and the reason that they should not be building actual production systems at this point). Asteroids don't do that. I'd say we've got a much better chance of creating an effective asteroid defense system than an effective missile defense system.

    41. Re:LIES about space weapons by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Don't let our fancy toys convince you that people are much wiser than our ancestors.

      We're not a lot wiser, perhaps, but we are much more capable.

      On the other hand: slavery is now universally illegal. (It's not gone, but it's gone underground, and that's still progress.) Maybe we are wiser after all.
    42. Re:LIES about space weapons by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you all are afraid of. Lets say we get to global warming first, I have the full proof solution that has been tried and tested in Florida for years, AC!! And what if a meteor hits.... ignoring the suck possibility that it lands on me or near me, I figure the power companies would love it, we would need light 24/7 from the dust in the air and heaters woudl be running overitme. Of course, if you aren't american, you might feel for all the people without heat or AC but hey, its survival of the fittest.

    43. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There has never been a plague that was anything close to 100% fatal

      ...until genetic engineering came along...

    44. Re:LIES about space weapons by Chuck1318 · · Score: 1

      There was a conference on asteroid defense a while back that included scientists conducting the sky searches for possible hazards and also military personnel. The scientists' concept of asteroid defense involved detecting an asteroid in an orbit that would collide with the earth years or decades in the future. A relatively gentle nudge would change its orbit over the years enough to miss the earth. We could cobble together something from existing technology to do that if it became necessary. The military's concept was a prepared military force that could intercept and deflect an incoming asteroid detected when it was crossing the orbit of the moon. This scenario is much less likely than one in which a dangerous asteroid is observed many years in advance. A military force with that much power would have the capability of itself wiping out all life on earth, and it would be a greater threat than any danger from asteroids. No one can be assured that it would stay in responsible hands indefinitely into the future. By all means we should continue and improve the search for potential hazardous asteroids, and carry out experiments on how to nudge them in their orbits, such as the one being discussed. But spending huge amounts of money to create another hazard is ridiculous.

    45. Re:LIES about space weapons by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Well, lets put it this way. Your odds of dying from an asteroid impact are about the same as the odds of dying in an airline crash. Therefore spending on asteroid defence should be in a similar ballpark to spending on airline safety.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    46. Re:LIES about space weapons by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      There are known solutions to these likely crises that will cost less, and benefit much more.

      Why can't we do both? Legalize drugs and use all the money currently spent on drug enforcement to fund asteroid defense as well as the things you mentioned.

    47. Re:LIES about space weapons by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Before we spend any money on asteroid defense, we are obligated to reduce the threat of others, higher on the priority list, to a lower threat priority than asteroids.

      1) We don't have to allocate all the money to the allegedly higher-probability threats before funding other threats.

      2) We can increase the amount of money available for funding by eliminating spending on certain non-existent threats such as the War on Drugs.

    48. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      I disagree, due to the energies involved and ranges to target I would suggest that asteroid impacts most certainly are NOT avoidable, because to have a sufficient level of space tech (and energy budget) to afford to alter the delta vee of an asteroid suggests a technology level that already has the human race (and hopefully genetic material from the majority of the bioshpere) so well established OFF earth that the population of earth represents a MINORITY of the entire population.

      Energies involved? You can alter the delta-V of an asteroid by shooting it with a .22. And if it is far enough away, that could be enough alteration to avert a collision. As it gets closer, the delta-V required becomes larger, but there are still many possible technically feasible solutions that involve a combination of early warning and various ways of nudging an asteroid. But to know which of the many possible methods are most worth pursuing, we need to know more about the composition of asteroids and how they react to impacts. Hence, the study.

    49. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      There has never been a plague that was anything close to 100% fatal...until genetic engineering came along...

      And there still isn't. There is no reason to believe that genetically engineered diseases will be more universally fatal than natural ones. Nobody knows how to create a universally fatal disease, if it is even possible. Minimally, you would need complete knowledge of all of the variations in the human genome worldwide, and a full understanding of their functional significance. Even if it were possible, there is little incentive to try. Engineered weapons are usually designed to kill the other guy, not your own people as well. That's why diseases like anthrax, which is not transmitted from human to human, have been so popular with weapons designers.

    50. Re:LIES about space weapons by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      "The plague we're talking about, AIDS, isn't affected by sanitation, it's affected by education - literacy - and expensive national health care."

      1- dont share needles
      2- dont have unprotected sex
      3- dont put untested blood into the blood supply

      Have I missed any other major transmission route for aids?
      People can jump up and down on the soap box all they want,
      #1 and #2 will still occur, and there are people who even go
      around disputing #2. No amount of 'literacy' or 'education' will help that. #3 is something that should be easily done for relatively small money.

      Aren't we suppose to run out of oil in 50 odd years or so?
      That should put a pretty big dent into the whole greenhouse thing.

    51. Re:LIES about space weapons by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      Nothing major will be done before there is a first real impact during modern times.

      Let's pray it's a small one ('levels a (part of a) city, causes some climate instability for a few years') instead of a big one ('levels a continent, fucks up entire earth for decades')

      In fact, scientists have real factual data of an impact during the past 100 years - the Tunguska object. Yep, it was most likely a cometary fragment and not an asteroid, and yep, it exploded in the atmosphere well above ground. It still levelled huge amounts of forest and caused tons of damage. Had it happened in densely populated areas, the casualties would have been major. In fact, had that one hit western europe instead of a remote area in russia, we might have completely different look at the problem today.

    52. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the circles in which *you* travel, the threat of the Greenhouse and plagues like AIDS is a greater threat than a meteorite. The "wide regard" about which you write is the irrational "reason" that the Star Wars hustlers will get funding in Europe, where their "missile defense" lies don't play as well in a land which has had missiles actually land, and where people know better than to trust the military contractors to protect them from more. If only they had more experience with meteorites, they might not fall for that one either. Then again, with such short memories about the plagues and climate changes they've suffered in the past millennium, maybe they're easy targets for anything.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    53. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Bruce's career is more predictable than asteroid impacts. Spending some money to make a more accurate model is worthwhile, especially as it also serves to advance tech that offers solutions to Greenhouse, plague, illiteracy and other higher priority problems. Just spending the big money on meteorite intercepts merely competes with those more important solutions. And if we find something worth diverting, we'll let Bruce cut the ribbon.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    54. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Asteroid defense is more feasible than missile defense, mostly due to the high infeasibility of knocking out missiles. Particularly nuclear ones which don't allow any real margin of error. The first step in stopping a killer meteorite is to find and track it. And until one is found, the fear of the threat is just paranoia.

      The real relationship between the two is that both cost a lot of money, paid by governments to the same military contractors. The main difference, to the contractors, is that missile defense is ineffective marketing these days, especially in Europe. That's why we're looking at meteorite defense instead. If these contractors were in the combination virus therapy business, or carbon sequestration, we'd get that instead. But those businesses are also different from the "shoot 'em down" biz, in that they have measurable results, rather than unaccountability post-doomsday. So they're not as attractive to people in the killing careers.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    55. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, their ilk merely feeds us the poisons to which we're addicted.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    56. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Some of us have more wisdom: slavery might be coming back, though it never left. And most of us have more capability, like hijacking planes into big buildings, or driving 2ton, 15MPG cars more miles to work than people used to travel from their birthplaces in their entire lives. The capability outbalances the wisdom. But, oddly, communications advances like Slashdot are our saving grace.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    57. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How's that? Thousands have died in airplane crashes in the past few years. None have died from meteorites for hundreds, thousands of years, although I believe that I remember a woman in Europe surviving an imact to her foot recently. So really, asteroid defense spending ought to match our spending on armored shoes.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    58. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Even the billions saved and earned by legalizing drugs won't pay to resolve plague, Greenhouse, and other problems immediately. They come with a large, complex global population unable to communicate adequately with itself to cope with a myriad smaller local problems. But once we've got the certain, and then probable, problems solved, then yeah, lets shoot at some asteroids.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    59. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If we take the list of current priorities and revise them according to an actual cost:benefit/risk analysis, we'll drop expenses like the Drug War, consequently much of the Terror War, lots of the energy biz corporate welfare, moving on to most arms dealing. Along the way, by prioritizing education, we'll probably start generating more equitable wealth, leaving governments less to do. In the meantime, we have to choose between these programs, because the list of "problems" that some privileged people get paid to "solve" is infinite, while the money available is finite. Until we're actually looking at the political revolution required by the reprioritization, the best we can do is laugh down these frivolous pork barrel expenses like asteroid defense.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    60. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Real world data from the past 20 years, not just armchair epidemiology, shows that the more education worked in the population, the more people do #1 & 2, not to mention #3. But the minimization of transmission, even with education, isn't even asymptotic. What's required is a vaccine, and a therapy for the infected. That's a lot of money. But it'll be worth it, as more autoimmune diseases are generated in our interconnected synthetic environments. So it's a valuable investment in keeping the species' immune system advantaged against the threats.

      When we run out of oil, probably closer to 10-20 years from now, we'll "desperately" switch to coal and nuclear. Which will be worse, but the same crooks who keep us addicted to oil will happily switch our prescription. While the Greenhouse cloaks around us. Even if we switch completely to solar and carbon sequestration instead, we'll probably be too late to start dealing with the Greenhouse momentum, other than learning to breathe underwater.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    61. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Greenhouse will likely turn Europe into Greater Scandanavia, the world's populous coastlines into a global Venice, and the Midwest into a thousand-mile Tornado Canyon, not to mention the deserts across the ravaged landscapes when bioweb species can't adapt to the more rapid climate change around them. Some people will adjust, like our great grandmothers did the past few ice ages. But that's as serious a threat to galvanize us into action as a killer meteorite, with much higher probability and immediacy. The political inertia for coping with these other crises derives from exactly the kind of opposition I'm repudiating in this long thread. I expect to survive any of these threats, although my meteorite plan is to calmly wait.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    62. Re:LIES about space weapons by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I guess I see asteroid defense as fundamentally more worthwhile than the drug war, the terror war, corporate welfare, etc. So I would rather direct my "laughing down" efforts at those expenses...

    63. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Let's laugh at all of them, all the way to the bank, then spend the money educating our kids in how to communicate. Then they'll have the time and inclination to laugh at the medieval disaster we used to call "business as usual".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    64. Re:LIES about space weapons by greenrd · · Score: 1
      You're doing the calculation wrong. You do P(Asteroid Collision with Earth) x Number of Casualties. You've correctly observed that P(Asteroid Collision with Earth) is low, but you've forgotten to factor in the expected number of casualties. And you have to sum this over all possible asteroid sizes. The calculation was done a few years ago and came IIRC to the conclusion previously quoted.

      I think the risk estimate has been revised slightly downward since then, but certainly not enough to make it negligible.

      Of course, this just goes to show that probability is wildly counterintuitive at the extremes.

    65. Re:LIES about space weapons by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      I for one wouldn't mind a large boost in nuclear power at all, especially with the newer plant designs. And once /. makes the space elevator waste storage wont be a problem anymore either!

    66. Re:LIES about space weapons by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Several hundred Google refferences.

      To simplify, killing one person per day every day* yeilds the exact same statistics as killing 365 million people all at once every million years.

      * Footnote: Every day except leap-days. On leap-day we get a special holliday where we don't kill someone :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    67. Re:LIES about space weapons by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

      quote
      Energies involved? You can alter the delta-V of an asteroid by shooting it with a .22. And if it is far enough away, that could be enough alteration to avert a collision.
      end quote

      without doing the math myself, I think you are hopelessly under estimating the energies involved...

      hitting a 40 foot container sized asteroid 50 million miles out with several hundred rounds (finally a use for depleted uranium rounds??) of rifle ammunition might well be enough to alter its course from earth impact to an atmosphere grazer... but so what, such sized asteroids aren't going to do any damage on a global scale... too bad if they hit a city, no big deal if they smack down in mid pacific.

      however, the real threats are mount everest sized lumps of rock, you could expend every bullet ever manufactured 50 million miles downrange and I suspect you will move ground zero by a few feet.

      for such sized rocks you could theoretically fire every nuke warhead ever made, but since there is nothing for the explosions to "push" against in space I'd suspect that even this would only turn one big lump into a shotgun blast....

      let's say it's light rock and ice, 1000 kilogrammes per cubic metre, let's say it's everest sized, 10,000 metres, let's say it's roughly spherical so that 10,000 metres is a diameter, 4/3rds of pi times radius cubed, which is (rounding down) 523,000,000,000 cubic metres, time mass and we get 523,000,000,000,000 kilogrammes, lets say it is moving slowly, at 5 kilometres a second, that's 5,000 metres a second, multiply that by our mass and we get...

      2,615,000,000,000,000,000 kg-m/sec

      divide by 0.102 to get watts

      25,637,254,901,960,784,313 watts or
      25,637,254,901,960 megawatts

      total world electricity generation capacity is currently about 350,000 megawatts

      so this object has as much energy as 73,249,299, let's call it 75 MILLION years of electricity production at TODAYS maximum total world capacity......

      engineers know that the bottom line is usually energy, given enough energy you can do anything (give me a long enough lever etc) albeit having to deal with the waste heat etc...

      now we have an object that will deliver as much energy as if we had been running every power plant on the planet TODAY flat out for 20 MILLION YEARS BEFORE the dinosaurs were extinct, except those power plants would have been destroyed by the "dinosaur killer"

      no, sorry, until fusion energy becomes so cheap and common that you as an average human can go down to your local hardware store and buy a briggs and stratton micropile and fill the fuel tank up with a couple of gallons of seawater then the human race doesn't have enough energy at it's disposal to blay cosmic billiards....

      long before then we will have orders of magnitude more energy than is required to get the genetic material off planet (out of the petri dish) and colonise space and the planets.

      sleep tight.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    68. Re:LIES about space weapons by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

      quote myself
      so this object has as much energy as 73,249,299, let's call it 75 MILLION years of electricity production at TODAYS maximum total world capacity......
      end

      ah, think I made a boo-boo there, still works out at 2 or 3 years total human energy generation capacity though....

      --
      http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    69. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, you're using the same flawed math that perpetuated the nuclear arms race for decades. At a certain number of casualties, that quantity becomes redundant. A big enough meteorite would kill enough people, or destroy enough of our civilization or economy, that it would be worth spending whatever we had to stop it - beyond that, it's just making the rubble bounce. The same is true of the Greenhouse, plagues, and the other real problems already destroying us. Both scenarios, if realized, pass the "imperative" threshold. The difference is that the Greenhouse etc. are a certainty, destroying us now, while the probability of the meteorite impact, not even truly quantified, is remote. Compared to certainty of destruction, that doesn't qualify for much of the limited funds available. In fact, it qualifies meteorites merely for modeling, to quantify the probability of impact. If we're looking at a meaningful probability of an actual trajectory, we're right to prioritize. If not, we're just maintaining job security for the weapons industry whose nuclear war sequel, Star Wars, has fizzled at the box office for 20 years, and is now pitching a script rewrite with the same cast.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    70. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How close to a power plant do you live? How close to a waste disposal site? Mining/purification operations? Out of site, out of mind.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    71. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      From Space.com (one of your search results):

      "If a large enough asteroid hits Earth, as they are known to do every 100 million years or so, it could wipe out half of the planet's population. Whereas if an airplane crashes, as several do annually, it can kill hundreds of people. The odds actually even out."

      The odds don't even out. The frequency of cataclysmic meteorites (actually not reliable statistics) is 1:100My; we had one (probably) 65My ago. Does that mean the odds are now 2:1 in favor of annihilation this year, and they're 100% 35My from now? Of course not. If I flip a coin 1000 times, betting a penny on the majority outcome, I'm no less likely to win than if I bet a million bucks. There's no causal relationship between the frequency and the effect. That's why the probability and the damage amounts are independent in assessing the risk exposure. Statistics are descriptions of models. The terms of the model, and then the descriptions, must be accurate to the phenomena, or everything is lost in the translation. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    72. Re:LIES about space weapons by LuckyStarr · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do in which circles I travel. These are my own personal views.

      Look. You can not dismiss the threat of an impact as irrational. The risk and threat of such an event can be calculated, using the frequency and gravity of past events. You then have the means to compare this scenario to other threats and risks. Despite being low-risk (in recorded history no human alone was ever hit by a meteorite) the threat is not negligible because one past mass-extinction event may be assigned to such an impact.

      Regarding your fears of the "Star Wars hustlers": The scenario of deflecting an asteroid/meteorite is somewhat different from that of erradicating a whole city from the surface of the earth, though I share your fear that if we ever achieve the ability to alter a course of an asteroid/meteorite that this can be used to threaten other nations. ("If you dont do what I say, I will drop this thing on your city.") At the current time, this is very far beyond our current capabilities.

      My current position is this:

      1. We need to achieve this capability. The faster, the better. (Or we become extinct.)
      2. We need to come to a compromise of who should be in charge if it ever must be used. This is the hard part. This technology MUST be regulated by a trusted entity.
      3. We need to further improve our knowledge about the positions, masses and trajectories of celestial bodys crossing the earth orbit. More funding has to be spent on solar system surveillance.
      4. We must not allow that fear influences our decisions. There must be a way to save humanity from extinction.

      Although many may say that these are far-fetched plans, I am strictly against a devil-may-care mentality in situations where the survival of the entire human race is at stake.

      --
      Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
    73. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you proposing we build space arks, because it is possible that the Sun will expand ahead of its 6B year schedule?

      If sun starts to show obvious signs of expanding or otherwise becoming unstable in such scale it destroyes / turns Earth uninhabitable in near future, then yes, of course. What else would one do? Asteroids have already demonstrated this capability, repeatedly.

      Why aren't you more threatened by the plagues and Greenhouse, which have a much higher probability of killing you, directly or through national collapse?

      Perhaps he is concerned about all of us, now and future, instead of just himself and other folks living right now? Disease and greenhouse effect may cause dramatic and horrible loss millions of lives, but not exctinction of human race. Your "screw the future" attitude is incredibly selfish, but I guess that's to be excepted.

    74. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      so this object has as much energy as 73,249,299, let's call it 75 MILLION years of electricity production at TODAYS maximum total world capacity

      Yep. So you've calculated how much power it would take to stop an asteroid. But I'm a martial artist, so I know that when something big and strong is attacking you, you don't try to stop it; you give it a little shove at right angles to deflect it. So how much do we need to deflect our asteroid? Well, if it's going to hit us dead center, that would be about half the diameter of the earth, or about 6500 km. Let's say that we see it coming far enough out to start pushing 2 years from impact. That means that we will require an acceleration of 3.4 nm/(sec)^2. The corresponding force (taking your figure of 5.2 * 10^14 kg) is 1.75 * 10^6 newtons. Acting over a distance of 6500 km, that works out to 1.14 * 10^13 joules. Divided by 2 years gives us a power requirement of about 182 kilowatts. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, and well within the reach of an ion engine. And certainly considerably less than required to set up a colony on some other planet (which is a worthy goal, but much harder than deflecting an asteroid).

    75. Re:LIES about space weapons by juhaz · · Score: 1

      You have been watching too much movies. It's a probe, not an orbital weapons platform, or a huge ass bomb (I'm sure you can still "point it at Earth", but that won't accomplish anything any other lump of metal on orbit won't), and only thing expensive in that "system" is the effort of getting it up to space. It probably doesn't have anything to do with any weapons maker whatsoever, space industry in Europe is not nearly as tied to military as it is in USA.

      Dinosaur killing impacts by asteroids tens of kilometers in diameter are indeed exceedingly unlikely to happen during lifetime of any of us, but can not be discounted because of the amazing global damage potential they have, nor are they the only ones that are cause for concern, nor could we probably do anything about one, no, the smaller ones are what we should be on look for, as the size goes down the probability of impact goes up, nation destroying events happen somewhere in range of around every 100000 to million years, which is still so rare it's not too realistic to watch out for.

      However, Tunguska level impacts happen every five years or so, and blasts in low kiloton range (think Hiroshima) about once a year. Most of these obviously happen over sea or uninhabited land, and even go unnoticed, but it's just a matter of time (and now we're not speaking about millions of years) until one hits a major city wiping out millions of people, or gets mistaken for a nuke on unstable area and starts (possible nuclear) war.

    76. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      The Greenhouse will likely turn Europe into Greater Scandanavia, the world's populous coastlines into a global Venice, and the Midwest into a thousand-mile Tornado Canyon, not to mention the deserts across the ravaged landscapes when bioweb species can't adapt to the more rapid climate change around them. Some people will adjust, like our great grandmothers did the past few ice ages. But that's as serious a threat to galvanize us into action as a killer meteorite, with much higher probability and immediacy. The political inertia for coping with these other crises derives from exactly the kind of opposition I'm repudiating in this long thread. I expect to survive any of these threats, although my meteorite plan is to calmly wait.

      You're comparing a threat that will kill probably every large species on earth in a matter of days to one that will diminish the value of prime ocean front and agricultural property over a period of decades. This may come as a shock to you, but there are still people living in Venice. And Holland, as well. Human ingenuity has dealt with the problem of being below sea level before. And while the agricultural value of some land will decrease, other land will become more productive (and many plants actually thrive on elevated CO2). No, this isn't exactly welcome news to those in the US of us who are now squatting on some of the most prime real estate in the world, but it falls considerably short of ending humanity.

    77. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first step in stopping a killer meteorite is to find and track it. And until one is found, the fear of the threat is just paranoia.

      Yes, spotting and tracking is important, and we have several organizations doing just that. The problem is that there are a LOT of objects out there, and it's entirely possible that when we do spot one on a collision course for us, we won't have a lot of time to stop it. So given that several large impacts have happened in the past, we know they are quite possible. We should therefore figure out how to stop one so that if/when one is discovered we'll actually be able to do something besides wait around for it to hit. I don't think we should be building things on a large scale necessarily, but we should be doing the research and experimentation necessary to come up with one or more workable solutions. Intercepting and diverting an asteroid is a very different problem from intercepting and destroying a missile. We already know how to intercept the asteroid. That's the easy part. The hard part is figuring out how to apply enough force in a way that will change its trajectory enough that it will miss the earth. That's where we still need work. I don't see how that has anything to do with missile defense. It doesn't involve shooting anything down. And while some contractors could make money from the research, that's because they can provide a lot of smart people to work out the problems. I don't see a problem with that.

    78. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      in recorded history no human alone was ever hit by a meteorite

      Not quite true. Nobody that we know of has been killed, but there have been a couple of hits.

    79. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We're of much the same mind, but different ?hands? (that metaphor needs proper extension sometime). I agree that the evidence suggests the possibility, so it's worth establishing the actual risk. These meteorites don't just appear; their reflected (and cometary emitted) light preceeds them by many years, even at their fastest fractional-luminal velocities. And they travel in gravitational orbits. Establishing a Solar System "Interplanetary Net" with distributed sensors will quantify the risk. And contribute to vast scientific, economic and social improvement for the species, including the advance towards space colonization which might contribute to a possible inevitably apocalyptic impact. That's a certain return on investment, while engaging in the more speculative meteorite defense aspect.

      More importantly, that research will also contribute to solving our immediate, certain threats. Space research, imaging/analysis of Earth, and scientific economics will offer not only tech that addresses medicine, pollution and literacy problems, but inspires a "one world, one people" attitude that enhances our ability to work together on common problems that divide us to conquer us. The pragmatic "triage" calls for prioritizing research and development programs for these immediate threats, with some allocations to those "dual" (or greater) use technologies that have manifold benefits.

      Funding space-based active meteorite defense systems (not just detection and modeling) serves a different agenda. As I originally posted, and as I have maintained where appropriate in the resuling voluminous threads, the ESA asteroid defense system is just the American "Star Wars" system with a European accent. Americans have had some exposure to actual results, which consistently show rigged demos, illegal refunding, and endless propaganda for this vastly expensive boondoggle. The defense contractor tail wagged the Cold War dog for so long that it lost its bite, if not its bark, and we've had endless repackages of the space weapons marketing. The new paranoia, enhanced by Hollywood producers and fundamentalist Jeremiahs, puts lots of public stock in protecting us from space attacks. But the suppliers of the defenses are interested only in selling the "products" on the lab shelf. So we won't get working space systems, or the solutions to the immanent problems solvable by accountable R&D. Just a big bill, a long wait for a real test of the meteorite defenses (without anyone left to ask for a refund when they fail), and the same old "mundane" problems we neglected while we oiled the squeaky wheel instead. A "measured response" to all of these problems will see most of the money targeting threats already on the ground and in the air.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    80. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I expect obnoxious distortion of my reasonable positions from Anonymous Chicken Little Cowards. The future is being consumed by the Greenhouse and epidemics right now, which we need to fix in order to face the longer term future in which a meteorite might hit us within a manageable timeframe. My selfish interest includes preserving my descendents, and possibly myself, the way life extension is trending. Your selfish interest is to argue against points you might have made, if you were just as wrong in the other direction, but which I have not proposed.

      We're having a pretty lively debate on a "repeatedly uninhabitable" planet. We've got at least a window within which to solve the immediate, ongoing problems, before we get worked up on distracting "pie in the sky" solutions to problems lurking around the millennial corner.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    81. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see some documentation of your annual frequency for kiloton meteorite impacts. Then I'd like you to realize that even those purported impacts don't statistically threaten the Earth. Please don't submit an IMDB link - we're living proof of the safety of our environment. Or a fossilized footprint, either. We're talking about the relative priority of extinction scale events, unlikely in the next 1000 years. During which time we should be busy dealing with epidemic and pollution problems.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    82. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, I'm comparing something like the inundations of Bangladesh, happening now, to something like a movie you saw, possibly happening in the next 1-100 thousand years. Bangladesh on a global scale of hundreds of millions of people who will actually try to evacuate elsewhere, displacing billions. Holland and Venice will resemble the floor of the Mediterranean Sea, where people lived until the Gibraltar Flood. Unless they resemble the southwestern American desert, where the Anasazi lived until about 5000 years ago, after poisoning the land with agricultural runoff. The same scenarios apply to the Sahara, Gobi and Indian deserts, around the same timeframe. Climate change is happening *now*, it's happening *again*, and our civilization's capabilities might barely mitigate its effects. But once in full swing, we'll be no match for the rising tide.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    83. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Me neither - I'm all for a systemwide planetoid model, and an Interplanetary Network of sensors to keep it updated. Not in the least for the tech transfer to solve our other problems. But the ESA plan to test an Asteroid Defense System is the beachhead of America's Star Wars boondoggle in Europe. That's bankrupting space weapons budgets, by any means necessary, starting with lies to appeal to the paranoia of the day. Keep space the domain of scientists, constructive engineers, then responsible industrialists, rather than ceding it to corporate welfare for the warmongers.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    84. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumed by epidemics my hairy arse, human lifespan has been continually growing and continues to do so, infectious diseases as number one killer have been eradicated long ago and OVER-doing it will just make things worse as proved by bacteria developing antibiotic resistance after they've been fed for every damned thing and to animals.

      Top killers among diseases are heart conditions and cancer which are personal illness, not epidemic and mostly due to lifestyle and just growing old,

      Influenza is just about the only "epidemic" that still has significant mortality in civilized world on grand scheme of things, and even that's mostly on the elderly whose bodies are just not up to it any more - folks don't live forever.

      Greenhouse? We can't stop climate change, be it global warming or the other way around and the end of interglacial and new ice age.

      And yes, uninhabitable, or are you planning to morph into rat or cocroach to be able to inhabit the wasteland?

    85. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You go consume your hairy arse, Anonymous denial Coward. We're talking about the global AIDS epidemic, which can be nipped in the bud now, while it still threatens mostly people with whom we compete overseas. Before it's too late, and undercuts our own society irreparably. Before the number one killer takes years of expensive, shocking misery to consume millions of victims.

      Even heart disease is due to a variety of actual illnesses, many of which are viral and infectious. Same for cancer. But the real threat is from exactly those medication-resistant microbes we've bred with our indiscriminate use of antibiotics.

      As for the Greenhouse, I'm not going to battle with an Anonymous Coward once again over the obvious climate change around us, and our demonstrated direct influence over it. Part of this money spent on Star Wars in disguise should instead be spent educating loudmouth deniers like you to help cope with the damage, or just shut up and get out of the way.

      As for the uninhabitable comment which I discredited, and which you moronically parrot, I reiterate more clearly for the thinking impaired: we inhabit this planet, disproving the occurence of several events rendering it repeatedly uninhabitable. Sometimes I wish that weren't true, at least in the case of certain Anonymous yappy Cowards.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    86. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      No, I'm comparing something like the inundations of Bangladesh, happening now, to something like a movie you saw, possibly happening in the next 1-100 thousand years.

      Can't say that I've seen any movies on the topic. What movie did you have in mind? Yes, large numbers of people having to move, or money being spent to build seawalls, is a serious political problem. On the other hand, plausible worst-case scenarios have it happening over a period of decades, so there's lots of time to deal with it. It may well be cheaper and politically more practicable to move them than to institute and enforce the drastic reductions in CO2 emissions that would be required to make much of an impact on global CO2 levels. As you point out, people have managed to deal with climate change in the past.

    87. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, ad hominem, sure sign of idiot losing an argument.

      Give me one reason why AIDS epidemic would "undercut our own society irreparably" whereas other, just as deadly diseases with similar infection vectors and long incubation times (syphilis) that did not have a cure for long time didn't manage to do that?

      Deniers? I'm not denying climate change is happening. What I am denying is that we can keep the current obviously VERY temporary climate around forever, and if you think otherwise, start looking that loudmouth denier from your mirror.

      And indeed the planet has been repeatedly rendered uninhabitable for vast majority of it's previous inhabitants, I never claimed it hasn't been repaired after that by those few survivors, but even you can't be so stupid as to not get the meaning, so stop picking those damn nits.

    88. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it might be politically more convenient to take oil and coal company bribes until it's too late, then rake in more money on doomed "seawall" projects, while the coral reefs go extinct, agriculture collapses, millions riot. Then people will cope with the change the way we did in past ice ages: lose all but the most latent vestiges of this civilization, live at the mercy of catastrophic weather for millennia. Or we can reprioritize research from these meteorite paranoias to rebalancing our oceano/atmospheric carbon and energy cycles, while getting ahead of the curve in coping with the changes too late to influence.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    89. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're the one who brought up your "hairy arse", and who now calls me an idiot and stupid, without the guts to use even a flimsy Slashdot ID. AIDS is spreading by more than arses these days, with an infection rate more comparable to Europe's bubonic plague than the steady inconvenience of syphillis. When you open your eyes, you'll see that our interdependent society of expensive heroic medical measures is more vulnerable to this broader plague than ever before, to the point of termination.

      You're also predictably denying the human influence in climate change. Hordes of your ilk are perpetuating the damage every day. And even if you're now spinning "uninhabitable" to "not very inhabitable", that's bad enough to be indistinguishable to plan our resources for coping with these threats. Your fantasies about disease and climate science mark you as perfect fodder for the sexy spacewar pitch of these weapons makers. Too bad those of us with the practical plan for civilization's survival have to bring you along with us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    90. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Some of us have more wisdom: slavery might be coming back, though it never left. And most of us have more capability, like hijacking planes into big buildings, or driving 2ton, 15MPG cars more miles to work than people used to travel from their birthplaces in their entire lives. The capability outbalances the wisdom. But, oddly, communications advances like Slashdot are our saving grace.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    91. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I note that the Slashdot oracle, at the bottom right of the page in which this post is being submitted, says

      "A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility. -- Aristotle"

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    92. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it might be politically more convenient to take oil and coal company bribes until it's too late, then rake in more money on doomed "seawall" projects, while the coral reefs go extinct, agriculture collapses, millions riot. Then people will cope with the change the way we did in past ice ages: lose all but the most latent vestiges of this civilization, live at the mercy of catastrophic weather for millennia. Or we can reprioritize research from these meteorite paranoias to rebalancing our oceano/atmospheric carbon and energy cycles, while getting ahead of the curve in coping with the changes too late to influence.

      None of the serious climate models indicate an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2. Perhaps you are the one who has been watching too many movies? On the other hand, a good-sized asteroid impact might have a shot at triggering an ice age.

    93. Re:LIES about space weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And there still isn't.

      Not in humans, anyway. Not yet.

      There is no reason to believe that genetically engineered diseases will be more universally fatal than natural ones.

      Read that link:

      Investigators were trying to bioengineer a less dangerous strain of a pathogen and instead inadvertently created a far more dangerous strain.

      Nobody knows how to create a universally fatal disease

      You're so certain it can't happen by accident?

      There is little incentive to try. Engineered weapons are usually designed to kill the other guy, not your own people as well.

      Think of suicide bombers, but on a far, far bigger scale.

    94. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, one very likely consequence of the melting ice is the reversal of the North Atlantic pump that keeps nordic Europe's climate comparable to temperate America's. Actual research reflects this, despite its distortion (eg. accelerating centuries into days) in movies like _The Day After Tomorrow_. That change is predicted to direct the Jet Stream farther south, plunging the continent north of France into Scandanavian temperatures. Given the increased energy of the system, with the increased area of cold (though not cold enough to restore the pump), there are bound to be areas accumulating more of that heat. The ensuing chaos (pun intended) will also include other colder areas, along with other "balancing" hotter areas. The mild global climate our civilization evolved to fit will disappear, replaced by extremes in every axis. Remember that the past ice ages didn't feature ice in the tropics, either.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    95. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Not in humans, anyway. Not yet.

      Nor in any other species. Researchers happened by chance to hit upon a mutation that converted a mild disease into a more virulent one. The same thing happens in nature. Indeed, the kind of mutation they created--a gene knockout--arises relatively frequently in nature. Which raises the question of why the wildtype disease lacks this mutation. The answer, almost certainly, is that the mutant disease doesn't actually spread that well in the wild, probably because it is too rapidly debilitating to its host. For this reason, pathogens often co-evolve with their hosts to have lower virulence. So there is no doubt that a disease can mutate to become more severe. But there is still no indication that any of these laboratory diseases would have 100% spread and fatality in the wild.

    96. Re:LIES about space weapons by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      25 minutes to indian point, you?

    97. Re:LIES about space weapons by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Interesting set of numbers, I would like to point out a few you've left out. Distance and time.
      I'll give you starting point, how much would it take to nudge your everest size rock .001 degrees from course.
      You don't even need that much to miss the earth if you have enough warning.
      Space is huge, mind-numbingly gargantuanly huge.
      A rock out near the orbit of mars on a collision course with earth could probably be diverted by less than .001 degrees and miss by a decent safety factor.
      Think of it this way. You have an 9mm bullet fired from the moon that is going to hit a specific person in Detriot. How far off course do you have to knock it to save the person from the bullet. If you are deflecting the bullet a foot from the guys head it's a lot. Now compare to when that bullet is passing through LEO, or just after being fired.
      The real problem with stoping an asteriod collision isn't energy levels, it's detection.
      Note I'm not taking sides here. Just pointing out the real issue with stoping another extinction level asteriod collision. It is a matter of when not if, not only are we talking a lot of empty space, we're talking a lot of rocks and time.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    98. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Halfway between Indian Point and Shoreham. Less is more. I prefer the East River turbines they're testing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    99. Re:LIES about space weapons by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Does that mean the odds are now 2:1 in favor of annihilation this year, and they're 100% 35My from now? Of course not.

      Of course not. And no such fallacy is involved.

      Apparently you didnt read or didn't understand my last post where I explained To simplify, killing one person per day every day yeilds the exact same statistics as killing 365 million people all at once every million years.

      You want to use real numbers? Fine. A bit of googling reveals that world wide air travel is close to 2 billion passengers per year. World wide air fatalities are a bit over a thousand per year. You would have to live for 4 to 5 MILLION years before you are expected to die that way.

      Guess what? If you sit in your living room for 4-5 MILLION years you have a fair chance of getting killed by anything from a once-in-a-hundren-million-year planet killer to the vastly more common regional blasts like Tunguska which leveled 2,150 square kilometers less than a hundred years ago.

      Don't forget - we witnessed Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter hardly a decade ago - a whole sequence of blasts each larger than the Earth itself.

      The Earth has dozens of craters known to be only a few hundred or a few thousand years old, any one of which would kill several million people if it happened today in a populated area. There would be a few tousand such region killers in the the 4-5 million years it would take you to die by plane crash.

      Your odds of dying by asteroid/comet really are comparable to your odds of dying by air crash. The very first Google search I ran (and gave you) turned up almost a thousand links saying so, many with detailed explanations.

      Statistically a few rare huge events with high probablility of killing you (and a few million or a few billion other people at the same time) balance about equally against many small events that almost certainly do NOT include you.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    100. Re:LIES about space weapons by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Certainly you're right that we should put more effort and money into fighting global warming than into deflecting asteroids. However, the previous poster was right to say we should take it at least as seriously as, say, airplane safety.

      In terms of civilisation-wide disaster, yes of course it becomes an imperative, but that's not the only kind of disaster that an asteroid poses. Smaller ones can wipe out cities, like a nuke would, and they're far more likely to hit in our lifetime.

    101. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      you are a zealot. Man, stand back and think about what 'greenhouse' means before applying the word as a generic negative. Say 'greenhouse effect'.
      Also, the 'breathing underwater' makes no sense in connection to global warming since breathing CO2 is perfectly healthy as long as you still keep enough O2 ( the lack of which has not been identified as a global problem yet, I wonder when the hysteria will take off) around. Also plants and therefore animals very much like CO2 as you might remember from biology classes.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    102. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      all the while YOU are pushing your pro-green, anti-civilisation propaganda that is, right now, robbing us of our money as well. There is no conclusive evidence for any of the following:

      - Global warming is happening
      - global warming is happening because of man
      - current global warming exceeds or will exceed previous warm periods
      - Global warming will do any harm at all, except creating different weather patterns than we are used to
      - Global warming can be affected by anything we might do except kill 5 billion humans and let the rest life in caves again ( no fire though)
      - Greenhouses that kill people ;)


      What you are talking about is only certain for people that look for yet another reason to raise taxes. In science, there is no absolute certainty.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    103. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      it's a theory! Some guy pulled it out of his ass and wrote a paper that this could, in theory, happen. In theory a wandering black hole could come ripping through our solar system and you are not getting excited about that. Why?

      As the facts are, oceanic circulation has not been shown to *ever* have been suspended. As has been pointed out in refutations to the movie you mention, oceanic circulation is a function of 'static' liquid on a moving surface ( or vice verca if you are so inclined), and nothing short of stopping the earth from spinning could affect them.
      You are citing predictions from models that aren't able to model the climate right now. Those models leave out millions of unkown variables and use dozens of variables that are known but not understood and therefore just assumed. Just by manipulating the later, you are able to make the model predict *whatever* climate you would like. And you really think it is wise to base public policy on this?

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    104. Re:LIES about space weapons by juhaz · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see some documentation of your annual frequency for kiloton meteorite impacts.

      Several. Google around a bit, for relatively recent examples search for 26-kiloton explosion over mediterranean in 2002, or 100k one over greenland 1996. Of course sources of those stories are generally satellites of various early warning programs, that - for obvious reasons - are best equipped to detect such detonations, so in your conspiracy theory they're probably just fabricated by weapon manufacturers.

      Then I'd like you to realize that even those purported impacts don't statistically threaten the Earth.

      Of course they don't. I never claimed they do, did I? Nothing - except humans, perhaps - threatens Earth, until Sol goes red giant.

      we're living proof of the safety of our environment.

      Considering that our genetics clearly show a population bottleneck of just few thousand breeding inviduals ~70k years ago we're living proof of relative unsafety of our environment.

      Even the largest and most lethal pandemics in history - when we were much less equipped to fight against them than now - haven't done anything near as destructive as that single (quite certainly volcanic) natural catastrophe.
      Smallpox and black death for example have killed untold millions and inflicted enormous amounts of personal suffering, but never threatened the whole. Natural bugs just don't do that, it's not in interest of a parasite to kill all hosts, we co-evolve and achieve a balance.

      We're talking about the relative priority of extinction scale events, unlikely in the next 1000 years. During which time we should be busy dealing with epidemic and pollution problems.

      We obviously should continue to deal with pollution and epidemics, but since they are not capable of inflicting exctinction upon us either, I don't agree that it's something we need to focus ALL resources upon while forgetting everything else.

    105. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm no zealot - I have no intention of killing myself along with the rest of my nation for a committment to live in a desert. Instead of conveniently labeling me for denial, consider what you're blinding yourself to. That "greenhouse effect" talk makes it sound mild, and kind of cool, like a nifty little spin we've put on the weather to make it more like Miami. But we're cooking the world with the CO2 and other pollution from our industry and cars. We're living in a global greenhouse, which I, and others, call THE Greenhouse. If that makes you uncomfortable, just wait as the oceans rise, drowning the coasts, extra energy whips the sky into an endless series of tornadoes tearing up the land, droughts and floods alternately destroy traditional farmlands across the globe. Then the CO2 poisoning in the air will be more obvious, well before it overtakes sootby percentage. Which it will, when the ecosystem and civilization on which we depend, to waste, collapses under us, putting the source of the CO2 pollution out of business. Too bad the planet will put us out with the poison, or we might enjoy the return of a more "natural" environment.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    106. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of conclusive evidence. As you point out, there is no certainty in science, until it's too late. Everyone else with something at stake, and free from propaganda, like climatologists, insurance companies, and governments less beholden to oil/coal companies, is planning. Hell, even the head of Shell, one of the biggest oil companies, is "very worried for the planet". You can wait in blissful, willful ignorance until certainty drowns you. Don't expect the rest of us to close our eyes, too.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    107. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You are pulling criticism about science out of your ass. Theories are produced by scientists to explain hypotheses about observed evidence. These days they produce models supported by those theories. The post to which I responded said

      "None of the serious climate models indicate an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2."

      So I immediately produced a serious climate model indicating an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2. Now you're complaining that "it's just a model". You have decided that the climate isn't changing, and you're selectively picking evidence and theories that support your denial. That's not science. That's delusion. You're welcome to it, but don't talk about "wisdom".

      The "debate" in these threads is about the relative likelihood of an asteroid destroying civilization, vs. other problems like devastating climate change. Your improbable wandering black hole is remarkably similar to the asteroid paranoia. Sounds like you agree that the asteroid defense is worth a few bucks for study, but its budget is better spent elsewhere. If you don't believe in climate change, pick any of a dozen, a hundred more likely threats. But if you're going to weigh in, keep focused on our survival, even if that threatens your preconceptions.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    108. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I took your advice, and searched Google like you said. The first page returned, in _New Scientist_ (citing an article in _Nature_) said "locally devastating impacts by small asteroids are likely only about once in a millennium". The investigating scientist, from the reknowned U of Western Ontario, in collaboration with Los Alamos National Lab, went on to clarify: "[s]omewhere in the hundreds of kilotons range you start getting effects on the ground, and certainly in the megaton range," using the exact satellite data you cited.

      The evidence of meteorite damage justifies more research, like that in the study we're discussing. It's significant enough to justify an interplanetary network of sensors, which would enable a realtime model of whizzing objects, as well as advance all kinds of generally useful science and engineering. But it doesn't justify underwriting the premature budgets of "Star Wars" weapons makers peddling their same weapons systems in a new threat age, where "missile defense" irrationality no longer produces the budgets it used to. We've got higher priorities, although the low meteorite priority does justify some research, should that research turn up new evidence to raise its priority. Putting Chicken Little in charge of the budget will contribute to our demise, not defend from it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    109. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      "None of the serious climate models indicate an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2."
      I didn't say that. The english is way too sophisticated for me. I did say that the evidence for global warming is still inconclusive. So I guess I am still uncrompromised on the model position. I would like to see a good reply.

      Your improbable wandering black hole is remarkably similar to the asteroid paranoia. No its not. Eventhough it's a very remote possiblity, it hasn't happend to the solar system or earth yet ( as is evident from us still being abel to post to slashdot). Asteroids are a very real and certain danger as was quite visible when those huge rocks crashed into jupiter in 1997 or what year it was. Also, travel everywhere on earth and you will likely always be able to visit some huge ass crater that is a left over off a previous impact. Still, I am not in favour of spending (or for that matter collecting) any tax money at all but if I had to pick between

      Climate change:
      Is it happening? Uncertain
      Is it harmful? Maybe
      Could our best effords change anything? Probably not


      Asteroid: Is it likely? It has repeatedly happened on earth and is continuesly happening throughout the solar system. Is it harmful? well, yes it gets nasty at really small sizes. Can we avoid it? yeah, with enough time to react

      put me down for even a single yes.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    110. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, governments are really neutral players because they would never jump on a scare wagon to justify extording yet even more money and controlling the lifes of their citizents in even more detail.

      Yeah, please, you too, get your beta blockers ready and become all excited about nothing at all happening, but please leave me alone with shit like the kyoto-protocol that costs me real money to satisfy a delusional UN commitee. I am not the one forcing others to my believe.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    111. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Do you feel the same way about science as you do about English? Because I replied to your concern about kiloton atmospheric meteorites by citing the research you did, with their conclusion that it's a "once in a millennium" event, which happened in Tunguska only 1/10th a millennium ago. So we've got lots of time. Meanwhile, climate change is already destroying crops, killing thousands of old/sick people, inundating Bangladesh, droughting the US, tearing up forests in France, and getting really nasty. Our industrial efforts have contributed to it, and our better efforts can mitigate it - especially through carbon remediation, flipping our net CO2 increase to actually decrease the CO2, before it's too late, past the tipping point. That higher priority still allows us to spend some time and money on mapping the orbital debris with a much lower probability of damage, as we have begun with our satellites. When that research upgrades the priority with actual evidence, we can do something about that evidence. Until then, meteorite catastrophe ranks above wandering black holes, but below floods and drought, on the risk priority.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    112. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'd say that governments run by oil/coal/nuclear corporate flacks, which deny Greenhouse science, are more suspect than governments run by people who drained their land from swamps, and host one of the biggest oil companies. How can you just ignore the counterintuitive gasps of despair from the head of Shell? In the 1970s, you'd be inventing rationalizations for spraying CFCs against the ozone layer, and it would be too late now to stop the hole from spreading. Your denial serves only the petro companies and the weapons manufacturers who are their best customers.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    113. Re:LIES about space weapons by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The sensor network is most important part in any case, early warning is the key, not big budget toys.

      Basically, detected early enough needed changes to orbit are absolutely miniscule and are better done with relatively simple methods, like slapping a normal rocket into it, solar sail, or installing ion drive or conveyor belt system and solar panel on board and using object's own mass for propulsion. This kind of slow and "non-violent" orbit manipulation is also bound to be useful if we ever start using the asteroids, not necessarily to steer them away but maybe even bring closer, to stable orbit near Earth for mining or to serve as stations.

      Even if a high priority, shooting at rock with big budget "Star Wars" weapons or nuclear missiles is totally pointless, so yes, obviously that kind of things should not be done. So far, nobody seems to be doing those either, this mission for example is pure, quite useful, research and not a precursor for any weapons.

    114. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      actually drivers and airlines are probalby the best customers of petro companies. Why would arms makers need excessive amounts of oil or oil products? And what the hell is wrong with weapons manufactures anyways? Remember, F16s don't kill people, GI Joe does.


      Yeah, well the CFC scandal subsided somewhat when it was shown that the ozone hole over antarcica was due to the unqique conditions there and has always been existant. By then it was too late and millions of dollars have been wasted just because green nuts like you could not hold of passing laws and bans until you know for sure.

      Re Shell: shell is a company and therefore needs to serve the market in order to survive. If green energy is the next big thing, they will sell it. CEOs can't afford any principles whether good or bad. I bet privatly he thinks: ' well, I thought I'd sell food but now demand seems to be shifting heavily to shit, I'll guess I'll put my money there and praise shit like there is no tomorrow.'

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    115. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      you should try to remember who wrote what. I didn't cite any research whatsoever. It's not really relevant anyways because the statistic would also hold if 3 asteroids crashed within days and then none in the next 3000 years.

      Where are the people dying from it? I don't think you can actually put up conclusive evidence that supports your hypotheses of a cause (global warming which there is no sign of, really, at least not from satelite data)- effect ( people dying at accelerated rates and such, which is not established at all). Until you do, please don't state model data as facts.
      Even the people behind the kyoto accord have said that there will be no meassurable effect from implementing its rather serve restrictions on liberty and properity. So why do it? The only way to bring about an substantial decrease of CO2 output is to go pre industrial. I hope you realize that the world population back was probably around 1/10 th it is today. So yeah, be my guesst, kill 5.4 billion people because of theories that lack even the slightest credibility.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    116. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      My favorite book about this kind of thing is Heart of the Comet, by David Brin & Gregory Benford. Post-ecocollapse, the surviving humans blame the scientists, and send them on a one-way mission to test outgas diversion of Halley's comet. The story puts all these issues into (fictional) perspective.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    117. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      So I immediately produced a serious climate model indicating an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2

      Uh, no, you didn't. A hand-waving argument is not a serious climate model. A serious climate model is one that is widely accepted among climate theorists, supported by publications in peer-reviewed journals, and that is able to successfully model historical data.

    118. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes I did. Try searching for "nordic heat pump" and "climate change", and read some of the many peer-reviewed climatology publications validating the model. Your ignorance of them doesn't stop the climate from changing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    119. Re:LIES about space weapons by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes I did. Try searching for "nordic heat pump" and "climate change", and read some of the many peer-reviewed climatology publications validating the model. Your ignorance of them doesn't stop the climate from changing.


      I asked you for generally accepted, peer-reviewed models that predict an ice age as the result of global warming. You give me a Google search (Google is not a peer-reviewed publication) and a paper from a non-peer-reviewed book that states "Most 3-D simulations indicate a reduction of the THC by the year 2060, but not a complete collapse (IPCC 2001). A collapse appears therefore unlikely to occur by 2100 but it can not be ruled out for later." If that is really the best that you can do, it's hard to take this notion seriously.

    120. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Weapons makers make their weapons out of oil - the explosives and plastics, which is most of the weapons. And those weapons include F16s, tanks, aircraft carriers, and the rest of the land, sea and air fleets. Weapons makers don't just make the weapons, they market them - including lobbying for war, and supplying all sides of any profitable conflict until it blazes into action. "Merchants of death", that's what the hell is wrong with them.

      Shell doesn't benefit from its CEO backing the arguments of people who are working to get Shell to pay its share of the damage their products cause. I suppose you're a CEO of some polluting company, denying even the ozone hole and its CFC accelerators - or just an unpaid dupe, paying the price with the rest of the world. One of the most well understood cases of human interaction with the global environment first threatening, then relieving the threat, through timely global cooperation. Despite the whines of spoiled CEOs that the global economy was based on their poisonous wares.

      The world you live in is *fragile*. You depend on the product of billions of years of planetary and biological evolution, fit to one another. We are changing the environment to one in which our species is not fit to survive, not in a recognizable form. You can accept the lies of the short-sighted CEOs you seem to understand, or you can reject them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    121. Re:LIES about space weapons by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      I know that plastics are made from oil. I also know that Lookheed employees drive to work using gasoline made of oil. I know that F16s use kerosine, an oil product. The question was about why the great grandparent singled weapons manufacturing out from among, well, all the other heavy users of oil. It was a play on emotions and you know that dammend well. Oil == death is not valid, actually its quite the opposite. If you want to condem oil, do it on the alleged envoirmental consequences and not by implying that its applications are mostly negative.

      Weapons makers don't just make the weapons, they market them - including lobbying for war, and supplying all sides of any profitable conflict until it blazes into action. "Merchants of death", that's what the hell is wrong with them.

      Yeah, they are merchants of death and that's my point exactly. You need customers to be profitable. Of course they lobby, everyone does. That is not the issue, but the fact that there is someone to lobby to, someone actually with the power to get 250 million people in a war that doesn't concern them, on soil they don't care for, is.

      If I were CEO I'd hopefully be busy enough not to find time to post to slashdot at all ;). On a different note, have you noticed how much of your argument is just plain dogma? How you are demonizing your opponents? How you accept anything that affirms your believe with blind faith? There are no thruths. At all. Accept that an come back debating about science and not religion.

      There have been far to many unfounded 'impeding end of the world as we know it' scares so far. This advices caution when dealing with the next big thing. Also, there is a way to follow the money on these scares. Would it really be viable for a climatologist to state that there is nothing to worry about when he could just as well support a doomsday scenario that helps with actually getting his staff and lab funded? Maybe the world is fragile, but then I wouldn't know how it survived that long in such a dangerous universe. You and people that think like you often overlook the simple fact that we are not outside the ecosystem. We don't have effects on the ecosytem of a different quality than, for instance, lions have. What we do happens within the ecosystem, not to it. But aside from the symantic distinction, a though occured to me last week. My premises are those: 1) carbon is the basis of all life.
      2) carbon is recycled within the cycle of life but it is seldomly added to the envoirment ( volcano errupting ie.)
      3) oil and coal reserves are carbon sinks. As mainstream science argrees, they are the result of buried biomass under high pressure. Hence 'fossile fuels'.

      What if the ecosystem minus man actually bleeds carbon to the point where there is none left? Easy, no ecosystem from that point. That guy driving the SUV, he could be saving earth from becoming a useless rock like mars.

      Your point about change serves me well. Now I can say: Well, the ecosystem, nature whatever you would call it is not a state, it is a process. It is constantly changing, from internal and external factors. Climate research for the most part doesn't acknowledge that fact at all. It would be unnatural to have stable weather patterns, stable mean temperaturs, stable rain fall, no floods, no huricans and no warm and cold periods. We've been keeping records of the weather and its incarnations for maybe 200 years now and we are arrogant enough to designate those conditions as 'normal' and any deviations to it as 'bad'. Yeah well, it might be changing but it has and will for a long time. If we can adapt we will survive, else we go extinct and that has also been going on for a long time.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    122. Re:LIES about space weapons by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Your relativism supports the scenario I describe. Warmonger lobbyists have the upper hand over, say, education lobbyists, because fear and greed are stronger motivators than enlightenment, and war profits fund bigger kickbacks than does education, at least in the short term, concentrated in fewer hands. The right and wrong of the scenario are in terms of what I, or any person who values life and liberty, prefer. We arguing about whether we (or at least Europe) should spend more money right now either on space weapons designed to defend from a catastrophic meteorite, or on other problems like environmental pollution or plagues. We already have ample evidence, and scientific consensus, that the environment is approaching crisis, and the plagues are metastasizing into permanent crises.

      AIDS, for example, is not even the most widespread plague - but possibly the most destructive to civilization, in its fatality rate, high expense and length of therap for relief, demoralizing symptoms, and near-universal infectiousness. Last week a report showed that about 25% of Namibia is already infected; by the time they account for 24.999% of Namibians dead, probably over 50% of Namibians will be infected, and their society will be a living hell from which nothing will return. They are just the nadir, as the disease is rampant across Africa and Asia, threatening the integrity of societies that immediately include 3 billion people, half the world, in the next 10-20 years. And of course the ripple effect threatens everyone.

      The environment is also in crisis, threatening us all. The scientific consensus is also accompanied by skeptics and some incongrous data, as we expect from the scientific process. If there were just a chorus of doom all around, we would be suspicious, just as some scientists were when the chorus sang nothing but praise for industry. The people of, say, Bangladesh are coping by adapting to regular inundation that keeps them at Bronze Age levels of civilization. But I don't want that, and I don't want to follow them to Ice Age levels, either.

      We have real decisions to make about priorities. They must be made not on faith, but on facts which support some belief - the knowledge of facts that *can* be proven, though they have not been proven yet. The facts we have, indicate that catastrophic meteorites are a much lower probability in the next 100 years than environmental disaster or overwhelming plagues. They also indicate that we can know more facts about all of these problems, to make better decisions. The balance of evidence, and therefore the human models we use to understand them in a whole representation of the world in which we live, and about which we must decide, show immediate problems we must survive with higher threat levels than the meteorites. So we must spend more money on those, and less on the meteorites, while still spending some on quantifying the meteorite risk. Any other course is the one guided by fear of the big, unlikely impact, the sentimental aversion to consequences of the industries we let define us, and the ignorance of our global interconnectedness.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  14. Cool by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can flip that game! Where do I sign up?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Damn! by slimyrubber · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess we are doomed to die by hunger, terrorism, violent climate shift, war or MPAA.
    I was really betting it would be an asteroid.

    --
    [ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
    1. Re:Damn! by sparcnut · · Score: 1
      Guess we are doomed to die by hunger, terrorism, violent climate shift, war or MPAA.
      You forgot two: RIAA and SCO.
      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
  16. Original text page gone by vinlud · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately because of the rotating news system of the NOS (Dutch TV) text pages (and the time before the story was posted) the news item already has disappeared :( . I hope other sites will soon release more information about the plans and time table of the project!

    --
    Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  17. Testing the Asteroid Defense system for yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Try it out here.

  18. so.... by bman08 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is this just a hip way to repackage missile defense testing so that nobody gets mad?

    1. Re:so.... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There may be a point to it. The problem is the EU has been so staunchly against ABMs that I don't see how the policy makers would let this through if they thought this would be the case.

      I can imagine that if NASA was testing this, there would be an uproar because of such a theory.

      Being able to hit a 500m asteroid in a very well known and predictable orbit is not nearly the same as being able to hit a 5m wide rocket in a potentially unstable and unpredictable trajectory.

    2. Re:so.... by sploxx · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think so, but maybe they repackaged this essentially scientific mission as 'the asteroid destroyer'.
      By arguing that the mission helps to save mankind by deflecting hazardous objects, they'll get funding and support from the general public.

      Since it is disappointing what most people think of space exploration, do not consider this "repackaging" improbable.

    3. Re:so.... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Only way you could destroy a missile with that thing is to drop it on top of the missile - while it's on launch pad.

      No. It's OBVIOUSLY not a missile defense system, in any meaning of the word.

  19. I have only three words to say on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Worst.... codenames.... ever!

  20. Whoa! Whoa!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Someone PLEASE tell them NOT to aim the asteroid at the earth!

    Those kind of tests are only for when you know for sure it works!

    I'm too young to die, noooooooo

  21. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Good luck getting first post when you're dead!

    Bet that'll slow ya down.

  22. This is the European space agency by panurge · · Score: 4, Funny

    They work in all SI units. So, no conversions. Perhaps that's why Ariane is reliable.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:This is the European space agency by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Informative
      Perhaps that's why Ariane is reliable.

      Ha Hah!

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    2. Re:This is the European space agency by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that's why Ariane is reliable.

      lol. I see at least some moderators got the joke there and are modding you 'funny'.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    3. Re:This is the European space agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... Even though it's not as funny, the fact is Ariane IS reliable.

  23. It's All in the name by Count+of+Montecristo · · Score: 5, Informative
    While there will be incessant puns about the characters that this project is named after; given the fact that in the book, Don Quixote was out of his mind, I feel it is very appropriate, since it describes excactly what it does.

    Perhaps the most famous part of this book is when Don Quixote gallantly charged at windmills, while Sancho watched. In his troubled mind, The windmills were evil Giants, which he sought to destroy to win the favors of his sweethart Dulcinea, wich is a very accurate depiction of what the program is supposed to do.

    I find that the depiction, regardless of the obvious fact that in the book it was a hopeless cause; is a romantic metaphore, rather than an endorsement of failure, poor engineering or idealistic but unreachable goals.

    As a side note, this book (El ingenioso Hidalgo, Don Quixote de la Mancha) is to the Spanish Language as The Count of Montecristo is to French, Luther's New testament translation is to German, and the works of Shakespeare are to English.

    --
    *shower*
    1. Re:It's All in the name by Guiri · · Score: 1
      As a side note, this book (El ingenioso Hidalgo, Don Quixote de la Mancha) is to the Spanish Language as The Count of Montecristo is to French, Luther's New testament translation is to German, and the works of Shakespeare are to English.

      Not only that, it's the most translated book after the bible. I just started reading it (in spanish), and I'm enjoying it a lot myself ;)

  24. What the... by RedOregon · · Score: 1

    What the hell? Did my calendar crash again? Is today April 1st??

    --
    Skivvy Niner? Email me!
    HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
  25. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    >I for one welcome our Armageddon asteroid overlords.

    ... so that we get blown up and no longer have to listen to another lame Slashdot cliche.

  26. Klingons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we are going to star defending asteroids, eh? Boy things are really getting to PC. Ass turd oids. Ha Ha. I made a funny. What do the Enterprise and toilet paper have in common? They both wipe out Klingons. Ha Ha. I crack me up. Me so funny.

  27. How it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After watching the animation, my understanding was that the experiment was going in the followiing phases:

    1. Launch
    2. Sancho gets into observation trailing pattern on the NEO
    3. To develop a certain amoung ot destructive inertia, Hidalgo slingshots around earth, sun, mercury and then comes back at a much higher speed to ram into the NEO
    4. Sancho observes and reports

    Any physics PHDs wish to comment?

  28. NEO a hazard? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the project's web page:
    It has been acknowledged by the scientific community that NEO may represent a hazard to Earth.

    But Neo is The One!

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    1. Re:NEO a hazard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you took the wrong pill, and your "Earth" isn't the real Earth :)

  29. Cool animation by coyotejoe76 · · Score: 1

    and nice attempt at syncing the music. I can just see it now though... the impacting satellite accidentally hitting the observing satellite on its way i to the asteroid. Pretty cool none-the-less.

  30. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see that most slashdotters are trolling on the actual mission of the spaceships. Their purpose is to impact the asteroid to determine its composition, structure, ect. to then, determine an appropiate course of action.

    And the names do fit. They fit because Don Quijote tried to bring back the idealized lifestyle of chivalry. His desire was to protect the good cause and perhaps slay a dragon or two in the way. He was mocked by people because they believed such perils were nonexistent. Just like we mock this far fetched perhaps, but still necesary project that aims to be our first line of defense in case of a possible, if not improbable event.

    I fail to see how people can criticize this and yet run SETI at home on their computers.

    Godspeed Don Quijote, and Sancho Pansa, I for once, am gratefull of your so much needed lunacy.

  31. Re:Direct link to 6MB file - - GOOGLE CACHE IT by webtree · · Score: 1

    If google can stand to provide 1GB email accounts it can stand a slashdotting.

    Lets use the Internets natural resources wisely ;)

    --
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
  32. And to prove God has a twisted sense of humor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the impact will push the asteroid's orbit enough that it will hit the earth.

  33. Re:I'm not trying to be funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't even find the Weapons of Mass Destruction that we're saving the world from, let alone an asteroid out in the middle of space.

  34. Number Crunching by Rob+Carr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assuming that the Hildalgo probe masses in at 25 kg (the same as Sancho - it might be less) and is moving at 10km/sec and assuming the asteroid has a density of 3g/cc (giving a mass of 4x10^10 kg, and if the probe is absorbed into the asteroid and no material is lost from the asteroid, then the change of velocity for the asteroid will be about 6x10^-9 km/sec.

    For comparison, the asteroid probably has a velocity somewhere on the order of 5-10km/sec.

    If the asteroid and probe hit head on with both having a velocity (relative to the sun) of 10km/sec, then you can double the change to 1.2x10^-8 km/sec

    It's probably a good idea to check my work. Here's how I did the calculation:

    Let m1 be the probe and m2 be the asteroid.

    v(center of mass)=(m1*v1+m2*v2)/(m1+m2). v2=0 for this reference frame and m1+m2 essentially equals m2. Since we're in the reference frame of the asteroid being stationary, the combination of probe and asteroid will still have the same velocity for the center of mass.

    I hope I didn't botch this estimate....

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    1. Re:Number Crunching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Assuming that the Hildalgo probe masses in at 25 kg (the same as Sancho - it might be less) and is moving at 10km/sec

      Summing the mass of the instruments won't give you the mass of the whole spacecraft! You neglect the frame, rockets, fuel, fuel containers...

      From the executive summary pdf:

      Sancho's "final injected mass" 394.0 kg
      Hildalgo's "final injected mass" 379.1 kg
      Hildalgo's relative arrival velocity: 13.437 km/s

    2. Re:Number Crunching by Rob+Carr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I missed that - thanks! Using the new mass (rounding out to 400 kg gives us 1x10^-7 km/sec. The new velocity would make a slight improvement - 1.3*10^-7 km/sec or 1.3x10^-4 m/sec It's still really small.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    3. Re:Number Crunching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assuming the asteroid has a density of 3g/cc (giving a mass of 4x10^10 kg)

      Now let's correct something else: the expression for the mass of the asteroid should be:
      4/3*3.141592*250^3*3*1000 = 2e11

    4. Re:Number Crunching by Alsee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not really intended to cause deflection. It's just to see how an asteroid reacts to that sort of impact. And besides, 1.3x10^-4 m/sec really isn't too shabby a deflection. It's about 40km per year. If we do detect an impactor in advance we may have a decade or more to deflect it. 3 or 4 of these test probes would have quite an effect, and any real deflection effort would be far more massive.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Number Crunching by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Velocity of earth (relative to sun) ~30km/s
      Diameter of Earth: ~12.6e3 km
      according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
      Worse case amount it has to delay an asteroid's impact: dt=12600/30 ~=420s
      (assuming the asteroid hits leading edge of earth, if it hits earth dead in center, then only need to deflect it by half as much time.)

      "Most asteroids travel at a velocity of 15 to 30 Km/sec"
      http://www.kc4cop.bizland.com/Asteroid%20 Watch%20a nd%20Information.htm
      V=20km/s

      V*T=(V-dv)*(T+dt)
      dv is the change in velocity at impact...
      T is how long before the impact the asteroid must be hit to delay it by dt

      solve for T to get how long before the impact asteroid must be hit...
      T=420*(V-dv)/dv
      assuming dvV (which I think is a very safe assumption based on masses) then (V-dv)=V

      T=8400(km/s) / dv

      Asteroid has a KE of 1/2 *m*v^2 = 0.5*4e10*20000^2= 8e18 J
      Assuming probe has a mass at 1000kg at 15km/s (the speed voyager probes are going) totalling a 35km/s impact (note: I'm not using Hidalgo for these figures)
      Probe has a KE of 0.5*1000*15000^2=1.1e11
      KE[Ast]-KE[probe]=1/2*(m[ ast] + m[probe]) *v^2
      which leads to about dv~= 4e-4 km/s (0.000002%)

      T=2100000s ~= have to deflect asteroid 24 days before impact

      in my example:
      Probe mass=1000km
      probe velocity=15km/s
      Asteroid velocity=20km/s
      Asteroid mass=4e10

      I welcome any corrections or suggestions. I believe the dv calculation has the most inaccurate assumptions. It assumes that the probe and asteroid collide head-on (which is basically impossible for a probe launched from earth)

      The earth is a small target (in this scope) so you barely have to deflect the asteroid if you hit it at a distance. This isn't encouraging however when you consider the asteroid is a much smaller target that we must hit.

    6. Re:Number Crunching by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1
      • Assuming...
      • For comparison...
      • If...
      • It's probably a good idea to check my work...
      • Let m1 be...
      • v(center of mass)=...
      • I hope...
      I know this is a geek site but you'd reach more readers if you'd provide a conclusion or a purpose for your number number crunching. You'd impress an employer/manager with a "management summary".

      OTOH keep on crunching!!
      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    7. Re:Number Crunching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really intended to cause deflection.

      From the Mission objectives:

      - measure the orbital deflection of the asteroid as a result of the impact of Hidalgo
      - measure the asteroid rotation state before and immediately after the impact.
      - detect the dissipation of the non-principal axis rotation after the impact.

  35. Re: Don Quijote by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 0

    Except it's not Quixote, not Quijote.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  36. This music by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    in the video is the same music from Barney Bear goes to space! Anyone else remember that old educational dos game?

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  37. Re:I'm not trying to be funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That's the fault of Europeans. No, really, don't laugh: they demanded justification of the war, and a huge public debate. The US government was therefore forced to publically state the reasons for why it wanted to go to war with Iraq. Thus Saddam and cronies in al Quada had ages - 18 months, even - in which to silently slip the weapons over the border into Syria, and into bunkers in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, etc.

    The sensible thing to do (which the US administration preferred) was to ignore public debate in favour of the element of surprise, in the interests of national security. You can't go to war with someone and let them know in advance, right down to your tactics and objectives, doh, but that seems to be what Europeans wanted. So now we have a situation in which International security can never again be, uh, secured, because of silly demands for endless public debate and justification, and to hell with getting the right thing done.

  38. I disagree on the Count of Montecristo by Kinniken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a side note, this book (El ingenioso Hidalgo, Don Quixote de la Mancha) is to the Spanish Language as The Count of Montecristo is to French, Luther's New testament translation is to German, and the works of Shakespeare are to English.

    As a Frenchman, I can tell you that while Montecristo is certainly the best book written by Dumas and probably in the fifty most important French books written, it is not "The Book". That honour would probably go to Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables".

    I'm pleased by the naming choice BTW - it shows some humour and imagination, particularly with having Sancho stay behind and watch... they may be top notch engineers and scientists, but they have read their classics and can joke about their work. I like that.

    --
    What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
    1. Re:I disagree on the Count of Montecristo by Count+of+Montecristo · · Score: 1
      I must say I'm biased, since The Count of Montecristo is my all time favorite book ;) but then again, I take your word for Les Miserables which is also agreat read.

      thx

      --
      *shower*
    2. Re:I disagree on the Count of Montecristo by Kinniken · · Score: 1

      I must say I'm biased, since The Count of Montecristo is my all time favorite book ;) but then again, I take your word for Les Miserables which is also agreat read.

      I sort of guessed that from your pseudo ;) I agree it's a great book, and I personally put it above les Misérables, but I know this is not the dominant opinion here. Plus, outside of those two particulars books, there is little doubts that Victor Hugo is by far the most important of the two authors. Montecristo is Dumas's only "great classic" novel; some of the others are deservedly very well known, but they are not as deep.

      --
      What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
  39. Re:Attacking Windmills by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not only does it accurately represent the potential effectiveness of this particular program, but also the necessity for an asteroid defense program in general. But I suspect the technology could be useful someday, likely for something other than the defense of the Earth from asteroids.

  40. modified ICBMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modified ICBMs would be a more plausable way of defending the Earth from possible impact from a large meteor or comet, adjust the timing of the detonation of the nuclear blast just a moment before contact so the blast will knock it off course. we already have the resources.

    1. Re:modified ICBMs by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

      Of course, if you miscalculate... instead of 1 1000+ ton rock, you get 1000+ 1 ton rocks..... ouch.

      --
      That's right. All your base.
  41. Playing with fire by Grimace1975 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think this is not a great idea.

    Why would anyone even try to alter objects in space. They have been there for billions of years, and in there current orbit ALL IS GOOD. If we go and start changing any thing. we would actually be increasing the chances of collisions, something this is suppose to be a solution for.

    Basicly we don't know enuf to change things, and if we change things with out knowing enuf, then we can crash the system. We will never know enuf. This would be like throwing a monkey wrench into a running engine, and thinking it will keep running.

    1. Re:Playing with fire by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Basicly we don't know enuf to change things, and if we change things with out knowing enuf, then we can crash the system. We will never know enuf. ...and you don't know "enough" about spelling, apparently.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    2. Re:Playing with fire by sploxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is essentially the question about the "stability of the solar system".

      Google for that, or if you're too lazy to do it, here is a very short summary of what you can get by reading a bit:

      - According to newton, every body with mass sees a force from each other body. A so called N-body-problem. (You should know that already =:)

      - The orbits of all gravitating bodies (sun, planets, moons, asteroids, spacecraft etc.) in the solar system are chaotic, i.e. a small change (for example a displacement in the estimated position) will grow exponentially into a big change, maybe the crash
      of two objects.

      - BUT: The orbits may be bounded. I.e. they wobble in a chaotic way, but do not cross certain values. Of course, everyone hopes that this is the case :)

      Now, earth remained relatively impact free for the past billions of years, i.e. the past billions of numbers of orbits around the sun!
      - "relatively" since there are many impact craters on earth today, you can even visit some of them :)
      But no object the size of a small moon impacted earth, else we would not be here.

      Of course, people think about the reason why earth orbits so undisturbed since a long time.
      There're models that describe the more massive bodies in the solar system (jupiter, saturn) as vacuum cleaners for asteroids. But don't ask me about that, I'm not a scientist (yet), just a student.

      There is no reason to believe that the current system will be stable or that starting rockets spaceprobes or even walking around on earth (since you're also one of the above-mentioned bodies!) won't change if saturn and jupiter crash in a billion years!

    3. Re:Playing with fire by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I heard that we don't know where half (or even 1%) of the potentially damaging objects in the solar system actually ARE. Or even that they exist.

      Odds are, the first anyone would know about a 1km wide continent killer would be when it started lighting up the stratosphere.

  42. Re: Don Quijote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe Don Cajones

  43. Re:I'm not trying to be funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So politicians should get free reign? I don't think so. They should have learned by now to have justifications ready to hand before announcing something like that to the public. If they don't have any then I see even more reason for debate on the issue.
    Also, don't you think moving a load of weapons around is going to get spotted? Do you have that little faith in the intelligence community not to think that they were watching for that kind of behaviour?
    I think the element of surprise was lost when troops were sent to mass on the boarders before the war started.

  44. Orbits alter without us doing anything by rarose · · Score: 1

    Most of the bodies in the solar system are on orbits that bring them close to other objects of similar or larger mass, thus their orbits are always being perturbed without us doing anything.

    I think we'll all agree that NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab has one of the, if not *the*, best planetary empherides ever created anywhere at anytime. And they won't project the orbits of major planets too far into the future because of the natural uncertainties of orbits.

    --
    --Rob
  45. Luther for Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hellfire, I always knew I wanted to go into exile;
    but Luther represents the best we got? I doubt that.

    1. Re:Luther for Germany? by Count+of+Montecristo · · Score: 1
      Goethe's "Fausto" is perhaps a better choice..

      But i was taught that the seminal work which spawned modern German was Luther's New Testament, much like Cervantes' Don Quixote is the seminal work for modern Spanish.

      --
      *shower*
  46. why democracy is such a bad idea by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Guys like this get to vote.

    Sure one can question the wisdom of altering the course of an asteroid that is currently not on a course to earth as there is a risk that the new course might be a problem. Except that it would be reasonable to assume that the people at ESA have thought of this too.

    The trajectories of space objects are something we actually understand really really well. It is simple math and the bigger objects have had their path calculated very accuratly centuries ago.

    If we follow the advice of people like the above poster the human race would still be stuck up a tree worried about the dangers of the forest floor. Luckily we didn't and some of the monkeys got eaten but others survived and thrived.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:why democracy is such a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we follow the advice of people like the above poster the human race would still be stuck up a tree worried about the dangers of the forest floor. Luckily we didn't and some of the monkeys got eaten but others survived and thrived.

      I thought coming down the trees was widly regarded as a bad move. Me? I think we should never have gotten out of the water in the first place. I say, stop with all that so called "progress" already?

    2. Re:why democracy is such a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course all we need now is for Martian/ETs doing a like experiment somewhere else in the universe on a Halley's comet-type like foreign object, radically changing its course, and careering into earth. Or vice versa :)

  47. Link to namesake novel... by Lazyhound · · Score: 1

    ...courtesy of Project Gutenberg..

  48. Cant find codec? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone provide info on how to download the proper codec to view this with the windows media player?

  49. Nuclear war by Kinniken · · Score: 1

    Asteroid impacts are the only known, credible, avoidable event that could potentially wipe out humanity.

    What about a total nuclear war between say the US+EU vs Russia+China? It would not be enough to kill everyone on the planet straight of, but the mid term effects would be comparable in severity to a massive asteroid crash...

    --
    What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
    1. Re:Nuclear war by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      What about a total nuclear war between say the US+EU vs Russia+China? It would not be enough to kill everyone on the planet straight of, but the mid term effects would be comparable in severity to a massive asteroid crash...

      Yeah, probably about as bad as a medium sized asteroid. But I don't see this as a problem amenable to a technical solution. We just have to continue to be smart enough not to do it.

  50. BFD- Deep impact is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/

    DI will spank a coment with an impactor the size of a volkswagen beetle while a flyby spacecraft watches and records the event. Should dig a crater the size of a football stadium.

    The relative rate of closure for the impactor to the comet will be over 22,000 Miles per hour.

    And DI is in the final stages of fabrication and prep for launch, not some pie-in-the-sky wet dream of the ESA.

  51. Thats a bunch of Professionals on a Shoestring. by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

    I think the point here is that they don't spend any time or money on irrelevancies such as fancy animations.

    They probably gave one person who was not neccesarily a paid professional animator a few stock meshes and CAD diagrams and said "You've got a week before we need you back on the *real* R&D".

    After all, animations such as these are mid-project and just aimed at the dimwits in the press who can't get their heads around these kinds of projects.

    At this stage where funding will have been agreed a year ago, they won't glean any extra thru fancy animation so they spend no time/money/effort on it.

    One last point is that all space agencies have been shy of realistic animations since they realised that the dimwit public sometimes take an animation as being the Real Thing(tm)

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  52. Who cares...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I saw that movie... It hits paris" :-)

    - Colonel "Jack" O'Neill, SG-1

  53. objectives by kyknos.org · · Score: 4, Informative

    The mission has a very high scientific value, but it will also help in testing technologies required for future deflection missions and raise interest in people for space exploration. The mission will in particular: measure the mass of the asteroid, the ratio of the moments of inertia and the low order harmonics of its gravity field. model the asteroid shape before and after the impact, to detect changes (if any). determine the asteroid internal structure, especially the size the main solid pieces, the average particle size and thickness of regolith and of the debris layers in the space left between the main pieces. constrain the mechanical properties of the asteroid material. measure the orbital deflection of the asteroid as a result of the impact of Hidalgo measure the asteroid rotation state before and immediately after the impact. detect the dissipation of the non-principal axis rotation after the impact. determine the asteroid large scale mineralogical composition.

    --

    SHE does throw dice.
  54. I can think of a few more by zogger · · Score: 1

    first, I agree on the asteroids. It could happen, large and semi large "new" ones show up with enough regularity to prove they have no idea what's out there, that at best it's informed speculation based on what data they have, and that's it..

    But some more that might occur are extremely huge solar flares, pole shifts, and the mundane but most possible,and most probable, merely running out of oil within the next two decades leading to global chaos and warfare, including extensive NBC warfare, which would in turn lead to a very long lasting and extensive global winter on top of it, from the dust from hugeparts of the world burning down, especially in the northern hemisphere.

    Whether or not that means all human life being extinct is a moot point, dropping the worlds populations to just some thoudands total survivors would have basically the same effect. Most technology would be lost within the first new generation then, and no one here really knows what's inside all the worlds advanced bioweapons labs, best we can do there is again, speculate. Naturally occuring mutations of virii and bacteria can be bad enough, the biotech they have now...well... you feeling lucky? A certain percentage of infectees can live through smallpox or anthrax. Some can beat plague. More can beat measles, but still it can be lethal. Tularemia,ebola, and etc, etc, and who knows what engineered nasties they have. And a cocktail or warfare experience of all of them virtually simultanousely? Nope, nary a human could live through that if exposed, especially if they had to dodge strontiuym 90 all the time and find some way to grow food with the weather borked and no way to rely on surface water or rain to be non poisonous.

    1. Re:I can think of a few more by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      But some more that might occur are extremely huge solar flares, pole shifts, and the mundane but most possible,and most probable, merely running out of oil within the next two decades leading to global chaos and warfare, including extensive NBC warfare, which would in turn lead to a very long lasting and extensive global winter on top of it, from the dust from hugeparts of the world burning down, especially in the northern hemisphere.

      Solar flares and pole shifts do not fall into the class of avoidable threats. Running out of oil abruptly simply is not going to happen. It is not like your automobile where you get to the bottom of the tank and your car suddenly stops dead. Rather, the cost gradually rises, which makes alternative energy sources more competitive, which introduces economies of scale and stimulates research that makes alternative energy sources more affordable. So there is a lot of buffering capacity in the international energy supply.

      A large nuclear war would probably cause environmental damage on the level of a mid-sized asteroid. It probably wouldn't kill off the species, but it would cut our numbers drastically and possibly return us to an age when life is "nasty, brutish, and short." But while it is virtually certain that a technical solution can be found to defend against asteroid impacts, it's doubtful whether there is a practical technical solution to nuclear war. For the foreseeable future, the only protection against a large scale nuclear war is not to have one.

      A novel virus would not be a threat to the survival of humanity as a large asteroid would be, but it could still kill lots of people, as in the great plagues of history. But it seems unlikely that additional investment would improve our chances. We are already heavily invested into research in virology. Beyond a certain point, throwing more money at a scientific problem does not yield much acceleration of progress (remember the war on cancer?)

  55. Good for the toolbox. by wrc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's about time our species started putting together and testing serious contingency plans against this sort of catastrophe.

  56. Exactly by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    As a side note, this book (El ingenioso Hidalgo, Don Quixote de la Mancha) is to the Spanish Language as The Count of Montecristo is to French, Luther's New testament translation is to German, and the works of Shakespeare are to English.

    And don't forget this project is from a Spanish contractor, Deimos Space. Find more information in their site (in English).

  57. Re:I'm not trying to be funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realise this seems like flamebait No, not even that, it's blatant bullshit.

  58. Re:I'm not trying to be funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hehehe, as long as your allmighty America is based on a population of dolts like you, we'll keep looking after ourselves in space as well, thank you.

  59. What A Waste of Goddam Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why even bother? Whenever anybody finds an asteroid in an Earth-crossing orbit which is likely to bring it very close to us, hundreds of reputable scientists and others are always quoted by the media as saying THERE'S NO RISK OF AN IMPACT!

    Obviously such a thing is never going to occur, so I say they should just give that money to me.

  60. speaking about odds by theycallmeB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here are some odds and probablities as compiled by the oddities who write The Edge for The Oregonian (Portland, OR newspaper). Short version: it is actually more likely that the Earth will be smacked by a large asteroid in your lifetime than you becoming a professional athelete.

    And remember, before you try to beat the odds, make sure you can survive the odds beating you.

  61. my journal entry on asteroids by glyph42 · · Score: 1

    See my journal. That's all I have to say about asteroids.

    --
    Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
  62. Wait... what are they testing it on? by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one whose first thought on seeing the topic was, "If they're testing the asteroid defense, wouldn't that require an asteroid coming toward Earth?"

    --
    Centralization breaks the internet.
  63. at odds with the facts by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:at odds with the facts by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot to factor that one doesn't become president too young either. Assuming no president will be younger than 40 and not older than 80, each of these 60M youngersts only have 10 chances to become president, and a majority of presidents actually do 2 terms. Suddently the Oregonians don't seem so wrong after all.

    2. Re:at odds with the facts by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The actual pool of potential presidents is weighted heavily (probably 5:1 or better) in favor of the half who are male, at least in the next couple of generations, which covers their cohort's 40 years. That leaves an effective 60% of that 6M people. They're eligible in the post-FDR era (since we got TV, universal telephones, and term limits), 56 years (13 terms) with 11 presidents. So, even with your 40 years, we've got something like 36.6M people producing probably 9 presidents, which is about 4M:1, which is about an order of magnitude better than the defeatists in Oregon think.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:at odds with the facts by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick but 4M:1 is not an order of magnitude better than 10M:1 , other than that I agree with your post.

    4. Re:at odds with the facts by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's hard to pick the ordering base of magnitude on Slashdot. Is it base 10, or base 2? In general, order of magnitude is base 10, but since the Oregonian numbers are already probably rounded to the nearest 10, I did the same. Damned statistics!

      This isn't a serious analysis anyway. But it's an interesting question. Realistically, many more people than the 50% females are at an extreme disadvantage in becoming president. The total pool of actual potential candidates might be closer to 750K people. That's not sounding so bad, 750K:1. Even with the inequity of opportunity, it sounds better than the odds in other countries, compared to the benefits, although that's a completely intuitive comparison.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  64. We will all be very sorry... by kavau · · Score: 1

    once we discover that the asteroid was indeed a camouflaged research vessel from an alien civilization. This "research project" could plunge Earth into an intergalactic war!

  65. Re:Attacking Windmills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so why exactly do we not need a defense against asteroids? Do we just sit back and hope for the best or what?

  66. bad mod by barakn · · Score: 1

    whoever modded parent offtopic should be modded unfair in M2. don quixote= don quijote= name of mission mentioned in story.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  67. Re:Attacking Windmills by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's right, just like we have for the last couple hundred thousand years. The odds that we'd ever need use one are so miniscule that it's practically guaranteed to never be used for it's intended purpose. On the other hand, the technology probably has many potential applications.

  68. How eloquent by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Basicly we don't know enuf
    Ah, thank you Mr. Hume, for destroying philosophy, and thank you modern education, for destroying poor Grimace1975's ability to spell.
    Just because you do not know, doesn't cast doubt on the validity of the science behind this. It just means that YOU'RE ignorant.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  69. Dumb idea by amightywind · · Score: 1

    What a dumb idea! Disintegrate a potentially deadly asteroid so the earth can be showered by the debris instead. Hope there aren't any big chunks! Since it is likely any large asteroid collision will be detected years in advance a very slight course correction using a chemical rocket would suffice. If bombarding an asteroid with a projectile has scientific merit, great. But don't pretend the activity has any relevance to asteroid hazard avoidance.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Dumb idea by juhaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disintegrate? Where the hell did you get THAT idea from? "Course collection" is what this thing IS doing, it's not Bruce Willis with nuclear bomb.

      You don't have much of a change disintegrating 500m asteroid by hitting it with a probe weighting few hundred kilos unless you're doing the ramming at relativistic speeds.

  70. Circling for the kill by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or did the impact vehical rely entirely too much on the circumstantial positioning of other celestial bodies to build up its kill velocity? Given all the slingshotting, it also looks like it would take a considerable amount of forewarning to achieve the desired result. Given the average detection time we've been seeing lately, I'd feel better if we didn't have to send the damn thing around a the sun first, y'know?

    And PLEASE, drop the Space Odessey soundtrack, already. You're killing an asteroid for cryin out loud. At least try the Black Hole suite or the theme for T2... ANYTHING but monoliths in space.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Circling for the kill by nikai · · Score: 1

      Space Odyssey may precede it, but I rather connect the Danube Waltz with the Elite docking sequence. Which fits nicely.

      In general, the animation reminds me a lot of Elite II. What a shame they killed Elite TNK.

  71. Re:Attacking Windmills by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Well, if we're going to stay in our nest we'd better be prepared to protect it.

    Of course now that someone has the technology to move asteroids there had better be several able to do so. So we can all vote where we want the asteroids to go.

  72. Jousteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's my suggestion for asteroid defense: http://www.thomastannahill.com/jousteroids/

  73. Re:Idiots can't spell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you are not aware that the Spanish language has evolved a bit in the last 400 years. In modern Spanish it is spelled "Don Quijote". México has kept the spelling, maybe because of the distance, but the "Méjico" form is also correct.

  74. Impact Calculator says: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Informative
    If that little 500m sucker clobbered LA (my fave target) and you were 100km away out in the desert, the impact calculator says:

    Impact Effects Robert Marcus, H. Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins

    Your Inputs:
    Distance from Impact: 100.00 km = 62.10 miles
    Projectile Diameter: 500.00 m = 1640.00 ft = 0.31 miles
    Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m3
    Impact Velocity: 10.00 km/s = 6.21 miles/s
    Impact Angle: 45 degrees
    Target Density: 3000 kg/m3
    Target Type: Competent Rock or saturated soil

    Major Global Changes:
    The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and remains intact.
    The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
    The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

    Energy: 9.82 x 1018 Joules = 2.35 x 10^3 MegaTons TNT
    The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 4.3 x 10^4 years

    Crater Size:
    Transient Crater Diameter: 4.59 km = 2.85 miles
    Final Crater Diameter: 5.63 km = 3.50 miles
    The crater formed is a complex crater.

    Thermal Radiation: Time for maximum radiation: 0.43 seconds after impact
    Visible fireball radius: 3.5 km = 2.2 miles
    The fireball appears 7.9 times larger than the sun
    Thermal Exposure: 3.60 x 104 Joules/m2
    Duration of Irradiation: 6 seconds
    Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 6.5

    Seismic Effects:

    The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 20.0 seconds.
    Richter Scale Magnitude: 6.9
    Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 100 km:
    VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken (visibly, or heard to rustle).
    VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
    Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces.
    Masonry D. Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally.

    Ejecta: The ejecta will arrive approximately 144.2 seconds after the impact.
    At your position the ejecta arrives in scattered fragments
    Average Ejecta Thickness: 4.6 mm = 0.1822 inches
    Mean Fragment Diameter: 3.5 cm = 1.37 inches

    Air Blast:

    The air blast will arrive at approximately 333.3 seconds.
    Peak Overpressure: 19232.2 Pa = 0.1923 bars = 2.7310 psi
    Max wind velocity: 38.2 m/s = 85.4 mph
    Sound Intensity: 86 dB (Loud as heavy traffic)

    So let's see - you're 100 km away - first you experience a 6.9 earthquake, and the red hot 4.6mm fragments arrive 144 seconds later? Great - that's like 250 km per hour... Nice. Anyone in the open is DEAD, and your house might not survive that either. Then after being weakened by a major earthquake and a barrage of highspeed rocks, an 86 mph wind comes to visit.

    Great. Sounds pretty crappy to me. I doubt that it would be the end of the world (Except for LA, but who cares?) but I think that even a smallish rock like that would produce some MAJOR damage, and should be avoided at all costs - alomst as much as voting for GW should be avoided.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Impact Calculator says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proposal: Alter the course of the rocvk to hit Washington DC. That should solve a LOT of problems, and it proves the concept of asteroid, uh, "defense", as well. :-)

    2. Re:Impact Calculator says: by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      If it hits at a 45 angle, then if you're on the right side (i.e. it goes over you on the way), you'd be be more likely to survive wouldn't you? This is just a guess though. I could be wrong though, I don't know how it all works, really.

    3. Re:Impact Calculator says: by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      That's definitely not a killer rock. Look at the estimated frequency:

      The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 4.3 x 10^4 years

      43,000 years between impacts. We've survived these before. Of course, that's the same kind of timescale as ice ages, so the consequences could be nasty...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  75. Re:Idiots can't spell. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 0
    México has kept the spelling, maybe because of the distance.

    I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from, Mexico is right here. :-)

    It is ironic that you went through the trouble of typing that acento on the E, but didn't bother to grow a set and post with a real account.

    I really think that while the j form is considered correct in some odd places, over here, many words that contain an X are still pronounced and spelled the correct way (ex., Oaxaca). X simply makes more than one sound, as do c and g. You won't change the spelling of gente to jente just because someone decides that it's confusing to have two different sounds for g, will you?

    Orale.

  76. Re:Attacking Windmills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's intended purpose

    "its".

  77. Re:Idiots can't spell. by 12357bd · · Score: 1

    Wrong

    The original spelling was with X, just look at a facsimil edition.

    The parent poster was right, castilian as almost every other language has changed on those 400 years.

    --
    What's in a sig?
  78. Re:Idiots can't link. by 12357bd · · Score: 1

    forgot the link to the modern castilian form of quixote, search 'quijote' in the Real Academia" (on Dicccionario de la Lengua) using the 'busqueda escalonada' option, and then search 'quixote'.

    --
    What's in a sig?
  79. Re:Idiots can't spell. by FifthColumn · · Score: 1
    México has kept the spelling, maybe because of the distance.

    I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from, Mexico is right here. :-)
    Yeah, about 9,000Km away from where the Spanish language originated.
    You won't change the spelling of gente to jente just because someone decides that it's confusing to have two different sounds for g, will you?
    And you won't keep the archaic form of Quixote (or Xosé, or Ximena) just because some kind of childish national pride, will you?
  80. Star Wars Sucks by CFTM · · Score: 1

    Yes, Slashdot folks I said it. Star Wars is a horrible waste of time, yes this is a troll but someone had to say it.

  81. Just a minor remark by jjga · · Score: 1

    I think the original, exact Spanish title is "El ingenioso Hidalgo, Don Quijote de la Mancha". In old Spanish, 'x' was the same as 'j' (e.g. Mexico is the same as Mejico), but nonetheless I think in the original book, it was written Quijote.

  82. Re: Don Quijote by kyletinsley · · Score: 1
    Except it's not Quixote, not Quijote.
    So it's neither one? What are you saying??

    Make some sense you crazy person!
  83. Your a freaking idiot then by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1
    Because high levels of carbon dioxide, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF FREE OXYGEN, result in a condition known as hypercapnia.

    Here's a relevant quote on the dangers of elevated carbon dioxide levels:

    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the body's regulator of the breathing function. It is normally present in the air at a concentration of 0.03% by volume. Any increase above this level will cause accelerated breathing and heart rate. A concentration of 10% can cause respiratory paralysis and death within a few minutes. In industry the maximum safe working level recommended for an 8 hour working day is 0.5% .
    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"