Slashdot Mirror


2004 MN4, Even Higher Probability

phreakuencies writes "Worried since the recent post about the MN4 2004 asteroid, I added a bookmark to its 'impact risk' section at NASA. The asteroid started as having a 1/233 probability of hitting earth. Later it raised to 1/63. Daily computations made on 25 Dec raised its chances up to 1/45. Optimists can now say it has a 97.8% probability of missing earth." And Veteran writes " NeoDys offers the 'Orbfit' software package (source code released under the GPL) which can be used to get a pre-release view of the situation with Asteroid 2004MN4."

524 comments

  1. Party like it's 2099 by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Informative
    And now it's 4 on the Torino Impact Hazard Scale.

    The way I see it, we've got about 24 years to party before the world ends. Have another glögg!

    Seriously, if it hits 5 or greater on the scale, then we'll have reason to really worry. In the meantime, it's sufficient to just watch and see what happens. As phreakuencies pointed out, right now there's a 97.8% chance of absolutely nothing happening.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Wdi · · Score: 1

      It was already yesterday, before the upgrade.

    2. Re:Party like it's 2099 by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1, Insightful

      this thing wouldn't take out the world, it's about a 1/4 mile across or so. But it will be bad. Big hole, and sever damage in the area. If we are lucky it will hit texas.

      Or maybe the Yucatan Peninsula, then we can find if Asteroids ever strikes the same place twice.

    3. Re:Party like it's 2099 by zoobot · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess I don't need to worry about my social security afterall!!!

    4. Re:Party like it's 2099 by TimToady · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, it's aimed mostly at the eastern hemisphere. If it hits, it'll be at about 9:22pm in London (.89 of a day at UTC), and since the rock is coming in almost directly from the night side of the planet, it's mostly aimed about 3 zones east of London plus or minus 6 hours. Or were you thinking that Iraq would have been renamed "Texas" by then?

    5. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Talking of the Torino scale, does anyone have any idea at what percentage probablility of impact it would move up to the orange (threatening) section of the scale? As far as I can tell, both the orange and red (impact!) sections are based more on the predicted amount of damage rather than likelihood of a collision, so I'm guessing it's pretty high. Also, assuming that the estimated size and consistency of the object don't change, it looks like an object would not be given two separate orange or red scores. If that's the case then I'm guessing that if MN4 is going to hit us it'll go to five, then eight based on a play with the damage predictor.

      In any case, we have 24 years and it's not *that* big. Plenty of time to nudge it off course with some of those surplus nukes we have lying around if it is going to hit...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:Party like it's 2099 by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      I'm really doubting they will be even remotely able to predict where its going to hit (if it's going to hit) till a few months from time of impact.

    7. Re:Party like it's 2099 by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      The way I see it, we've got about 24 years to party before the world ends. Have another glögg!
      "A close encounter, with 1% or greater chance of a collision capable of causing regional devastation."
      Hardly world-ending.
      Seriously, if it hits 5 or greater on the scale, then we'll have reason to really worry. In the meantime, it's sufficient to just watch and see what happens. As phreakuencies pointed out, right now there's a 97.8% chance of absolutely nothing happening.
      It can only go to 5 or 9.
    8. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Zonnald · · Score: 0

      Aimed at the "eastern" hemisphere, the one that is always rotating on the NS axis?

      I agree that if it is coming from the night side of the planet, you could make certain assumptions.

      At best you could claim a certain latitude +/- n degrees. But please, don't claim with any certainty that it would hit at any particular longitude as this relies on the actual time of impact.

    9. Re:Party like it's 2099 by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, if it hits 5 or greater on the scale, then we'll have reason to really worry.

      Even if it does hit 5, it's worth noting that the probability estimation has changed twice in the space of a day. That's no insult to the mathematicians - I can't begin to grasp the variables involved here, but if the numbers can change that fast I think it's safe to assume that there's going to be more fiddling of the statistics needed in the next 24 years before we get an acurate projection.

    10. Re:Party like it's 2099 by TimToady · · Score: 1

      Er, all the hemispheres are always rotating on the NS axis.

      The latitude has about the same uncertainty at this point as the longitude, which I expressed as "plus or minus 6 hours", which comes out to +/- 90 degrees in your units. I freely admit that degrees work better for latitude than do hours.

    11. Re:Party like it's 2099 by NockPoint · · Score: 5, Interesting
      When it is going to hit (if it does) is known down to minutes NOW. That and knowing which way it is coming from allows us to exclude half the planet from worries other than climatic. As someone has already pointed out, that means both NY city and Texas are safe from this rock.

      The uncertainty is a long strip that is 0.018 (see NEODyS) of the Earth's radius wide, and many times the Earth's radius long. Go look at:

      http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/2004mn4b.gif

      If the odds don't go down to zero soon, someone will calculate where the stripe of uncertainty is on the globe. It wouldn't be hard to do.

    12. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

      Fear not!!!

      4 is only "yellow" which we've been trained can be fixed with just some duct tape and plastic sheeting :)

      --
      - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    13. Re:Party like it's 2099 by neoee · · Score: 0

      And if it hits Hanford or Yucca Mountain?

    14. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Zonnald · · Score: 0

      At some level you are correct, but the probability is higher for the north if the asteriod is approaching from above the Earth/Sun oribit horizon.

    15. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea. Start breeding drillers..

    16. Re:Party like it's 2099 by discogravy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Plenty of time to nudge it off course with some of those surplus nukes we have lying around if it is going to hit...

      This has been covered before, but the problem with hitting an large object hurtling towards something with a nuke is that afterwards you have a lot of much smaller hurtling bodies which are now radioactive.

    17. Re:Party like it's 2099 by tehdaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So hit it in two years or so. (about the fastest NASA could move I guess) Use a big nuke, if it is only 1/4 mile or so in diameter, that should completely shatter it[1]. And in 22 years or so the debris cloud should be about the size of the sun, and so little of it would hit the earth that it would hardly qualify as a good meteor shower. Much of the worst radation should be gone by then too.

      [1]If it is solid iron it won't shatter, just get thrown off course. But then it won't hit us at all - problem solved there too.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    18. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope I'm not the only one who read that as "server damage" and not a typo of severe.

    19. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... April 13 2029 is a Friday! We are so screwed

    20. Re:Party like it's 2099 by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      Oddly, the Java applet on NASA's website shows the asteroid not hitting Earth. Of course, it isn't meant for modeling the asteroid's motion over long periods (as indicated by the disclaimer on the page), so it's basically meaningless.

      --
    21. Re:Party like it's 2099 by yali · · Score: 2, Funny
      does anyone have any idea at what percentage probablility of impact it would move up to the orange (threatening) section of the scale?

      I think it would take an election.

    22. Re:Party like it's 2099 by alexo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > the problem with hitting an large object hurtling towards something with
      > a nuke is that afterwards you have a lot of much smaller hurtling bodies [...]


      which tend to burn on entry into the atmosphere.

    23. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This asteroid will hit the middle east? It's like it will accomplish what we've been thinking about doing since 9-11 - wiping out all the arabs. This is such a convenient asteroid!

    24. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be aimed at the eastern hemisphere? In 12 hours it would be aimed at the western hemisphere.

    25. Re:Party like it's 2099 by fuck+nwbvt · · Score: 0, Troll

      I suggest you save your vitriol for this humorless shitbag.
      --
      Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

    26. Re:Party like it's 2099 by LearnToSpell · · Score: 2, Funny

      When it is going to hit (if it does) is known down to minutes NOW. That and knowing which way it is coming from allows us to exclude half the planet from worries other than climatic. As someone has already pointed out, that means both NY city and Texas are safe from this rock.

      Sweet. I'm safe. Next article!

    27. Re:Party like it's 2099 by samrolken · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Haha! Are the moderators blind?!

      --
      samrolken
    28. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it'll be at about 9:22pm in London (.89 of a day at UTC)

      No, UTC days begin at noon, London time. This is done so that for an instant, all places on Earth are in the same day. Therefore 0.89 of a day later would be 9.22 AM on the following day, London time. Assuming the asteroid lands at some place where the local time is midnight, Ground Zero should be somewhere on longitude 140 W.

      Most probably in the Pacific. Small probability of Alaska-Canada border, or polar regions. Do we know the latitude yet?

    29. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Joe+Decker · · Score: 3, Informative

      This page shows the dividing line, the probability needed to bring one from Torino 4 to Torino 5 depends on the kinetic energy as well. The current energy estimate I see at the NASA 2004 MN4 site is 1.6e3 MT, which puts us about (I'll guess here) a fifth of the way from 1e3 to 1e4 (as 1.6^5 = 10.48576, love them powers of two), so it's about 6/15ths (2/5ths) of the way between 1e2 and 1e5 MT, the upper bound of the Torino 4/5 box. It's kinda hard to figure how things transition on the probability scale there, but 2/5ths would clearly be to the right of the 10% mark. So I'll spitball that the dividing line is kinda sorta 15% at current energy levels. Your guess may vary.

    30. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. If this hits that part of the world, then YAY! No more French or Chinese. No more US Army!

      Any Thai ladies who need shelter plz make arrangements now.

    31. Re:Party like it's 2099 by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      sigh.

      Step one: Send out the bigass nuke right now. Put it on one of those ion engine crafts.

      Step two: Nail the trajectory down to 99% accuracy.

      Step three: Figure out the best way to deal with it. Have it pass by the earth into the sun? Have it slam into the moon? Is it possible to slow it down enough to put it into a stable orbit and mine it for resources later?

      Step Four: Once the calculations are done, send the course corrections to our bigass nuke to put it exactly where we need it, and to detonate when we want it to. You don't hit the asteroid directly. You just get close enough and nudge it. This is why you sent the nuke so early, over time, a small nudge adds up to a huge course change.

      Step Five: Placate the general public who were hoping they would have to send a mining team up in a risky yet heroic venture to save the earth.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    32. Re:Party like it's 2099 by sangdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what are the odds of this thing missing earth and hitting the moon? What kind of impact can the moon handle without it disrupting its orbit around earth and thus causing havoc on life on this planet?

    33. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course the statistics change - more measurements are being done, so the error margin on the estimate goes down. There is a band of possibilities, a bunch of possible trajectories, and more measurements make that band smaller.

      Currently Earth is still within that band, and Earth's diameter is about 1/45th of the width of the band, so that's the probability of a hit.

      Since more measurements are being done, we'll see this for a few more days - either the band is smaller and Earth is still within it, which raises the probability, or the band is smaller and Earth isn't in it anymore, and the probability drops to 0.

      Saying this is "fiddling of statistics" is an insult to the mathematicians involved.

      (Story above is simplified, by making it 2D instead of 3D, and by ignoring the fact that it's probably not some fixed area but the probabilities of the thing going outside the area are smaller and it's some weighted average, and I don't really know anything about the maths, I just think it's obvious that the probability would change quickly).

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    34. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Step three: Figure out the best way to deal with it.
      > Have it pass by the earth into the sun?
      > Have it slam into the moon

      Cynics would think that "have it hit Baghdad" also would cross the minds of those in charge of that decision.

      > You don't hit the asteroid directly.
      > You just get close enough and nudge it

      So, what would move it? "Air pressure" is not the answer (unless you nudge it really, really late) It would have to be either "mass from the bomb" or "radiation pressure". I doubt that either of these would make any significant impact.

    35. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pressure from all that vapourised rock would move it a bit.

    36. Re:Party like it's 2099 by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Were did you get that bullshit?
      UTC is GMT. There is no 12 hour difference.
      ALso your London time is nonsense since they have daylights saving time so it might differ one hour with GMT depending on the time of year.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    37. Re:Party like it's 2099 by gwiner · · Score: 1

      Yea, only 97.8, huh? And to think I start sweating when my CIO starts screaming that "Four 9's are not enough of a guarentee". Folks who make their living quoting availability stats are crapping their pants right now...

    38. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Nickalreadyinuse · · Score: 1

      No, UTC days begin at noon, London time.

      There is no such thing as "UTC days" (perhaps you mean Julian Date days?). Time of possible impact is stated by NEODyS as 62239.90032 MJD, which translates as 2029/04/13.90032, 21:36:27 in TT (Terrestial Time), which is about UTC + 32 seconds.

      MJD (Modified Julian Date) days are calculated as beginning from midnight, not noon as some other Julian Dates. See: Julian Day Numbers

      So the estimation, that the currently known center of the probable impact region is in 45E longitude, is correct. However, I don't see any bias towards the north latitudes from the orbit simulations thus far (and remember, it's April, so not much bias from Earth rotation axis inclination either). So for the time being, Somalia seems to be in the center of the probable impact area.

    39. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Nickalreadyinuse · · Score: 1

      Time of possible impact is stated by NEODyS as 62239.90032 MJD

      Just to correct myself, this is their estimate of time of closest encounter, not impact. Should a better estimation of the trajectory indicate impact, the impact time estimate is likely to differ with a few minutes, but this estimate will naturally be able to narrow down the impact region significantly as well.

    40. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot about Eros (think of the "NEAR" probe) that suggests asteroids are huge conglomerations of packing peanuts.

      Granted, the peanuts don't weigh much (in that gravity) but the mass adds up. We might need some big honkin' baggies.

      Alternatively, we can look into mining it.

      Even if this puppy is likely to miss in 2029 we really should be sending rovers and probes to study the damned thing so we'll know what we _can_ do. Additionally, if there are useful resources, it might make be a nice target to visit... though, really, the water content is what we _really_ need to look for. (Thinks that it might also be a good place to collect He3.)

    41. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And few slightly radioactive rocks are SOOO MUCH worse than hundreds of times those bombs have been, and still are detonated right here on Earth spreading whole fucking lot more of radioactive dust?

      Right. I mean, yeah, sure, I know it's trendy spookieword, but could you please THINK a bit before next "eeeeKK it's NUCULAR!1 WE'RE DOOMED!1" announcement?

    42. Re:Party like it's 2099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got to think of it as 97.8% of the time there is a 100% chance that it will not hit, and 2.2% of the time, there is a 100% chance that it will. There is only one outcome, the calculated odds only show our ignorance.

    43. Re:Party like it's 2099 by eofpi · · Score: 1

      Based on the gif linked to by the gp, it seems that the moon will be on the opposite side of the earth from the asteroid when it either hits something or hurtles past us unharmed, so it's a moot point how big of an impact the moon could take (with this asteroid at least).

      --
      Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
    44. Re:Party like it's 2099 by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The thrust is primarily from vaporized asteroid matter being ejected from the side facing the nuke. This is actually a fairly efficient process (as in greater than 1%), since the matter is ejected at relatively low speed. That means you get substantial thrust for a given energy input.

      This has actually been contemplated as a method of propelling interstellar spacecraft - see the Orion project and various subprojects.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    45. Re:Party like it's 2099 by mu301 · · Score: 1
      Talking of the Torino scale, does anyone have any idea at what percentage probablility of impact it would move up to the orange (threatening) section of the scale? As far as I can tell, both the orange and red (impact!) sections are based more on the predicted amount of damage rather than likelihood of a collision, so I'm guessing it's pretty high. Also, assuming that the estimated size and consistency of the object don't change, it looks like an object would not be given two separate orange or red scores. If that's the case then I'm guessing that if MN4 is going to hit us it'll go to five, then eight based on a play with the damage predictor.

      The Torino scale [ref1] is based on kinetic energy in megatons vs. probability of impact. A 4 or 5 is only for objects with energy in the 100 MT to 100,000 MT class and a probability in the 1% to ~99% range. Currently, 2004 MN4 is estimated [ref2] to have an impact energy of about 1,500 MT with a probability of 2.7% To rank a 5 (at the same energy) I calculate that the asteroid would need about a 16% impact probability. It would then stay at 5 for up to 99%

      There can only be one Torino integer/color per close earth approach. It could only jump from a 5 to a 9 if the probability exceeds 99% But an 8 (or a 3) are unlikely unless the size estimate is way too high. This asteroid will most likely hover at 4 for some time while new observations are collected. Later, it could drop from 4 to 2 or (less likely) jump from 4 to 9.

      [1]Torino Scale from Asteroid and Comet Impact Hazards
      [2]2004 MN4 Impact Risk (based on 176 observations collected through Dec. 27.084)

    46. Re:Party like it's 2099 by mu301 · · Score: 1

      Your 'spitball' landed pretty close to my 'back of the envelope' calculation that I posted just before I saw your message. I used the numbers from the same graph but with 1,500 MT and a little algebra to come up with 16% (rounded off from 16.4%)

      If the impact energy were exactly 1,500 MT it works out to a Torino number of:

      9 at 99%
      5 at ~16.4%
      4 at 1%
      2 at ~0.164%
      1 at ~0.00164%

      Currently the energy is estimated at 1,480. But it has moved a bit in the range of 1,400 - 1,600 which would shift some of the percentages above slightly. It would take a very large shift in enenergy to get other Torino numbers.

  2. Which Comes First by husker_man · · Score: 3, Funny

    Which will come first, 2004 MN4 asteroid, or
    Duke Nukem Forever?

    1. Re:Which Comes First by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they aren't one in the same?

    2. Re:Which Comes First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The asteroid, DNF will burn up in the marketing department.

    3. Re:Which Comes First by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      Daily computations made on 25 Dec raised it's chances up to 1/45.
      And assuming it does destroy modern civilization, then we only have 25 years left to get through to the people who still don't understand the difference between its and it's. Time for a crash program!

    4. Re:Which Comes First by digital.prion · · Score: 1

      Just as Duke Nukem Forever goes gold - it will get hit by the astroid..

      Thus giving them yet *another* excuse to start over..

      Merry Festivus!

      --
      Smile.
    5. Re:Which Comes First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who knows, but one thing is certain; they'll both beat Debian Sarge.

    6. Re:Which Comes First by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      25 years is not enough time for Microsoft to make a decent, bug-minimal OS. Linux wins. :P

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  3. Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    At first I thought it says " it has a 97.8% probability of hitting earth"

    Good thing i read it over again.

    1. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those would be some unusual optimists.

    2. Re:Whew by momerath2003 · · Score: 4, Funny
      At first I thought it says " it has a 97.8% probability of hitting earth"

      Good thing i read it over again.


      Good thing! If you hadn't, we'd be in some big trouble.
      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  4. amazing. by Roachgod · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Watch how all the end of the world loonies start going crazy and selling all their stuff. Anyone looking to get into the real estate market? Now is the time! first post?

    1. Re:amazing. by phreakuencies · · Score: 1

      Yeah, first post... What's that anything to do with this? If you dig up some info, you'll see that it's the first asteroid that reached 4 in the Torino Scale. Even more, no other asteroid has ever reached higher than 1 in the Torino Scale.

    2. Re:amazing. by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      Its also passed 1 on the Palermo Scale (1.03) (meaning its 10 times more likely to hit earth than the backround chance of one hitting in the time period between now and the expected date of impact) This is only the second time ive seen an asteroid above 0 on the Palermo Scale. (the other asteroid isnt expected to hit till the late 2800's and is around a .2 (50% above backround))

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    3. Re:amazing. by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      This would be agood time to stock pile MREs, bullets, and bottled water, so when joe blow survivelist starts stocking the "bunker" with food and ammunition, you can make bank.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
  5. Impact calculator by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to reassure you
    http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/impact/
    The impact comes out as somewhere between 450MT and 1.6GT, depending on speed and composition

    --
    Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
    1. Re:Impact calculator by Xentropy · · Score: 1

      NASA's site as originally linked says 1.57GT of impact energy. Granted, not incredibly severe. Unless it hits your home town. (~4km diameter crater + 7.8 magnitude quake.)

    2. Re:Impact calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      For comparison, the Tunguska blast, which felled trees over 2150 square kilometers, was 10-15 MT. So if this rock hits us, it will be about 43-160 times more powerful. This won't end life as we know it, but it'll be really bad for the area it hits. Let's hope it doesn't land in the ocean.

    3. Re:Impact calculator by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      "Not incredibly severe" ... Uhm, I reckon that thing, if it hits, will have slightly more impact on global weather systems than Krakatoa had when that went "pop" big-style last time around.

      Where-ever this things lands, lets hope it lands where the most despicable living politician in the world currently is residing. And to borrow a phrase from current despicable politicians and top brass, any civilians that goes in the same bang, they are "just collateral"...

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    4. Re:Impact calculator by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The largest nuclear bomb ever detonated had a power of 50 to 57 MT, and the light from the explosion, despite a cloudy sky, was visible from over 1,200 miles away, and I think scientists measured its shockwave circumnavigate the earth three times.

      450MT and 1.6GT is a LOT more than even that. If it hits, it won't wipe out humanity, but I think it might have a very strong effect on the weather and water if it hits water, and it might collapse or destroy a few nation-states if it hits land.

    5. Re:Impact calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it might collapse or destroy a few nation-states if it hits land.

      Let's hope it hits somewhere in the Washington, D.C. area then, so we can finally have peace on God's green earth...

    6. Re:Impact calculator by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Where-ever this things lands, lets hope it lands where the most despicable living politician in the world currently is residing. And to borrow a phrase from current despicable politicians and top brass, any civilians that goes in the same bang, they are "just collateral"...

      Remind me to be away from Washington DC on April 13, 2029.

      --
    7. Re:Impact calculator by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      Let's hope it hits somewhere in the Washington, D.C. area then, so we can finally have peace on God's green earth...

      Don't be so optimistic. As long as there are humans, there will be war.

      --
    8. Re:Impact calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so optimistic. As long as there are humans, there will be war.

      I suppose that means we need a bigger asteroid...

    9. Re:Impact calculator by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      Washington != Washington DC

      *sheesh*

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    10. Re:Impact calculator by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      You can't compare the two based on MT because the energy released is in a different form. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ says that the damage wouldn be enough to damage (not even destroy) most of a small state like Maryland but that's about it.

    11. Re:Impact calculator by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Well an impact of this scale is supposed to do damage to an area about the size of Texas, right?

      So Washington would be more appropriate than Washington DC. And much more convienient for the OSS people ;)

    12. Re:Impact calculator by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      cool maybe it will take out the french banks that got rich of the UNs Oil for Sadam I mean Oil for Food program?
      Or it could take out a good chunk of China. Actually it looks as if the US is going to be spared. Last check was the eastern hemisphere.

      That was more my venting at the anti US hate. I hope that it misses and or lands in the middle of no where.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:Impact calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome to leave any time.

    14. Re:Impact calculator by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Let's hope it doesn't land in the ocean

      Alternatively, let's hope it *does*.

      I think the effects of the resulting tsunami would be easier to deal with than the total obliteration of a 200 km (diameter) circle in most land areas.

      p

    15. Re:Impact calculator by Catharsis · · Score: 1

      You're right. Giant tsunamis across an entire ocean and massive ecological devestation through the entire oceanic biosphere are FAR superior to evacuating a 200km diameter circle (plus fallout space) over the next twenty four years.

      I live near the coast, and have seen tsunami simulations for my region.

      Definitely better to see it drop on land. Much easier to cope with.

      -pvh

      --

      "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume

    16. Re:Impact calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "wouldn"? what the hell? "would" or "wouldn't"? i suppose i could check the link to find out, but if you were going to make us visit another website anyway then why the fuck did you bother summarizing it?

    17. Re:Impact calculator by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      We aren't going to know what land it's going to drop on until probably a day or two before it hits, at best.

      Hitting the ocean won't devastate the "entire oceanic biosphere," either. It'll create local disruption, but keep in mind the heat capacity of water versus that of air and rock. (Hint: water absorbs the thermal impact a lot better.)

      A 50-foot tsunami hitting the entire East Coast of the US and the western portions of Europe and Africa would be FAR less devastating than a hit directly on any landmass except possibly Antarctica or the middle of the Sahara Desert. At least with a tsunami, only the areas within ~10 km of the coasts would need to be evacuated, and the destruction wouldn't be nearly as total as if the asteroid impacted directly on, say, New York City. You hit NYC with a giant wall of water and most of it survives. You hit anywhere in the state of New Jersey or Connecticut with an asteroid this size and NYC turns into a pile of smoldering rubble.

      Better to spread out the devastation into a lot of absorbable chunks than hope against hope that if it *does* hit a landmass, it will hit somewhere benign. The way the population is expanding right now, in 24 years, there won't BE anywhere like that.

      p

    18. Re:Impact calculator by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree totally. However, there are a lot of nice people living in the state of Washington (friends of mine) and there is also the added problem of the rock from space perhaps setting off Yellowstone, which would be incredibly bad for north america as a whole. I mean, most things left of the Rockies would be a smoking crater if that happened.

      So on the whole, weighing the options, Washington DC would be the better place for the rock to hit. Microsoft will lose the grip eventually anyways, while the USA seat of power (Washington DC) is in more desperate need of cleansing.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    19. Re:Impact calculator by lachlan76 · · Score: 1
    20. Re:Impact calculator by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      Uhm, that is in Utah, right? Isn't there another big, bad thing in Utah, like Intel or something...

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    21. Re:Impact calculator by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Intel's in Santa Clara (California).

      It's Senator Hatch, the one who keeps helping out the RIAA. All the more reason to drop an asteroid on Salt Lake City.

    22. Re:Impact calculator by Surlyboi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, the French banks made all the money in the deal.

      There are a few US companies that are just as dirty in this affair.

      And it's not anti-US hate as much as it is pointing out the fact that the emperor has no goddamn clothes.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    23. Re:Impact calculator by buckeyeguy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Guess you didn't read today's news.

      Tsunami hits SE Asia, India, thousands dead.

      Now, let's say the rock hits in the North Atlantic, kinda like in 'Deep Impact'. Or farther up Asia's east coast, near large population centers. That would cause bigger problems than a 'hole in the ground'.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    24. Re:Impact calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 50-foot tsunami hitting the entire East Coast of the US and the western portions of Europe and Africa would be FAR less devastating than a hit directly on any landmass except possibly Antarctica or the middle of the Sahara Desert.

      Atlantic coastline: 111866km, let's keep within your 10km inland number, that's over million square kilometers devastated. Land blast: 31.5 kkm^2. Compare amount of people living in those areas, the ocean devastation is much worse even if you do worst scase scenario on land and smack the rock in middle of tokyo or something.

      And no, you DO NOT take even 50 feet (or more, perhaps hundreds of meters) wall of water moving at hundreds of kilometers per hour with a mere scratch. It doesn't really matter much if the rubble is smoldering or just soaked.

    25. Re:Impact calculator by Nickalreadyinuse · · Score: 1

      Just to compare, this Bay of Bengal quake was 8.9 Richters and let's say it caused maybe 10 000 casualties.

      According to http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ 2004 MN4 could cause only a 7.0 Richter seismic effect (worst case scenario) when hitting water depth of 100m. Those kind of quakes happen all the time around the world's oceans, causing negligible casualties.

    26. Re:Impact calculator by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Except that Linus Torvalds recently moved to Oregon didn't he? If something were to take out an area the size of Texas on Washington. Oregon and Idaho would be destroyed and parts of California, British Columbia and Nevada would be gone as well.
      Not so conveniant after all.

    27. Re:Impact calculator by juhaz · · Score: 1

      It's not going to happen, but just for the heck of it, let's dismiss the new observations for a while.

      Now that you've seen what kind of damage bad Tsunami can do, do you still think ground impact would be better?

      Mind you, earthquake 9.0 on richter scale is "only" about 32 gigatons, the asteroid impact would release 60 times more energy, and cause a megatsunami.

      Also, tsunamis don't often happen on Atlantic so coastal areas would be much less prepared for catastrophe than those on Pacific or Indian ocean.

    28. Re:Impact calculator by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Doh, feel free to dismiss that, point error, it's only 2 gigatons, not 2000.

    29. Re:Impact calculator by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      The Atlantic coasts are VASTLY more prepared for such a catastrophe.

      For starters, a far lower proportion of the inhabitants are living essentially on the beach, and the ones that are live in far sturdier buildings. Infrastructure in Europe and North America is far superior, and advance warning and evacuations could be effected far more efficiently. Witness the US attempts to contact Sri Lankan and other officials: they knew about the earthquake as soon as it happened, and they TRIED to warn people, but they couldn't get through to them. That wouldn't be a problem following an impact in the northern half of the Atlantic (which, in all other respects, seems to be about the worst possible case).

      p

  6. Laser time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, what probability would constitute: time to start building a huge laser? I guess as soon as it makes the mainstream news we'll have people lobbying their governator for lasers. Give the people what they want I say.

    1. Re:Laser time? by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 1

      The real problem is, where are we going to find sea bass large enough to attach it to? And are they ill-tempered enough?

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
  7. Astroid movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't decide if Hollywood will use this an an opportunity to cash in on another round of terrible astroid-hits-earth movies, or if it would be considered bad taste.

    Maybe a reality show...

    1. Re:Astroid movies by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Maybe a reality show...

      "Asteroid House: Twenty low-grade celebrities locked in a house at the center of the impact path. Vote for your favorite to leave the House."

      "Asteroid Shuttle: Two teams locked in orbital tin cans try to solve engineering challenges which will move their craft out of the asteroid's path."

      "Survivor: As Teroid: Contestants try to find or make enough clothing to keep their posteriors covered."

      "CSI: Impact Crater: Fictional CSI teams try to appear effective after the real impact..."

  8. amazing-Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Watch how all the end of the world loonies start going crazy and selling all their stuff. "

    Sell it and do what? How do you hide from the effects of the impact of an asteroid?

    1. Re:amazing-Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm.. Like move some hundred kilometers away if you happen to live right where it hits?

    2. Re:amazing-Logic? by atam · · Score: 1

      Remember Heaven's Gate?

  9. I can see my house from here! by cgsamurai · · Score: 0

    So, does anyone know if the DOD has rampped-up any effors to restart any Star Wars - type missions, or tests regarding this?

    1. Re:I can see my house from here! by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, Han and the gang are going to trick Darth into moving the Deathstar right into the path of it. Then the DoD will claim it to be a Two for One event.

    2. Re:I can see my house from here! by jabex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pfft. Before that can ever happen, I think we all know that the Stargate team would be able to send the asteroid into hyperspace for just a few seconds, coming out on the other side of the planet (and thus missing it).

      --
      Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
    3. Re:I can see my house from here! by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, Stargate isn't real.

      In all seriousness we all know Captain Kirk will find a Klingon bird of pray, fly around the sun to go back in time to get some Wales and snicker bars, then fly out to the asteroid and offer the Snickers bars to the asteroid to get it to not destroy us, while scotty cooks up some wonderful roasted whale to celebrate the saving of the earth.

    4. Re:I can see my house from here! by jabex · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, wrong again! Obviously, Picard would find a time portal to send Data through, where he could then cannabalize his body to build a tachyon emitter that would ionize the asteroid, and send it through a newly discovered wormhole to the delta quadrant.

      That is, assuming Count Bakula doesn't get there first, prematurely starting a klingon-earth war.

      --
      Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
    5. Re:I can see my house from here! by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      What the hell good will picking up some welshman do?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    6. Re:I can see my house from here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Whale. Wales is a country (admittadly not independant at the moment) where they sing well and play rugby.

    7. Re:I can see my house from here! by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll get some real big speakers and broadcast their voice. The accents will be so inscrutable, that we'll confuse the asteroid into reversing its course.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    8. Re:I can see my house from here! by Presidential · · Score: 1

      No, I think it's more certain that Geordi will attempt to extend the Enterprise's subspace field around a part of the asteroid in order to reduce its overall mass.

      Of course, then we are doomed as the thing would come apart from gravitational shear (according to Q at least).

      Actually that brings to mind an interesting question I haven't seen explored yet. There must be many unobserved and unobservable masses floating randomly around out there. Each of these must exert some gravitational influence, right? Yet we have no reliable way to define these nuances other than to observe their effect on other visible bodies.

      How can we possibly worry about an event 25 years hence which our current measurments are unable to confirm?

      I guess that's why they measure these things in probabilities.

      --
      Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
  10. Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I can't think of a better person than a strict fundamentalist to start working on averting an Act of God...er, I mean a natural catastrophe.

    --
    Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
    1. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your implying that it's the United State's job to unilaterally stop this thing, assuming that it would hit. Come on man, we're talking about a global catastrophe here! I'd like to see the rest of the world get off their collective ass and give a damn.

    2. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The problem is the US will decide that our solution is the best one and override suggestions or plans by any other nation. If France has a idea, and maybe even a better one then us, The US will say "fuck you" and do it our way. And since stopping it would be a one shot deal, thats not a good thing to have happen. It's probably a one shot deal cause if the first try to stop it messes up the way the thing is setup, it might mess up all the plans other groups have.

      Me personally think that a hit that would posse good odds of destroying the world would be a great thing for world unity and get the whole planet to work as one to solve the problem, and maybe from that we can learn something.

    3. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an optimist...

      The good odds you are talking about is US trying to go unilateral (as per usual). I am pretty certain that the non-Jesusland people in US would like to colaborate with the rest of the world on a solution, but the Jesusland contingency there is no reasoning with, so better that the rest of the world watches in apathy and hope the asteroid take out as much of the Jesusland part as possible.. At least the world population would have a chance of dealing smartly and efficiently with the next possible collision object...

    4. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Err France will not have a better idea than the U.S. It makes sense for the US to take over here, we have the most experience in space, one of the largest space programs, and the only country to get anything on Mars. Most foreign scientists use our tools simply because of their superiority. I'm sure that other countries will make suggestions, but I'll stick with the country that has the most space experience, the most nukes (and other weapons), and arguably the most intelligent scientists in the world.
      Regards,
      Steve

    5. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of scientists that work in US labs are foreigners. But this is probably too difficult for you to learn that, you are so intelligent, nobody else can be better than you.

    6. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I never said they weren't, in fact I stated that most foreign scientists use our tools. I know this from experience. Tons of foreigners come here for education and for jobs, I have no problem with that, most are very intelligent. In the United States, everyone is an immigrant so its no big deal and highly accepted. I do have a problem when they take advantage of the system, contribute nothing back to the country that gave them the education and instead just export it back home.
      Regards,
      Steve

    7. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, most scientists get education in their own country, and then go to US, usually for a post-doc, where they bring their knowledge, and publish in US teams. They don't take advantage of the system, the US are glad to have them, because basic education in US is crap and expensive. Your knowledge of the research system is very limited apparently.

    8. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by scheveningen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ISS is what it's name says, an international space station. Russia is doing the lifting now. US may be more sophisticated, but Russia seems more robust.

      The most intelligent scientists in the world? Have you been quizzing them? I was not aware scientists had a ranking system. Thanks for making me smile!

    9. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

      Every article. How does this happen? Somehow, no matter what the topic, no matter how completely non-related it is to politics, somehow, somebody finds a way to insult Bush. Seriously, the imagination of Slashdot is breathtaking.

    10. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Whyrph · · Score: 0

      Wait - so France will not have a better idea? You're completely sure? Absolutely positive?

      Well.

      In that case, could you enlighten me on this new system of logic you seem to possess? I wasn't aware that High Probability == Certainty.

    11. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by rufferto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Me personally think that a hit that would posse good odds of destroying the world would be a great thing for world unity and get the whole planet to work as one to solve the problem, and maybe from that we can learn something."

      Ronald Reagan had similar ideas, from what I recall, about the potential unifying power of an invasion of space aliens.

      It might make a good script for a B-movie actor like Reagan, but in real life you'd just have destruction and chaos. And maybe not just from the asteroid - people who think they're doomed often behave in a nihilistic manner.

    12. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Whyte · · Score: 1

      No, most scientists get education in their own country, and then go to US, usually for a post-doc, where they bring their knowledge, and publish in US teams. They don't take advantage of the system, the US are glad to have them, because basic education in US is crap and expensive. Your knowledge of the research system is very limited apparently.

      From what I have seen, most post-graduate work in the space industry is done in the US. Primarly because we have the largest space industry, and consequently it is regularly willing to pay for this type of research. However if you have some actual information to dispute this, I'd love to see it. If you are talking about people from other disciplines entering into the space industry post-doc, you might a point. But in general I doubt most specialists would take this route.

      It seems logical that anyone wishing to do post-graduate work in the US would be well serviced to do their undergraduate work here as well. Particularly because they will have longer to identify and exploit any opportunities that may present themselves.

      However, I don't think I'd dispute the rather poor quality of primary and secondary education in the US when compared to other specific examples. That said, we still manage to turn out some fairly well-educated students from time to time.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    13. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      Tons of foreigners come here for education and for jobs, I have no problem with that, most are very intelligent. In the United States, everyone is an immigrant so its no big deal and highly accepted.

      Uhm, as long as you are not muslim, and have olive skin apparently. Or look a bit foregin and have a muslim sounding accent. Or could be suspected of possibly being soft on Islam.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    14. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Dubya is just such an insultable cretin that it is made sooooo easy to slip it in there.. And knowing it is annoying to right wing merkins just makes it that much more enjoyable to keep doing it.

      Enjoy!

    15. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't worry, if Kerry had won, there would be tons of jokes about him never being able to decide whether or not to do anything about it.

      Just like how everytime the internet is in the news, someone uses the Gore slam.

      Just like how everytime Clinton does anything, people make jokes that it is not suitable for the eyes of children.

      If you can't take it, don't dish it.

    16. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's just a segue to blaming it on Microsoft...

    17. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      We had Bush for 4 years. America has voted and we have him for 4 more years. As the value of the dollar drops, as more of our troops die in a family fued in Iraq, as more jobs goes overseas, as more junk is done, we will question him endlessly in the name of freedom and Linux. He was elected on the basis of fear of gay marriage.

    18. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's annoying to left-wing 'merkins too, since it's up to us to explain to people that not every liberal is a pathetic whining shitbag.

    19. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it helps you cope.

      Never mind that only 22% voted on moral issues, and you have no idea what percentage of those were voting against gay marriage specifically.

      Because logic would hurt your coping.

    20. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Jesusland - you believe that everyone from the red states is a fundamentalist nutjob, so you believe in Jesusland. What a fucking cretin, no comprehension skills at all.

      And shitbag, your sense of humour needs work, because that didn't approach funny on any level unless you think other people will be amused by your limitless stupidity.

    21. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not all of them, just the majority of them.. I am pretty certain there are nice people in the red states, it's just that there are more not so nice people in them states. Jesusland just happend to be a rather apt description of the red states, all things considered.

      Wow, first 'cretin', and now 'shitbag', my my, you do have an extensive vocabulary do you not my little toerag. And feel free to insult me at any time, if it makes you feel better...

    22. Re:Well, I'm glad Bush is in power by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      If I may point out - the difference between a "red" state and a "blue" state is typically less than 5% of the population...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  11. Great! Just Great! by OgTheBarbarian · · Score: 1

    I hit my 'Freedom 55' retirement and POW!!!! I'm gonna sue somebody. Harrumph!

    1. Re: Great! Just Great! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I hit my 'Freedom 55' retirement and POW!!!! I'm gonna sue somebody. Harrumph!

      At least the USA doesn't have to worry about Social Security running out of money...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. Nuke Dukem Forever by sci50514 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on, bring on the jokes about Nuke Dukem Forever. :)

  13. 10 Bucks on Florida by GeekDork · · Score: 4, Funny

    'nuff said

    --

    Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

    1. Re:10 Bucks on Florida by patonw · · Score: 1

      Put me down for 20 on Texas

    2. Re:10 Bucks on Florida by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 1

      100 bucks on it hitting a trailer park.

  14. Something to bear in mind by topynate · · Score: 1

    Even if - as is likely - 2004 MN4 is not on course for Earth, the probability of impact will increase with each observation that does not exclude it hitting entirely, as the region of possible places it can be shrinks.

    1. Re:Something to bear in mind by barawn · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not necessarily true. It depends on the characteristics of the error.

      If the errors are Gaussian, if the nominal trajectory (i.e. "it misses the Earth by X+/-Y km") is accurate, but imprecise (that is, X is correct, but Y is large compared to X) then the probability of impact will decrease as the precision is improved (i.e. as Y decreases) because the "Earth impact" possibility moves farther out on the fringes of the observation, and the area doesn't shrink fast enough to compensate for this.

      Of course, if the errors are flat (all solutions are equally likely - actually, if the PSF falls off slower than the area shrinks) then you're correct. I'm pretty sure that they're Gaussian, or approximately Gaussian, though. So the only way the probability could be increasing is if the nominal trajectory's impact parameter is decreasing - that is, closer impact.

    2. Re:Something to bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in reality, you have no idea what models were used to calculate the estimates, and therefore are simply guessing out of the blue using words and ideas from Stat 101. Way to go. By the way, you don't sound smarter for saying Gaussian instead of normal, especially given your level of knowledge.

    3. Re:Something to bear in mind by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 0

      I think you better take a look at this: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/gif/mea-orbit-big.gif

      --
      4Z5TX
    4. Re:Something to bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy does astrophysics. Hence, he probably does know. Enough of the ad-hominems.

    5. Re:Something to bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know it's slashdot when the trolls say a guy that is an expert in the field doesn't know what he's talking about.

      And the kicker is when they act like a low level statistics class makes them more qualified.

    6. Re:Something to bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Ph.D. in Statistics. None of the astronomy people I know do. This guy might, but I doubt it. And even if he does, he still is totally guessing, and his original post doesn't mean much given that information.

    7. Re:Something to bear in mind by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Got that Ph.D. from a crappy school it seems as you lack even basic reasoning skills. Seeing as the person is in the field he/she knows what models are most often used and from this they can draw conclusions.

    8. Re:Something to bear in mind by barawn · · Score: 1

      Why do I need a Ph.D. in statistics to know statistics? Do I need a Ph. D. in EE to know electronics? Dear God, do I need a Ph. D. in comp sci to know computer science? Yes, I might not know many very esoteric bits of info in statistics, but I certainly know the statistics in my own freaking field.

      Did you read the first post?

      Did you see the part where I mentioned that it depends on the PSF (point spread function) of the telescope? How is it guessing? I know how telescopes work. I know how you convolve that into an orbit solution, so I know what the error is going to roughly look like. Amazingly enough, when you take a bunch of errors and mung them together a bunch, you get something that looks Gaussian.

      The only way the original post's statement would be true is if the resultant error from the PSFs convoluted into the orbit solutions ends up falling off slower than the area shrinks. There's virtually no way that's true. Most PSFs are approximately Gaussian. They certainly fall off faster than 1/x-ish (the solutions are typically highly constrained in 1D, so the available phase space drops as 1/x as the spread decreases).

      Anyway, read the bloody definitions on the page. 99% of the uncertainty is contained within 3 sigma. That means it's at least (very, very crudely) approximately Gaussian. Even a flat distribution spread across 3 sigma which drops to 0 afterwards is "approximately" Gaussian - there are no extended tails. Plus if you could've seen the previous data, you'd notice that the solution is pulling closer to Earth. Which implies that the increased chance is not solely from the decrease in area.

    9. Re:Something to bear in mind by barawn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      words and ideas from Stat 101.

      What word did I use from Stat 101? PSF (point spread function) is from astronomy. It's what a high-statistics point source looks like on a CCD.

      All the other words and ideas are just from error propagation. That's from my undergrad physics lab.

      But in reality, you have no idea what models were used to calculate the estimates

      It's on the page. 99% of the uncertainty is within 3 sigma. No extended tails, which means it falls off fast enough that you can say that yes, the solution is pulling towards "Earth collision."

  15. Sweet sweet asteroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great having an world destroying asteroid hitting eart, this'll mean that I can get pity sex (and thus loose my virginity) once I'm 45!

    What's that you say?, 98%+ chance of missing, only regional damage, women don't work that way ... ... Hmmm, I wonder if I can get some pity sex for writing this post here on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Sweet sweet asteroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have signed your name...

      Some beauty is out there is having anonymous sex with a different anonymous coward...

      Or, as we call it, Saturday...

  16. We're doomed! by Quixote · · Score: 3, Funny
    In 29 hours, the impact probability has gone from 0.015873 to 0.022.

    If this trend continues, expect an impact in another 4629 hours, or about 193 days!

    It's going to be one hot summer...
    ;-)

    1. Re:We're doomed! by nocotigo · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. It was a funny joke, you just didn't get it.

    2. Re:We're doomed! by TiPeRa · · Score: 1
      Mod parent up. It was a funny joke, you just didn't get it.
      Please Explain
    3. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod here. It wasn't that funny.

    4. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the mean time, poster was being effed in the K.

    5. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its most likely from Futurama, a Bender quote, from a few episodes I think.

  17. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The torrino scale only rates it as
    "A close encounter, with 1% or greater chance of a collision capable of causing regional devastation."
    This means that only a portion of the world will be brutally smashed into oblivion!:-)

  18. Seriously, you might as well relax. by Faust7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know in all those movies where some guy, sometimes just an amateur scientist, sees something in his telescope/seismograph/thermometer/disease-modeling -software that all the high-up professionals miss, and rushes in to warn the government?

    That doesn't happen.

    So kick back and relax in the knowledge that, even if a global catastrophe is imminent, there's fuck-all you can do about it, except make yourself a quick drink.

    1. Re: Seriously, you might as well relax. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > You know in all those movies where some guy, sometimes just an amateur scientist, sees something in his telescope/seismograph/thermometer/disease-modeling -software that all the high-up professionals miss, and rushes in to warn the government?

      > That doesn't happen.

      You're with the agency that makes those guys disappear, aren't you.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, we could put a paper bag over our heads.

      Will it help? No... But it'll make us feel better.

    3. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by Zonnald · · Score: 0

      Just give me 6 pints and a few bags of salted nuts!

    4. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by Stranger4U · · Score: 1

      Actually, a lot of the large-scale astronomical observations of these sorts of objects (meteors, comets, what-have-you) are done by amateurs or, at least, by very small research groups. There isn't a whole lot of large-scale, whole-sky survey sorts of things out there.

    5. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      I take it you did not read up on 2004 YD5. It was discoverd by a retired caterpillar computer specialist.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    6. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by colmore · · Score: 1

      Amateurs certainly are still making valuable contributions to astronomy.

      An asteroid is certainly an object that an amateur can pick up.

      The professionals do not have the capability to be sweeping all the sky all the time, even if they were only looking with lenses with as little magnification as amateur equipment (and these days, good amateur equipment is quite good)

      It's entirely possible that the big one will be found by the little guy.

      Just because it hasn't happened yet...

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    7. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      It was discoverd by a retired caterpillar computer specialist.

      And I'm glad they stopped making those things. It was irritating to have to feed the caterpillars in their computers. Do you know how picky they are about their food, and what kinds of bugs would appear in those programs?

    8. Re: Seriously, you might as well relax. by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      > You know in all those movies where some guy, sometimes just an amateur scientist, sees something in his telescope/seismograph/thermometer/disease-modeling -software that all the high-up professionals miss, and rushes in to warn the government?

      > That doesn't happen.

      You're with the agency that makes those guys disappear, aren't you.



      Actually, I think Faust just meant the current administration of the particular government in question doesn't listen to scientists.

    9. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      ehh, the company( heavy equipment), not the bug.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    10. Re: Seriously, you might as well relax. by hughk · · Score: 1

      But he listens to someone who thinks he is god! (Himself!)

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    11. Re:Seriously, you might as well relax. by fubarific · · Score: 1

      But then how will Bruce Willis save the day again?

  19. Obligatory Airplane quote... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    "It's coming right for us!" >crash

    It's 20+ years out... C'mon... When we get within a year or two and it still has a 97.8% chance, I'll worry. But we've got to prove we can't blow the world up ourself first!

    1. Re:Obligatory Airplane quote... by eomnimedia · · Score: 1

      "Oh, and we're also out of coffee."

  20. How big? by utlemming · · Score: 1

    FYI: It is a 400 meter astriod. http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/asteroid_2 004_mn4.html

    --
    The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    1. Re:How big? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      When it gets measured in yards then I'll know it is threatening the USA.

  21. escape plan by jabex · · Score: 1

    1) build spaceship
    2) build mars habitat (hurry not much time left)
    3) ...
    4) profit!

    My uncle is really pissed. He made some thought experiment (32 questions) for "if the world was no longer habitable" and the date he picked was just a few years off.
    http://32q.com/

    If only he had picked the right date, he probably could've started his own cult or something. Then he could use their power to build a space ark and profit, as noted by the guidelines above. Well, back to the drawing board.

    --
    Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
    1. Re:escape plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5. all hell breaks loose.

  22. Science Desk Home for the Holidays by DumbSwede · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I have to confess I have been googling on this matter the last 24 hours and am surprised by how many news sites picked up on the 1/233 1/300 chance when at 2 on the Torino scale, but a full day later, no major news sites are mentioning the move to a 4 (currently a 1/45 chance).

    I don't see a conspiracy here, and do think we will be missed, but given how much they hyped previous possible events with less statistical support it is curious they aren't doing follow ups. Could just be that it's Christmas, and things in the science departments are on autopilot.

    If this thing stays greater than 1/100 by Monday, expect the papers and television to start picking up on it again. There was a close encounter today with 2004-vw14 (something like 5 lunar orbit distance), and the kooks where on the net prophesizing doom (even though it wasn't all that big a rock). It may take some years to really get a bead on where this thing is going, likely going up and down in probability.

    Expect no fewer than a dozen Death-Cults if it stays in double-digit probabilities. Do the Darwin Awards cover Death-Cults?

    1. Re:Science Desk Home for the Holidays by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most newspapers are closed today, which doesn't help. BBC is open, and Slashdot is open. All the others I read are closed.

    2. Re:Science Desk Home for the Holidays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noticed the same thing. Here's a scary story getting more scary by the day, being HANDED to the media and they're not saying anything about it.

      What the hell??? Meanwhile it seems CNN has just now discovered ballistic parachutes for light aircraft, which has been around for a few years. Gee, awesome guys. Welcome to 2001.

      Well, I did my part to warn the world about MN4's new odds: I blogged about it yesterday. I feel I have now done MY part. LOL.

      The Mayan calendar is supposed to end in 2012, which learned people say means the Mayans thought the world is supposed to end in 2012. Wonder what that cause will be. Of course, the Mayans are all dead anyway.

      Side note: the 21st century was going to be the century that China takes over the world. MN4 has the potential to interfere with their carefully laid plans. I bet they are watching it closer than anyone, probably hoping the rock is aimed right at the US. No, not Taiwan. If it hits the US, they can just hop over and take Taiwan.

    3. Re:Science Desk Home for the Holidays by Santana · · Score: 1

      Their Long Count calendar ends on December 21st, 2012. According to them, that's the end of the Fifth Age (the one we are living). But it's the beginning of the Sixth one too, with a renewed and clean Earth.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it
  23. Exciting! by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I just sick, or do other people find the possibility of this thing hitting to be pretty damn exciting? The chaos, the devestation, the panic, the collapse of all social systems... jeez, that would honestly be one of the coolest (And last) things to ever happen in most of our lives. The timeframe is nice too... many of us that are currently in our late 20's, early 30's will be wiped out before things start going really downhill for us (physically), but we'll have enough time to get a decent bit of fun stuff done too. Bring it on!

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the bad guys on the planet would not stop doing the stuff they do, beheadings, bombings, etc. if this asteroid hit. That thing would have to hit _them_ smack-on to do any good. One problem, were are _them_ at? Here, there, everywhere?
      Only in Science Fiction movies (50's) do foes unite against a common "outer space" enemy.

    2. Re:Exciting! by fionbio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hard to find such thing exciting if you have children.

    3. Re:Exciting! by MeanSolutions · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, you're sick. :)

      Joke aside, if they ramp up the risk of this thing hitting earth to one in five, and hype up the devastation it will make, perhaps it will shake people into action to oust all bad governments once the thing misses?

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    4. Re:Exciting! by zmooc · · Score: 5, Funny

      One more reason for not having kids:)

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    5. Re:Exciting! by Elkboy · · Score: 1

      Of course I'm excitited. The way I see it, it's just as likely as hit Bush (or whatever zombie/clone/mutant they have of him by then) as it is to hit me.

    6. Re:Exciting! by jbridge21 · · Score: 1

      sorry to burst your bubble, it would only be a 1500 MT hit. not enough to destroy more than an area maybe the size of TX.

    7. Re:Exciting! by Spydr · · Score: 1

      Joke aside, if they ramp up the risk of this thing hitting earth to one in five, and hype up the devastation it will make, perhaps it will shake people into action to oust all bad governments once the thing misses?

      uhh, define 'bad'. depends on which side of the fence you are on.

    8. Re:Exciting! by MenTaLguY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Based on past history, it's more likely to shake people into giving a politician all the power they want and creating a dictator. That's been the normal effect of mass fear.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    9. Re:Exciting! by Zonnald · · Score: 0

      If you speak truth and the breeder is an ignorant ass, is it not your responsibility to breed in order to improve the gene pool?
      IAAIB

    10. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not a breeder, you're going extinct whether or not this hits. So why should anyone listen to you, dinosaur?

    11. Re:Exciting! by MeanSolutions · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My definition of bad. I was thinking fascist, totalitarian, power-hungry, corrupt, etc. etc. Well, what-ever the heck Dubya stands for basically....

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    12. Re:Exciting! by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      You know, the really really scary thing, the REALLY scary thing, is that you are 100% right.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    13. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea.. but think: where you will be getting your pr0n?

    14. Re:Exciting! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be great and fun to watch the impact, too bad most of us would die too fast to enjoy the full spectrum of observations.

      I would love to have this thing fall somewhere in the Pacific.

    15. Re:Exciting! by lazypenguingirl · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... one more reason?

      And I thought just not wanting them should be sufficient reason enough. :p

    16. Re:Exciting! by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      If this thing now decides to hit the planet at all, the pacific would be a good place for it to land.. But am not sure the people living on a coast facing the pacific would agree with us.

      From what has been said in other threads though, it sounds like the thing would land somewhere around Iraq, so we could be looking forward to seeing the remains of the oilfields provide a nice bit of fireworks a last time, or we could get to see a (hopefully permanent) end to the fight in Israel. You never know...

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    17. Re:Exciting! by gumpish · · Score: 0, Troll


      If you're not a breeder, you're going extinct whether or not this hits.

      Uhm, people who breed die too. Your offspring != you.

    18. Re:Exciting! by gumpish · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...is it not your responsibility to breed in order to improve the gene pool?

      Although the prospect of lowering the percentage of Bush voters is appealing, I'd have to raise at least a dozen children to make up for the fact that people with better educations have fewer offspring than the NASCAR-watching, mouth-breathing heartland-dwellers do.

      It's a hopeless situation - unless a mass-sterilization agent is deployed, we are all going to drown in a sea of idiots in the next 30 years.

    19. Re:Exciting! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      I don't have children, but my mortgage should be about paid off in 2029. Which just about seals the probability, in my opinion. Better start building arcologies...

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    20. Re:Exciting! by rlsthree · · Score: 1

      Yes, the ubiquitous "But what about the CHILDREN?!?"

      --
      Nunchucks don't kill people NINJAS kill people
    21. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You well, you were a kid once.

      100% of Slashdot posters were once kids.

      Someone's gotta make 'em.

    22. Re:Exciting! by c0bw3b · · Score: 1

      I've often had daydreams of becoming a land pirate or something when the apocalypse comes. And me and my friends often talk about what useful skills we would have to benefit society... My girlfriend is really good at knitting and spinning yarn and various other textile things. I'm good with computers. Who will be more useful when the rock drops? Hard to say, really.

      --
      ||:|::
    23. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're quite the charmer. You must be the rock star of the trailer park whenever you grace the outside world with your pasty-faced, pear-shaped presence.

      Douchebag.

    24. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the headlines now: "Bitter loser goes on rampage, kills 3"

    25. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      If you were to die tomorrow, and you could make exactly one phone call before you died, whom would you call and what would you say?

      (Think of the answer before you proceed)









      Well, what are you waiting for?

    26. Re:Exciting! by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Am I just sick, or do other people find the possibility of this thing hitting to be pretty damn exciting? The chaos, the devestation, the panic, the collapse of all social systems... jeez, that would honestly be one of the coolest (And last) things to ever happen in most of our lives. The timeframe is nice too... many of us that are currently in our late 20's, early 30's will be wiped out before things start going really downhill for us (physically), but we'll have enough time to get a decent bit of fun stuff done too. Bring it on!

      If we are due for a large (Tunguska-sized) impact every century or so, perhaps the best way for it to happen would be to hit a relatively sparsely populated part of the US -- say, Helena, Montana, or the such. Basically, we want the city to be large enough so that it stays in the news, but small enough so that the loss of life is (relatively) minimal. I'm picking the US since its the country with a decent space program, yet it has sparsely populated areas.

      That way, perhaps we'll catch the meteor that will hit Europe 75 years down the road or so.

    27. Re:Exciting! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      100% of Slashdot posters were once kids.

      Not 100%.
      Some still are.

    28. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? You're not as smart as you think you are. Read up on the nature of the causal link between poverty and fertility. You might be surprised.

      You fucking idiot.

    29. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you find it exciting eh? well I'm in my teens now so if this fucker comes and anarchy breaks out, I'm hauling my angry adult ass to your house where I'll have some good fun at your expense before "time is up"

      seriously, I don't find this exciting, I find the prospect of dying young rather not-good. And also makes me realize how much we should envy all the elderly people who have lead full lives and died of natural causes, without war or disaster.

    30. Re:Exciting! by Killshot · · Score: 1

      This asteroid isn't big enough to wipe out the earth or even cause as much chaos as you hope for.

    31. Re:Exciting! by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      Frankly, I find not having to worry about how to fix social security very enjoyable.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    32. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah seriously there's no one more righteous than parents who always have to remind us they popped out some babies so I have to change my lifestyle for them.

    33. Re:Exciting! by Corporal+Dan · · Score: 1

      Someone's been playing waaaay too much Fallout/Fallout 2. :-)

    34. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not pick Russia? They have an equivalent space program and even more sparsely-populated areas?

    35. Re:Exciting! by justins · · Score: 1
      Am I just sick, or do other people find the possibility of this thing hitting to be pretty damn exciting?

      We could be kind and use the word "sheltered," or perhaps "unimaginative."
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    36. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already had one. Your turn.

    37. Re:Exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what are you waiting for?

      A special for two medium with three toppings?

  24. Common mistake in press coverage by AxelBoldt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Many press reports essentially say "the chances of impact is relatively high with 1 in 45, but don't worry since it is almost certain that future observations will exclude the possibility of impact." Even the original NASA report contained a sentence like that.

    It's important to note that if the chances of impact are 1 in 45, then the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility impact are 44 in 45.

    The two events "asteroid hits us" and "we can never exclude the possibility of it hitting us" are equivalent: the first happens if and only if the second happens. Therefore the two events have the same probability.

    So the "don't worry" part of the above sentence is pointless: the second half sentence is a mere reformulation of the first; there is no reassuring "extremely high" probability that future observations will correct the number downward.

    1. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by lordfener · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not so sure that I follow you. The impact happening or man being able to predict it are two independent concepts. We can predict that it will happen and still be wrong; likewise, we can predict that it won't happen and be dead wrong (literally). The impact probability is cumulative, but every observation introduces a certain amount of error, some of which can be compensated for (known quantities like the CCD resolution of the telescope that took the measurement), while others can't (human error, poor calibration, the fact that every observation is performed at a different place, time and by different people, and so on). Therefore, the probability that any one observation will change the impact probability either way is unknown--because you don't know how many observations will be made between now and the estimated time of impact and you don't know the final result--a bit like playing roulette with a wheel that has infinite numbers.

    2. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm assuming of course that the prediction mechanism is adequate, meaning that NASA's impact probability predictions get better over time, and right before the impact date they will be either (very close to) 0% or (very close to) 100%.

      The latter will happen if and only if the asteroid actually does hit us. So the events "asteroid hits us" and "NASA eventually predicts that it will hit us" are (very close to) equivalent; they are not independent concepts as you claim. The two events have therefore (very close to) the same probability, currently estimated as 1 in 45.

      So our currently best estimate that NASA will eventually exclude the possibility of impact are (very close to) 44 in 45

    3. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, seems you don't get the problem.

      Simple map of the Earth moon Sysstem:
      1 _ _ _ 10 _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ 30 _ _ _ 40 _ _ _
      E ... m
      Simple map of the path of the asteroid:
      / / / ... ... / / /
      That should be 42 stripes but the junk char filter ....

      As you see, the first stripe hits earth, the other 41 don't hit. Well, moon is in fact at opposite position when the asteroid comes in, but it was difficult to "draw" that. So, remember moon wont be hit.

      Further observations of the asteroid will give us more data to determine wether the asteroid will travel stripe number 1 or 2, or wether it will travel stripe number 20 or 30 or whatever.

      If we figure the asteroid is traveling NOT stripe 1 we are 100% certain that it will miss us.

      If we figure the asteroid will not travel stripes 31 to 42, the likelyhood of an impact increased to 1:30.

      Both calculations are "100%" certain. OTOH, your parent was right. The likelyhood that the chance of getting hit decreases is high. You have 42 draws ... and in 41 draws you have the chance that stripe number 1 -- the stripe which hits earth -- is removed from the set or possible pathes. Because more accurate measurement shows that the asteroid wont go that path/stripe.

      angel'o'sphere
      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      But people worry about worrying. So it is reasurring to know that we don't have to spend the next couple of decades worrying about it. Most likely we'll know soon that it is not a problem. It would suck to have to wait until the day of impact to know. A non-scientist might worry about that uncertainty.

    5. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by lordfener · · Score: 1

      Without pushing this ad-nauseam and try to apply combinatory math to layman journalist expressions, I'll note simply that, in my opinion, you don't have "42 draws"--at most you have 42 possible outcomes, but even that is incorrect because as far as the ultimate problem goes, there are only two possible outcomes: either the asteroid hits or it doesn't. There could be a 1 in 10000 chance of the asteroid hitting and any one observation could immediately restrict the range of possible solutions for the interpolation of the asteroid's orbit to one: a hit. Again--it's like trying to play roulette by counting numbers: completely useless (and that's why casinos not only let you count at the r. table--they even give you pen and paper).

      Any one observation does not necessarily rule out either of the two possible outcomes--and that's why the possibility of impact is cumulative based on all the observations. OTOH, I'd say the the possibility of any particular obervation making a difference is inversely proportional to its position along the timeline: the further away from the potential impact, the less influenece will the observation have on the outcome. You must consider this: an observation made today takes in no consideration the events that the asteroid will experience in the course of the next 30 years. We can calculate its current trajectory down to the meter if you want, but there is the possibility that the asteroid will collide with another body before Earth (perhaps one we don't yet know about), and it is virtually impossible to take into account the gravitational effects of all the bodies that the asteroid encounters, particularly given its relatively small size and our relatively large ignorance of the universe around us.

      By contrast, an observation made 10 minutes before the asteroid is about to hit us will have a great impact on the final outcome, because the total number of variables will be much smaller then. (Of course, the 10 minutes are just a ploy to get moderated up to funny, but you get my point, I hope).

      My guess is that, with a trajectory that's close enough to Earth's, you would see the probability of impact go up until, at a certain point, it either reaches 100% or drops abruptly to zero because of one decisive observation.

    6. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by lordfener · · Score: 1
      Case in point, taken from this NASA page:

      On the other hand, in the unlikely case where a particular potential impact event persists until the orbit is relatively well constrained, the impact probability and associated risk will tend to increase as observations are added. This is not too paradoxical: If an asteroid is indeed going to come very near the Earth then a collision cannot be ruled out early on. The impact probability will tend to grow as the orbit is refined and alternative and safer trajectories are eliminated. Eventually, the impact probability will drop (usually quite abruptly) to zero or, if the asteroid is really on a collision trajectory, it will continue to grow until it reaches 100%.

    7. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      So if I'm reading this right, all this means is that NASA's physicists eliminated about 190 predicted orbits that didn't intersect with the Earth and are working on the last 44, one of which does?

      Of course, the thing is that this is an N-body problem, so it's impossible to predict the orbit exactly. Thus, even if all their numbers say it will be on an orbit that causes it to strike Earth in 2029, there's still a possibility that it will change as time progresses and more observations are made? (IE, the actual probability of impact is not 1/44, rather, that's the chance of it being on a potentially Earth-intersecting orbit, as opposed to a 100% safe orbit, based on current models?)

    8. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      It's important to note that if the chances of impact are 1 in 45, then the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility impact are 44 in 45.

      No. "Asteroid hitting Earth" is a Bernoulli event. It hits, or it does not hit. Our current estimates are P[hit] = 1/45. P[miss] = 44/45. However, we do not know what our next estimate is going to be, and the current estimate doesn't (in a strictly propabilistic sense) tell us anything about future estimates.

      The two events "asteroid hits us" and "we can never exclude the possibility of it hitting us" are equivalent: the first happens if and only if the second happens. Therefore the two events have the same probability.

      "we can never exclude the possibility of it hitting us" isn't an event.. I think the event you meant is "asteroid doesn't miss us".

      there is no reassuring "extremely high" probability that future observations will correct the number downward.

      Well.. no. There is some 3D region in space through which scientists figured out the asteroid will pass through. The "propability of a hit" is nothing but the ratio of the volume of earth contained inside this region to the total size of the region.

      Now, as we have more information, we can shrink the size of this region. Since the parts we're going to be cutting off first are the outsides of the region (as we get better readings), it's fairly logical to assume that since the region is going to shrink around us, the propability of us getting hit is going to go UP at first, as is happening now.

      Eventually however, we will (hopefully) start to be able to remove parts of the earth from the region, at which time the ratio will begin to go down. Eventually, when the region no longer contains the earth, the chance of being hit is 0.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    9. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by stdarg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a little animation showing what you're talking about.

    10. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      The two events "asteroid hits us" and "we can never exclude the possibility of it hitting us" are equivalent: the first happens if and only if the second happens.

      No, "asteroid hits us" can happen without our even considering possibilities.

    11. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1

      If you don't consider possibilities, then you can certainly not exclude the possibility of it hitting us.

    12. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      However, we do not know what our next estimate is going to be, and the current estimate doesn't (in a strictly propabilistic sense) tell us anything about future estimates.

      We know that if the asteroid is on an orbit to hit us, our future estimates will eventually show (very close to) a 100% hit probability. We also know that if the asteroid misses us, then our future estimates will eventually show a (very close to) 0% hit probability. So the event "asteroid hits us" happens if and only if the event "our future estimates will eventually show a 0% hit probability" does not happen.

      Since the probability of the former event is currently estimated to be 1 in 45, we can conclude that the latter event has probability 44 in 45.

      In other works, the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility of impact are 44 in 45. Which is what I claimed above.

    13. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well,

      You are right, we dont have 42 draws.

      We have as many draws as we do measurements. But if we measure after the first next attempt, that possibility number one is ruled out, the asteroid will miss.

      Some of your post is basically right, but: the asteroid will have its close encounter in 25 years. Thats 25 rounds around the sunffor earth. And something about 36 or 27 rounds for the asteroid.

      There is no physical problem in calculating that EXACT. Note: the asteroid is 440 meters in diameter. Earth is 12.000 meters. We are talking about several 100 asteroid diameters here.


      You must consider this: an observation made today takes in no consideration the events that the asteroid will experience in the course of the next 30 years.


      About what particular are you talking here?
      Lets asume, tomorrow the astronomers say: we get a full hit. So what might happen to prevent that? Venus capturing the asteroid? No. Venus is taken into account ... otherwise we would not get the 100% hit estimation. So, Merkur? The orbit of the asteroid is on Venus/Earth level, forget Merkur. Mars? Idem. So, Moon? Taken into account allready ... thats what astronomers do if you ask: "will it hit?"

      So whats left? A similar small asteroid orbiting more or less in the same hemisphere. How likely do you think is it in relation to the current 1 : 42 probablility that this 440 meter big asteroid hits another one?

      Your consideration about:
      By contrast, an observation made 10 minutes before the asteroid is about to hit us will have a great impact on the final outcome, because the total number of variables will be much smaller then. (Of course, the 10 minutes are just a ploy to get moderated up to funny, but you get my point, I hope).

      I only get that you are completely mistaken.

      When you aim a gun on a target, you ALLWAYS know if the bullet will hit. You know it when the trigger is pulled, you know it when it leaves the barrel, you know it when it has moved 1 meter, or 2 or 10, or 100. Its simple newton physics.
      Same for the asteroid.

      Our problem with the asteroid is: we dont see the gun ... only the bullet. So we have to make snap shots of the bullet along its path ... with enough snapshots from different angels we see PRECISELY if it hits. Our current view on the asteroid shows a fan which is "42" earth radii wide. Remove one radius left and it misses, remove one radius right and teh propability increases from 1 : 42 to 1 : 41.


      My guess is that, with a trajectory that's close enough to Earth's, you would see the probability of impact go up until, at a certain point, it either reaches 100% or drops abruptly to zero because of one decisive observation.

      If you read my post again ... thats exactly what I said :D
      If a certain posibility is ruled out, I called it "stripe 1", the probability of getting hit is ZERO. And we are 100% certain that it is ZERO.

      Read here: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news146.html

      bottom animated GIF perfectly illustrates what I mean ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by fcw · · Score: 1
      Note: the asteroid is 440 meters in diameter. Earth is 12.000 meters. We are talking about several 100 asteroid diameters here.

      I think you'll find that the Earth is more than twelve kilometres wide.

    15. Re:Common mistake in press coverage by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      "Asteroid hitting Earth" is a Bernoulli event. It hits, or it does not hit

      I cannot believe someone would post such inaccuracies to Slashdot, the last bastion of scientific thought! Obviously, this is not a Bernoulli event! The asteriod and the Earth each have a wave function showing the probability of their respective positions. Because of this wave function (at least until it collapses), the asteroid will both hit and miss the Earth.

      We must stop these fake science posts! Think of the children!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  25. Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's get the terminology straight here.

    Chance is measured in percent. Probability is measured as a decimal or fraction between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100% certainty. Odds are measured as a ratio such as 1,000,000 to 1.

    1. Re:Terminology by phreakuencies · · Score: 1

      Measuring in % is just a way to get a more readable number (people tend to like "round" numbers like 10 and 100). A probability can be easily expressed as a percentage. It's just a matter of scale. But, well... probability tends to be defined as fraction between 0 and 1.

  26. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by phreakuencies · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a) I know the difference. It was a typo b) My first language is not english. A typo doesn't make me illiterate. c) Where did I say it was an advice?

  27. Well in this case by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I think it would be something that probably would be averted. I mean think: there's 24 years before this happens. So if it becomes known that it will, for certianty, happen, we have over two decades to solve the problem.

    Generally, if we can predict a disaster with enough lead time, the disaster is averted because we work to avert it. This certianly isn't true of everything, but I'd give a pretty good chance that we could come up with something to mitigate the problem of this asteroid in 24 years.

    1. Re:Well in this case by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, I don't think thats true at all.

      We, the humans, are destroying the earth around us with ruthless efficiency.
      We have lost the knowledge to co-exist and care for our environment - on a local AND global scale.
      This asteroid won't kill us, but something will, and you can bet it would have been preventable with planning and preperation.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  28. Wagering on Survival by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, will give 100,000-to-1 odds that the favorite, earth, will survive 2004 MN4. Paypal accepted.

    1. Re:Wagering on Survival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Note: I figure that if you are right and we utterly destroyed that I won't have to pay up. I win either way!)

    2. Re:Wagering on Survival by kilonad · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'd dump $1 million into that bet. You're giving 100,000-to-1 odds that Earth WON'T be hit. As in, if the asteroid misses, you pay up. And if it hits, you don't. Not that you'd be able to anyway.

      I should really make you trolls do some cute tricks before I feed you.

  29. Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Incoming asteroids are not really much of a problem. There are, at least, 2 solutions. One is to load a Delta 4 rocket with gallons of white paint and then to smash the rocket into the asteroid. The newly painted asteroid will change course ever so slightly as the sun's rays will nudge it away from the earth.

    The second solution is to load a hydrogen bomb onto a Delta 4 rocket and to send the contraption to the asteroid. Within a mile from impact, explode the hydrogen bomb. The explosion will nudge the asteroid slightly and send it in a direction that avoids earth.

    The catch here is that if we utilize a hydrogren bomb in this way, we must quickly replace it. The Chinese military is eagerly looking for any weakness in our conventional or nuclear arsenal and would use such a weakness to exploit us.

  30. Not too big a deal, I think by philovivero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the last post about this, I went and read up on the whole thing. I went to the beautiful CGI script where you input asteroid size and velocity and all that, and assumed I was 100km from the impact.

    I had to up the asteroid size to 1300 metres and a velocity of 14kps of dense rock colliding with porous rock before I could interpret the results as something that would suck for me (2nd degree burns on my body from the fireball).

    There would be no major earth effects of such an asteroid hitting Earth, so it said.

    Compare these stats against our current fearsome asteroid.

    In one thread I saw someone refer to this as possibly a human-extinction event. I have a hard time believing that once I actually bother to go check this out. It'd sure suck for everyone within 100km of the impact site but for everyone else, I guess we'd have about the same effects as a major earthquake to deal with.

    1. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have not taken into consideration the collosal amount of fallout that will cause thich clouds that would block the sun. That will spread much further than 100km.

    2. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's a 73% chance the impact will occur in the ocean. How do you like super-sonic 1500ft tidal waves striking every costal city on earth? What about all the steam released into the upper atmosphere?

    3. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Informative

      1300 meters is not that big and they can travel up tp 80kps.

      This one is 2.9 miles wide which is over 6k meters.

      A 1300 meter meteor could easily create a 20 mile wide creater and could cause disasterous tidal waves and tsumias that extend many miles inland.

      The human species would survive but 90% of us live near a body of water.

    4. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      'It'd sure suck for everyone within 100km of the impact site'

      Dude, it's above your house..

    5. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by coyote-san · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you'll "only" get second-degree burns from the fireball, but what about everything else in your vicinity exposed to the same energy?

      Anyway, for large nuclear explosions radiation isn't an immediate concern. If you're close enough to catch much radiation you're already dead from the other effects. What kills you at distance is the overpressure wave and the radiant energy. The former knocks down structures and the second ignites fires that grow into firestorms.

      If you think back to those early films of atomic bomb tests, that's why the paint on the house smolders (radiant energy) before being blown to kindling (overpressure wave). Terminator 2 showed the same sequence.

      You might think you're safe from 2nd degree burns if you hang out side during the initial flash, but that won't do you much good if the house is blown down around you.

      P.S., before somebody mentions it a nuke's nuclear reaction has stopped long before the fireball is a foot or so across - the size of the original warhead. Afterwards everything else is a case of extreme thermodynamics, the origin of the energy is irrelevant.

      An impact's fireball is far more spread out, but it ultimately comes down to a very large fireball and local seismic effects.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    6. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by constantnormal · · Score: 1

      ... it depends on where it hits.

      For instance, if a gigaton impact were to occur in the Yellowstone volcanic basin, it could well act as a trigger for a much larger cataclysm.

    7. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1
      The trouble is not with the immediate effects, but rather with the climatic change the impact would cause (assuming it strikes land).

      I'd say it would suck more to starve to death a year after the impact, because the climate has changed so that the agricultural output is down to 10%, than to be vaporized right away.

      Of course I pulled that number out of my ass, but nonetheless, the impact on the climate could be severe. Someone already mentioned Krakatoa.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    8. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by rthille · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but look at what our economy did when 16 guy flew 3 planes into some buildings. Now imagine that asteroid hitting not pourous rock, but water off the east or west coasts...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    9. Re: Not too big a deal, I think by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > P.S., before somebody mentions it a nuke's nuclear reaction has stopped long before the fireball is a foot or so across - the size of the original warhead. Afterwards everything else is a case of extreme thermodynamics, the origin of the energy is irrelevant.

      Cool - if you're more than 6" away it's just like being atomized by an ordinary bomb!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:Not too big a deal, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one is 2.9 miles wide which is over 6k meters.

      I don't know what rock you're thinking about, but it's not 2004 MN4, because it only has diameter of 400m.

    11. Re: Not too big a deal, I think by coyote-san · · Score: 1

      YOU would be fried by radiation. :-)

      Seriously, one of my pet peeves is people thinking that there's something special about (thermo)nuclear explosions. They do produce a lot of radioactive fallout, but that takes days to kill.

      I guess it's because of two factors.

      1) the stories out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What people forget is that there's several orders of magnitude more energy in a thermonuclear explosion than an atomic explosion - iirc the LD50 rings for death from radiation vs. the other effects are inverted.

      2) there were discussions of developing radiation-enhanced weapons ("neutron" bombs) in the 70s. These were specialized weapons designed to produce far more radiation than typical for such weapons.

      Unfortunately the logical endpoint of thinking about this too long without true comprehension is the "mininukes" proposed by Bush et al. It's one thing to say "nukes are just very large explosions" at 5MT, it's a very different thing to join LeMay and claim that 20kT nukes are the same.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  31. Did it take NASA out? by GlassUser · · Score: 1

    It looks like that server just got hit by a meteorite. Oops.

  32. Furthermore by TWX · · Score: 1

    In response to the story about the giant rock hurling through space that is set to devastate our planet in a horrible event, Merry Christmas everyone!


    At least if it hits on April 13 we won't have to file our taxes in 2029...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      At least if it hits on April 13 we won't have to file our taxes in 2029...

      Oh yes we will. After all, there are severe penalties to not filing your taxes.

    2. Re:Furthermore by TWX · · Score: 1

      *rotfl!*

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  33. but where is ti going to hit? by deft · · Score: 1

    Now I know this might be a world killer, etc, but someone should be able to tell me with the trajectory it is on, which way the earth would be facing should it hit....

    I'm just curious what will be cratered, what will be melted, what will be evaporated, and what will just die.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by TimToady · · Score: 1

      6-8 square kilometers of eastern hemisphere, more or less. In theory, you can obliterate a large city. But nobody will die, because we'll make sure it doesn't hit, unless civilization collapses really soon, in which case we're all hosed anyway.

    2. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by TimToady · · Score: 1

      That is, the crater would be that big across. A larger area is of course affected. So make it 6-8 "kilometers square", or more likely, "kilometers round". :-)

    3. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "But nobody will die, because we'll make sure it doesn't hit"

      We who paleface?
      It is not going to hit the US so why should the United States do anything? Why should my tax dollars to to stop a rock that is not even going to hit the US?

      Or why should the US do it. It is time that those Americans stop trying to be the policemen of the world!

      That being said I do hope that the US does do something to help. I would suggest and Entergina booster with a modified delta IV as an upper stage.
      A W-53 warhead modifided to be directional using the tech devloped for the Orion project would be a good payload.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by Zonnald · · Score: 0

      Tim, stop it. The eastern hemisphere has about as much probability as the western hemispere. Depending on the time of impact. Unless you know precisely when it is going to hit?
      Stop being an arsehole.

    5. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by remahl · · Score: 1

      "We, humans". Perhaps in the United Nations or some other global coalition. Should the worst come to pass. Have some faith in humanity!

    6. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      He he he the united nations... Dream on.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      And then the merkins wonder why they are almost universally despised across the globe, and why "the insurgency" in Iraq has just been getting worse with each passing day.. *sheesh*

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    8. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      If we could get a Tsar Bomba into space, that would probably work well.

      For those who don't want to read the Wikipedia article, it is a fusion bomb with a 100Mt yield. Only one has ever been detonated, and the yield was intentionally lowered to 56Mt.

      It was powerful enough to cause 3rd degree burns at 100km, and blast damage up to 1000km away.

      That would do a fair amount of damage to an asteroid less than a kilometer across.

    9. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      It was asfaik simply a bunch of smaller bombs joined togother. It was designed to be built quickly, easily and to work not to be efficient so sending it up would be stupid since you can just send a bunch of smaller more efficient nukes.

    10. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by TimToady · · Score: 1

      We know within a few minutes, according to the referenced webpages. The chances are less than 1 in 45 that I'm the one being an arsehole here.

    11. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      My other source

      You description is almost correct, but not quite. Rather than use a *HUGE* third stage which used about 2 tonnes of Lithium Deutride, they split it up into several capsules, each with about 10-20Mt worth of lithium deutride. Only the fuel used for the thermonuclear third stage.

      Think of it as trying to break a rock with a cold chisel. What will work better? Hitting it once hard enough to break it apart, or hitting it lots of times, but with about a 40th of the force? Even if the smaller bombs are more efficient, they aren't going to be able to put a huge amount of energy into one point.

    12. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Even if the US does move the rock. We will still be despised by some. That was my point everyone will expect the US to do something about it even thought it will not hit the US. The rest of the world will for the most part watch. Notice that you would hate the US for not getting involved. Yet complain if they take charge. Like just about every thing else the US will most likely be the ones to stop this. Maybe with the help of Russia for the heavy lift.
      And you should not use the term merkins or the proper Americans. People from Canada and Mexico are also Americans and take offense when citizens of the US take that name. Show some respect for them at least.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by eskayp · · Score: 1

      At this point, who knows where it might hit?
      According to estimated time of impact some are predicting the eastern hemisphere.
      But what happens if the object grazes our atmosphere, slows, and has its trajectory altered by Earth's gravity?
      Take that slim possibility to it's extreme, and our homeworld gains a new moonlet.
      Right now, all we have are probabilities, and the human mind doesn't handle ambiguity well.
      We all want to know if and when it will kill us.
      Yet we blithely ignore the mundane daily events that are more likely to kill us before an asteroid does.

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
    14. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1


      Even if the US does move the rock. We will still be despised by some. That was my point everyone will expect the US to do something about it even thought it will not hit the US. The rest of the world will for the most part watch. Notice that you would hate the US for not getting involved. Yet complain if they take charge. Like just about every thing else the US will most likely be the ones to stop this. Maybe with the help of Russia for the heavy lift.


      Wonder if it will ease the pain if I tell you that I think most of the citizens of USA is totally okay, perhaps a little too uneducated about the rest of the world, but nobody is perfect. What I have a beef with, and what I think most others in the world have a beef with, is the administration and the 'rulers' of USA. Lets face it, the foreign policy of the USA creates more hassle and trouble for the USA than it solves, and the administration is either stupid (incapable of comprehending why) or evil (desires the effects created).


      And you should not use the term merkins or the proper Americans. People from Canada and Mexico are also Americans and take offense when citizens of the US take that name. Show some respect for them at least.


      I'll use whatever term I like thank you. Considering that most of you lot complain constantly whatever we call you, americans, merkins, US people etc. Heck, most of you lot are incapable of making the distinction between the nordic countries, so why the hell should we care what you lot are called, as long as people understand what is talked about?

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    15. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Wonder if it will ease the pain if I tell you that I think most of the citizens of USA is totally okay, perhaps a little too uneducated about the rest of the world, but nobody is perfect."
      This is a myth that is caused by the fact that just about everyone knows who the leader of the US is or what the government of the US is doing but most citizens of the US do not know who the leader of there government is. Do you know the name of the president of Mexico, Peru, or the Prime Minister of Australia is? Most educated US citizens know that Tony Blair is the prime minister of the UK and a few other countries leaders. Your right that for the most part the people of the US really do not care who is running other countries. They feel that it is none of our business.
      As far as the Nordic countries yea I know that Sweden is one of them as is Norway, and Finland. But to put it in perspective there are more people in several states than in the country of Sweden. Do you know the cultural difference between say Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Maine are? They are very different places and the people while all US citizens are also very different. Most people in the US do not even know how diverse the US is because they do not travel as much as I do. Of course even those differences are being crushed by the media. Yes the same Americanization that people around the world talk about is not really Americanization as much as Californiacation or New Yorkerizing.
      I find it funny that people in Europe think the know and understand the US when they really have no clue. The US was isolationist for most of it's history. The problem with that is the people in Europe kept dragging the US into Wars. After WWII the US could not let it happen again so it ended it's isolation policy and pretty much funded the rebuilding of modern Europe and Japan. Then the US spent huge sums of money and time trying to protect Europe until it could stand on it's own again. I think most people in the US see many of the nations of Europe as whining, selfish, and petty. They care more for comfort than for other peoples lives.
      This threat is a good example. Most US citizens on the board are thinking "How can Nasa deflect it". While most of the Europeans are thinking "Will America deflect it or let some other country get whacked?". I see no one talking about the ESA spending lots of money to launch a mission. Kind of like Yugoslavia. That blood bath was happening in the EU's back yard but they did nothing to stop it until the US came in and did the heavy lifting. Same thing in Africa. Yea the US foreign policy often causes the US problems. That is because at least we will try to help. And some of the policies that many people in Europe thought where bad plans worked out well. Like moving Persing and Tomahawk missiles into Europe to counter the USSR,s IRBMS. The USSR removed their missiles and their short rang missiles as well. Oh how the Europeans wailed when we did that yet it ended up removing a major threat to them. What gets me about Iraq is everyone seems to forge that Saddam DID HAVE weapons of mass destruction. He did have chemical weapons, he was trying to get Nukes, and he was developing Bio weapons. He did throw out the UN inspectors and that Russia told the US that he was back at it. Frankly I am not a great fan of GW but these are facts and with those I can not honestly say I blame him for going in after 9/11. What it looks like is even Saddam thought he was building WMDs but his own people where feeding false info to him to save their own skins.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not going to hit the US so why should the United States do anything?

      Who said US should do anything? Not that it's very likely that the morons would even manage to hit it, or if they did, they'd probably forgot to arm the nuke.

      Or why should the US do it.

      Stupid twat. Because:
      a) US is not self sufficient. Take away half of the world economy and you will go screaming down with the rest of us. THAT's why you play the policemen, badly, not from goodness of your heart, but because you want something, oil, for example.
      b) Even if it hits eastern hemisphere, if it goes down in an ocean, Tsunami can do considerable damage to US coastlines.

    17. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1


      Do you know the name of the president of Mexico, Peru, or the Prime Minister of Australia is?


      Mexico: Vicente Fox, Peru: Alejandro Toledo Manrique, Australia: John Howard. Ok, so I had to google for the peruvian dude..


      Your right that for the most part the people of the US really do not care who is running other countries. They feel that it is none of our business.


      Poor excuse. As a nation, the USA is a busybody that seems incapable of keeping from interfering in other nations political, economical or other affairs. Saying that you 'feel' it is not your business knowing anything about the rest of the world shows ignorance and laziness. If you want nothing with the rest of the world, stop exploiting it, stop interfering with it and stop trading with it.


      As far as the Nordic countries yea I know that Sweden is one of them as is Norway, and Finland. But to put it in perspective there are more people in several states than in the country of Sweden.


      You got three out of five, I am impressed.


      Do you know the cultural difference between say Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Maine are?


      Well, I know that people retire to Florida, so it'll be stock conservative (even more than usual for merkins), it messes with elections, and it gets hit by bad weather often. As for going there as a tourist - don't. Crime rate is high and seems to target tourists specifically. Idaho is mountaneous, sparsely populated, quite my style of place, doesn't figure much in the news, must mean it is probably saner than most places in the US. Texas - land of the rednecks and gun-toting idiots. Home of the oil barons and in general a place best avoided. Maine is up on the east coast, doesn't seem to figure lots in the news either, which is a good thing. Not particularly densely populated either.

      Can't say I know much about any of them, even less about the culture. However, Idaho and Maine are nothern states while Texas and Florida is southern states, so I have a vague idea about what they may be like.


      I find it funny that people in Europe think the know and understand the US when they really have no clue. The US was isolationist for most of it's history.


      And whose fault was that then?


      The problem with that is the people in Europe kept dragging the US into Wars.


      Oh, reeeeaaaaallly.. Well, we better stop inviting you then. But I forgot, against world opinion, you invited yourself into Iraq, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Korea, etc. etc. etc.


      After WWII the US could not let it happen again so it ended it's isolation policy and pretty much funded the rebuilding of modern Europe and Japan. Then the US spent huge sums of money and time trying to protect Europe until it could stand on it's own again. I think most people in the US see many of the nations of Europe as whining, selfish, and petty. They care more for comfort than for other peoples lives.


      True, the Marshall fund was very helpful, especially to Germany and Japan. As I recall things, it was hardly money given away as a gift though. There was strings attached to every cent, and the money was lent, not given. The whining and 'soft' nations in Europe just happens to be the reason you have democracy (for some value of) and freedom (for some value of) today. But that is relatively easy to forget when it suits, isn't it.

      What is quite interesting is that merkins seem to think their country is the source of democracy in the world, when they nation isn't even 300 years old. There was democracy elsewhere in the world some 700 years before your country even existed, and people from those democracies visited your land hundreds of years before it came to be.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    18. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1


      Yea the US foreign policy often causes the US problems. That is because at least we will try to help.


      More like "try and make a quick buck out of the situation", which is why your foreign policy makes so many enemies.


      And some of the policies that many people in Europe thought where bad plans worked out well. Like moving Persing and Tomahawk missiles into Europe to counter the USSR,s IRBMS. The USSR removed their missiles and their short rang missiles as well. Oh how the Europeans wailed when we did that yet it ended up removing a major threat to them.


      And yet the origin of that arms race has been conveniently forgotten. USA was doing nothing "out of the goodness of its heart" but more along the lines of damage control and manouvering for position. Since the end of WWII, the USA has been on a quest to create an empire, something that the Soviet Union recognised and moved to stave off. The dropping of two nukes on a nation that twice had tried to surrender but whose envoys had been sent home again - just so there would be an excuse to drop said bombs. No wonder the CCCP moved to protect itself.


      What gets me about Iraq is everyone seems to forge that Saddam DID HAVE weapons of mass destruction.


      In 1991 yeah. By the time you guys invaded again, he didn't. And while on the topic of WMD, aren't you the guys with the biggest stockpile of them now? Aren't you also the guys that have broken the non-proliferation treaty a couple of times (most notable when handing information to Israel on how to build nukes)? And are you not one of the few nations that is ignoring the treaties you have signed on developing new chemical and biological weapons?

      How you can open your mouth and talk about Saddam having WMD when it was your own country that first put him in power, then gave him the weapons and when he didn't do as told, got Kuwait to in essence use economical terrorism to try and bankrupt Iraq.

      When it comes down to looking at the nation with most blood on its hands, the USA is right up there at the top of the table, while Iraq doesn't even make the Top20.


      Frankly I am not a great fan of GW but these are facts and with those I can not honestly say I blame him for going in after 9/11.


      Well, considering the facts about 11th September, he sure cocked it up good. One wonders if he deliberately made all them mistakes, or if the entire administration is incompetent. Considering that 15 of the 19 came from Saudi, I wonder how Dubya worked out that the connection had to be Iraq. Bin Laden is still at large, but then again, he is a Saudi as well, and the Bush family have extensive connections with the Saudi royals, so I guess the whole detour in Afganistan was just for show. Plans to invade Iraq was on the table back in 1999 (quite some time before 9/11) but there was no good excuse back then.

      What the US has managed excellently in the four years of Dubya in charge is to show the absolutely worst side to a once great nation, generate an unbelievable amount of ill will against itself, and reinforce the belief that the USA is the Devil incarnate in the rest of the world.

      So while you are singing the praise of your "Commander in Chief" you have my sympathy that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and that you are too weak to see what truly is going on. My scant blessing is that I, at least, do not have to live 1984, I can get away with just reading it.

      Night night...

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    19. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other two Off the top of my head are Germany and holland. Based in the simularity of language.
      Gee I guess you are so much more enlightend than americans since you classify Texas as a state of gun carrying red necks. Not superfical at all. And I am sure that summery of one state that just happens to have roughly 3 times the total number of people as the country of Sweden is complete accurate.

      THe Marshall plan was very helpful to just about every country in Europe exprobably the Swiss and Sweden. They both where "neutral" during WWII.

      No comment on the EU's failure to do anything in Yugoslavia? No comment on the INF treaty? No comment on the EU doing nothing in Africa. Frankly you are right that most of the population of the US could know more about the rest of the world but the rest of the world thinks they know and understand a lot more about the US than they really do. There knowlege is every bit as shallow and superfical as they think the average US citizen's is.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    20. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1


      The other two [nordic countries] Off the top of my head are Germany and holland.


      Uhm, no. The other two are Iceland and Denmark. As Greenland comes under the Danish Crown, they should probably be counted as well.


      Gee I guess you are so much more enlightend than americans since you classify Texas as a state of gun carrying red necks. Not superfical at all.


      You asked, you got an answer. From what I have heard from people with first hand experience of Texas, it isn't far off the mark.


      And I am sure that summery of one state that just happens to have roughly 3 times the total number of people as the country of Sweden is complete accurate.


      If Texas has 27 million people in it, you are spot on.


      THe Marshall plan was very helpful to just about every country in Europe exprobably the Swiss and Sweden. They both where "neutral" during WWII.


      The Swiss are neutral at all time (apart from when they install backdoors in crypto utilities to aid merkins spying on other nations). Sweden is alliance free in peacetime, and neutral in wartime. We had our fill of war in the past, and with the death of Karl XII, as a nation we had had enough. Avoiding war seemed a good idea, and after nearly 200 years, it still seems a bloody good idea.

      I do not deny that the Marshall plan was helpful. Most loans are, whether they are personal loans, or they are huge loans to nations trying to rebuild destroyed infrastructure. I am sure the survivors from Dresden and their descendents are incredibly grateful.


      No comment on the EU's failure to do anything in Yugoslavia? No comment on the INF treaty? No comment on the EU doing nothing in Africa.


      EU was dawdling about getting something done about Yugoslavia for historical reasons which is no excuse. Something should have been done sooner. I commented on the INF treaty in the other reply. EU is not aimed at being a military might, peace keeping is something the UN holds in. And if some nations were to pay their member fees like the nations making up the EU, peace keeping, in Africa or elsewhere, would be a lot easier.


      Frankly you are right that most of the population of the US could know more about the rest of the world but the rest of the world thinks they know and understand a lot more about the US than they really do. There knowlege is every bit as shallow and superfical as they think the average US citizen's is.


      Perhaps the merkins should be a bit less insular, pay more attention and show more respect to the rest of the world so that there is an incentive for the rest of the world to learn more about you guys. What you show of yourselves to the rest of the world just reinforces the belief that you are shallow, arrogant, stuck up and moronic.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    21. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Perhaps the merkins should be a bit less insular, pay more attention and show more respect to the rest of the world so that there is an incentive for the rest of the world to learn more about you guys."

      Good heavens. I guess the fact that after WWII that the US rebuilt their enemies nations and restored their independence. The US helped to form Nato and the UN. As far as respect the US does not treat other nations as less breeds as did the English. The "rest" of the world better get a grip on the fact that the US is no longer a young nation. The US is the senior statesman and has learned that sitting back does not bring peace but far worse wars. If all of Europe stood up to Hitler than Dresden would not have happened. BTW Dresden was not the US but the RAF's attack. The US was not into firebombing in Europe. Dresden was a European attack on Europeans. I thought that one of the European pet peeves was that us poor Americans don't know history? The UN are peace keepers and do not go into combat situations for the most part. The US has unfortunately has had to take on the role of peacemakers using force. Of course we have also seceded many times. The Suez, the Egypt/Israel peace accords, the START agreement,the INF, and yes even NATO. Perhaps if you and a lot of other Europeans would look at the US for themselves instead what they see on TV the movies and your own slanted media you might find that the US does tend to act with a reason. BTW the poulation of Texas is over 22 million so as I said roughly three times the size of Sweden.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    22. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      So you are suggesting that I should watch more merkin TV to get to know your culture a bit more and better? Allow me a derisive laugh... With things like Fox News (where they foam about the mouth talking about how evil the BBC is for telling the truth) and a movie industry that is less than forthcoming in telling historical events how they actually happened (the three versions of Pearl Harbour).. I think not.

      As for the US having "rebuilt their enemies nations and restored their independence" after the end of WWII - that is stretching the truth to the point of it not quite covering much anymore. Firstly, the US gave out loans through the Marshall fund, the actual work effort they did not help with. Secondly, you did not restore the independence of anyone once the war ended, the losers had heavy conditions imposed on them and the winners got to write the history and gloat, as per usual. Germany even was split up into two "to prevent war from happening again". Hardly restoring their independence.

      "Senior Statesman" would imply some sort of diplomacy, a word that the US administration does shy away from most regularly. There is a time and a place for rattling your armoury, and to do it from the word go, is not it. If that is your view of diplomacy, no wonder you are losing the fight in Iraq.

      I know that Dresden was the RAF, but it really does not matter in the context. You claiming that out of the good will of their hearts the merkins was giving away money to rebuild a Germany that had been utterly defeated I was merely pointing out that giving Germany a loan to rebuild that which had been razed to the ground - was not necessarily going to generate good vibes for the citizens of Dresden. And while the US wasn't supplying the pilots or the planes for firebombing in Europe, didn't take you long to do it elsewhere in the world though, *cough* Vietnam *cough* Hiroshima *cough* Nagasaki *cough*.

      Ooh, the US acts for a reason all the time. Iraq had less to do with removing an evil dictator (that you just happened to put in power, and at one time was proud to have put in power, right up until he nationalised the oil-fields) than it had with securing exclusive rights to the worlds 2nd largest oil-reserve. Supporting Contras had nothing to do with saving the people of Nicaragua and all to do with the delusional paranoia and fear for Socialism. Never mind that the regime installed by the US was ten times more evil than what it replaced, as long as you could get rid of socialism from your doorstep. Good heavens, imagine if it spread. People in the US might even get used to the idea and *gasp* like it!

      You see, as much as I enjoy this banter with you, it only serves to reinforce the belief that the USA is worth isolating and ignoring. I *know* that if your country does not get oil, you grind to a halt and is no threat to anyone anymore. I'd rather it did not have to come to that, because I believe that most of the people in the US is just unaware of the consequences of their leaders actions. If they were aware and got organised, the USA would get much more respect in the world. Believe you me, being respected because of your actions, rather than feared because of your actions, is preferred. There is a good reason why the USA is viewed as the biggest threat to world peace at the moment.

      I do not expect you to agree with me, and I do not expect you to change your point of view or attitude. I hope though, that by chatting with you this way, some time down the line, you will have pondered and thought about what I have said, and you have talked to your children in such a way that they are more open to listening to other ways of doing things, and thinking about things, that they garner more respect in the rest of the world than what your generation could. If I could learn about americans, what the actual grass roots thought and felt, I would, because I think they are the hope and future for your nation.

      Take care dude.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    23. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You see I find you very funny. You us the term "merkin" as in insult yet it makes you look rude. I have bee nothing but polite. You are showing that you are in fact everything that you claim Americans to be. As to learning about us through TV or movies. You really are not listening are you? I already said that the media in the US does not reflect the US all that well. You should watch Fox news for the same reason I listen to NPR, to try and see a differing viewpoint. Yea most of it is crap and one sided but it the other side of what you tend to believe. If you are careful and filter the junk you may find out things that you would not have learned from your biased in the other way sources. Just so you can get the facts straight on the Marshal plan an AC posted this link.

      Wikipedia article on Marshall Plan [wikipedia.org]
      Total grants: $11,820,700,000
      Total loans: $1,505,100,000
      As you can see the US GAVE many times as much as it lent. Rebuilt Europe out of the goodness of our heart? Depends on what you mean goodness. It could be enlightened self interest. A healthy democratic Europe was less likely to go to war again. As to the conditions imposed on Germany and Japan. Yes the Allies forced things like. Voting rights for women and freedom of religion on them. You talk about the dividing Germany? Blame the socialists in the old USSR for that. The original plan was for united Germany. Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It ended the war and did save lives on both sides. It was horrible but the least horrible of the solutions. Japan had already used gas and biowarfare in China . What most people did not know was that after the Hiroshima the generals staff of Japan still did not want to surrender thus making the second bomb a necessity. It is so easy to look back and judge those people that decided to do that now the problem is the outcomes they saw and where honestly most likely to happen where worse the the attacks. Japan was just as bad as the Nazis and I bet few people that lived under Japans rule at the time shed any tears for those attacks. As to Iraq being about oil. No not really. Europe and Japan get more of it's oil from the middle east than the US by % The US oil companies actually like the current higher prices since Oil from the US is now worth pumping. The Middle eastern states hate it because it could cause the US to drop it's consumption. The US went to war because the government of Iraq had a history of making and using weapons of mass destruction, had violated the agreement that had ended combat by throwing out the UN Inspectors, and other nations mainly Russia was telling us that they where back to trying to make WMDs.
      You just follow the party line with no thought at all don't you?
      What you have said is totally lacking in facts. You have shown you know little about the US, that you do not get from TV or from sources that reinforce your world view. You know little about history. And that you are lacking in manners using such terms as "merkin" to be childishly insulting. So actually you are acting exactly in the closed minded and rude manner that you feel most "merkins" do.

      Maybe you should come to the US someday and visit some place that is not LA or NY. If you are polite and respectful you will find people that are pro Bush and anti Bush. Some that will agree with you and some that will not. Some that know more about world history than you do and some that do not. You will find a people that try to help more than hurt but do make mistakes. A people that for the most part are willing to help those that need it even if they are our enemies. One last thing. The US will never be too concerned about what the other nations think. Why should we? We are an independent nation the only thing that US government really needs to be concerned with is what the US people think. Think about. The US does not have a socialist system. Sweden does. Should the Swedish government care that the US government does like there system or should it care that the people of Sweden do? The US government tolerates free

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    24. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      Glad you find me funny, I like making people laugh. No, seriously. Dry and sarcastic humour is a common denominator in my circle of friends, even among the people I know over in the US. The choise of 'merkin' is deliberate. I was wondering how long it would take before you picked up on it and started complaining. I admire your restraint, it took quite a while.

      As for me being what I think merkins are like. Hmm.. I asked some friends about that, and they disagree. Perhaps because they know me, perhaps because they have visited the US, perhaps because they have worked in the US or perhaps for other reasons. But I should not bore you with pesky details like that since it won't really make any matter to you. You've already made your mind up (and quite likely set it in stone as well), haven't you. So, enlighten me, tell me what you think you know about me, what kind of a person you think I am.

      As for ingesting news, TV etc which one does not agree with. Yes, it is a good idea. I've practiced it for a long time as well. However, when things get to the point that they are not news anymore, only propaganda, there is little reason to waste time on them past that point. So that rules Fox out. CNN is halfly usable still, much like ITAR-TASS is. Some propaganda, some news. Fairly easy to filter out the cruft.

      Toeing the party line... *laugh* Yeah, tell that to my Captain.. *lol* I am sure he'd agree with you.. *giggle* See, I am fairly flexible on doctrine, and I don't mind taking a few years mulling over some of the deeper ideas to work out which doctrine, or part of one, that would be better. There are things usable in all doctrines. In general, most of it is crap and only really there to ensure the people in power stay in power and to prevent the people not in power from getting interested in grabbing power themselves.

      What I find interesting is that merkins seem to not want to think about the concept of Peak Oil at all. It is almost as if you are on asub-concious level encouraged to steer any thoughts away from such a dangerous subject. http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ was very interesting. Oil was the sole purpose behind invading Iraq. If there had been any genuine concern about WMD, you'd be camped out in Israel now, not Iraq. Invading Afganistan I will admit had some connection with 9/11 and Bin Laden, but you guys gave up far to easily. Bin Laden is still at large, still taunting you with messages now and then. But it figures, as the US doesn't work well without an evil enemy threatening the country. It is what keeps things going in the US, without an external enemy, you'd have to deal with poverty, unemployment, and all sorts of problems at home. But because of war, and an incredibly elusive dangerous enemy at large somewhere in the world, the inhouse problems can be swept under the carpet for the time being. No-one will miss a few million poor people starving to death right?

      There are some places I'd not mind visiting in the US, but I'll make do with Canada instead. The friends I have in the US already know why and, although it surprised me a little, they respect and agree with my decission. In time, your government will either improve or collapse - and when that happens, there is a chance of replacing it with something more modern, true and just. I hope that for the sake of the have-nots in the US, that day is not too far away.

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    25. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      I was discussing this with some associates (heavily involved in worldwide finance and investment). It is very interesting how non-americans, especially Europeans, view Americans. The USA has one of the most transparent system of leadership in the world, meaning that if the President or a member of congress is "corrupt" they are more likely to be punished in the US than anywhere else. (For proof of this look at the relative numbers of politicians kicked from office in disgrace - trust me, if you have never had a government official impeached it is NOT because you have a perfect government!) Yet Europeans tend to think that the US has far more corruption because the corruption is found and advertised. Most countries conceal their corruption - leading to powerful corrupters that remain hidden. It is very scary, for example, that there are no arrests made about the "Food fo Oil" program abuses in France. The US equivalent, "Iran/Contra" nearly caused an impeachment - and caused lots of arrests and international media attention.

      I find this very sad, because essentially Europeans are now slaves to an established system of corruption - very similar to the Aristocracies of older times. Unfortunately, the binding is so complete that they do not even realize their slavery... although at least violence is rather rare under the modern system.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    26. Re:but where is ti going to hit? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I think you got it a little wrong but mostly correct. Most Europeans live with corruption all the time so it is expected. When looking at the US I think they must figure that the US government must be a million times more corrupt than it really is since we can not hide it. I mean look at the Rainbow Warrior. The French Military blew up a Greenpeace ship! I have not heard of any high ranking officials going to jail over it. Of course I might have missed something. So from their point of view if the US says that we want to kick out a dictator because he is evil and we think he is building WMD again. The US must really be doing it for the money/oil. It works the other way as well often. Some people in the US see a "lack" of scandles so figure the Europeans must have a more honest system than the US.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  34. Re:Probability now 1/12. by topynate · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bollocks. You just fed the percentage-to-fraction converter with a higher number.

  35. Ohio by katharsis83 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Considering the 2004 US Presidential Elections, it'd be pretty damn ironic if it hit Ohio.

    Wonder how the Christian fundamentalists in America would spind THAT.

    1. Re:Ohio by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, we'll get a 6th great lake out of it...

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  36. Re:In case of /. effect.. by paylett · · Score: 2, Funny
    1 in 15?

    That calculation has a 1 in 1 chance of being wrong.

    --

    Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.

  37. it actually can be a good thing by BigGerman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    you know.

    Imagine how much technology boost all the related stuff will receive. If the Moon shot (the pure publicity stunt) generated so much progress, imagine this.

    By the time we will know it is going to miss by 500km, we will already have cheap reliable interplanet travel and will be able to melt/mine/whatever the asteroids. Cool.

    1. Re:it actually can be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would actually mean much more than that.

      This would finally, maybe, be a big enough event to bring forth into the public the biggest secret the world has ever had.

      Of course, I am talking about our EBE associates. This rock would be trivial for their technology, whether they employ it or we do it ourselves. Either way, the secret will be released.

      I'd rather die first myself. I don't want to live in the world of fear that would follow.

  38. Realize this... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...we're looking at very little of the sky *at one time*. I don't think it takes much amateur equipment to spot something which would be missed by "normal" study, which usually involved spendning forever looking at one tiny fixed part of the sky to gather enough light/EM to make a clearer picture than the last one (i.e. mapping space).

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Realize this... by digitallife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are a bunch of US military telescopes which scan the entire heavens every day, and send anything interesting to other telescopes to study. So, actually, we are looking at the whole sky at one time (relative to asteroid time scales).

  39. I thought this said.... by WizardRahl · · Score: 0

    2004 NHL may be possible... oh well it is in my dreams :P

  40. Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by TLLOTS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but I sort of hope it is found to have a much, much higher likelyhood of hitting earth, so much so that's it's almost certain to occur.

    Why? Simply because it would post such a great challenge for humankind. It could well bring much greater cooperation between countries, cooperation of a level presently unheard of.

    Certainly, I'm not hoping it actually strikes earth, merely that people work together in order to stop it.

    Just be glad that Bush won't be the president at the time. If it did hit, in US soil no less, then he'd start pouring billions per month into NASA for the development of spacecraft to fight the alien 'terrorists' who threw that asteroid at America.

    1. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So THATS' where Saddam hid all those WMD! ;)

    2. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHA YOU'RE SO FUCKING FUNNY!

      Crap man, do you have no fucking sense of humour? That joke is STILL FUNNY TO YOU?

      What a dimwit.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree. Only external threat is able to unite the whole Earth. Sad, but I believe it's true.

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    4. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 1
      to fight the alien 'terrorists' who threw that asteroid at America.

      You've got it all wrong. We have to fight the alien TERRA-ists.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    5. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA

    6. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd love Bush to be in charge because I doubt anyone else would have the guts to tell the environmentalists to stuff it and then build an Orion engine to get the thing.

    7. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Amorpheus_MMS · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just be glad that Bush won't be the president at the time. If it did hit, in US soil no less, then he'd start pouring billions per month into NASA for the development of spacecraft to fight the alien 'terrorists' who threw that asteroid at America.

      Clearly it was the bugs!

    8. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      No offense, but Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. Yours is just a ploy to get modded up. Congrats on it working.

    9. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because that would really bring together north korea, iran, syria, and all the arab terrorists in the project to launch a massively complex space vehilce. They could attach a bunch of RPG's together strapped with IED's

      get real, the only contries involved in such an effort are already diplomatic allies.

    10. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I'm as disgusted as the next guy at Bush and his administration, but do you know how fucking obnoxious it is of you to drag him into this completely unrelated post of yours for an ad hominem attack? I am convinced it was the incessant whining of childish people like you that cost John Kerry the margin of victory in crucial swing states, you motherfucking cocksucker.

    11. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      You've read too much into Ender's Game, I think :)

    12. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

      Geez.. Look - someone even modded my post as Funny.
      I was completely serious :)
      I guess they modded my sig?

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    13. Re:Maybe I'm a sick puppy.., by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Well, think about it - are the terrorists in the middle east going to embrace the religious right in the US because of an asteroid?

      Prediction: France will say do nothing, while trying to corner the market on shelters. Germany will say do nothing, because you are just as likely to make things worse. Rusia will say launch countermeasures (on Russain rockets, of course). Isreal will say that it obviously is God's way to kill the infidels, and the Muslim world will say much the same thing. Then the US will give trillions of dollars to the current President's best friend's company, a billion dollar rocket will go up, and will have a small chance of succeeding.

      Outcome: China is destroyed when it hits, everyone blames the US, and the corrupt government of France gets enough money to survive a few more years. The Germans, however, continue to build the world's best machines - and take over the world using ROBOTS! (The Japanese are busy with something else)

      Or not...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  41. Re:In case of /. effect.. by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

    Last I checked, that was a 1 in 45.4545 chance, not 1 in 15.
    Regards,
    Steve

  42. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by jnguy · · Score: 1

    I would imagine, if it came to it, it would be a world effort. The impact of this will devistate the entire world, I wouldn't be surprised if China contributed their own nukes. There is no reason that the United States should be the only one safeguading the sky, its our world.

  43. Note to self... by rwyoder · · Score: 2, Funny

    First thing Monday morning, talk to bank about refinancing house with a 25-year balloon mortgage.

  44. at least it's useful for something by schmu_20mol · · Score: 2, Funny

    Crivens! At least we now know why to welcome our new absinth overlord that day.

    --
    "Nae Kin! Nae Quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"
  45. 1 in 2! AAAAAA!!!!! by helix400 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Look, the chances are now 1 in 2!!!

    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ip?0.5e-0

    Actually, it's not. The URL just lets you plug in any scientific notation number. Hope I didn't alarm you too much. =)

    1. Re:1 in 2! AAAAAA!!!!! by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
      Relax---it's back down to 31.8% now.

      So which one of us should forward the link to CNN?

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
  46. The torrino scale creates unneeded histeric people by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know what? I think we need sometime else besides the Torrino scale.

    With all those asteroids, it's always the same game: high probability at the start, it goes up or down and after 2 weeks, we've got some numbers that really mean something, but the problem is that during this time, people start freaking out because they would like to hold to some true numbers, not just "probabilities that are bound to change".

    So, what we need to communicate with even more weight than those torrino scale numbers is a "measurement progress percentage" and tell everybody "if it's not 100%, don't worry yet". That way, with the always updated percentage number, the masses can reliably hold to something, and know that "progress below 100% means that what we know is not reliable".

    Actually, for the current incident, we don't have this number, so I really won't wonder if some people will be freaking out over the next few days.

    Astronomers: full exposure it the name of the game! Tell us how long it will take to measure the path, and where you are currently standing!

    Thank you.

  47. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt anyone would help if it fell on mr Bush ;)

    Besides. A nuclear bomb would perhaps only push this a fraction off its course. Så we need to really shoot at it soon for it to be effective.

  48. no wonder nasa got all that new funding by f05t3k · · Score: 1
    and when does social security run out? Please don't tell me that we're entering that belt of asteroids in our galaxy that supposedly caused mass extinctions every 40 million years, I thought we had at least...tens...of...millions...of...years...left.

    Oh wait, in 30 years we may be able to move the entire solar system. If we'd just stop sqwabbling over the limited remaining resources of this planet. we get em all except europa right :P

    1. Re:no wonder nasa got all that new funding by SPQRDecker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't have any moderator points left, but if I did, I would use all of them to mod you down, just for making a 2010 reference. C'mon, please, do not dignify that movie by referencing again. Or else the Ghost of Kubrick past will visit you.

    2. Re:no wonder nasa got all that new funding by SPQRDecker · · Score: 1

      This may be ironic (or just bad coincidence). Immediately after finishing the above post, I find 5 moderator points in my account (an xmas present from Slashdot?). Only now I can't use 'em...

  49. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by jnguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pushing it a fraction off course should make the difference depending on where.

  50. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A typo would be itd, or ots, or itsa. The fucking apostrophe is all the fuck the other side of the keyboard.

  51. Re:100%! by lightdarkness · · Score: 1

    It was funny the first time.

    Now it's just stupid.

  52. Let's say that the thing will hit by ArcticCelt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let's say for a moment it is confirmed that the thing will hit. Then we will have to determine where its going to hit. We know that damages will only be localized so if it is calculated that the asteroid will fall on an area populated by not so industrialized countries I am really curious how the world will react.

    Do powerful countries will prefer to do nothing to avert making a mistake that could possibly send the asteroid on their head?

    What could possibly do a small country in africa if nobody wants to help them?

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by IO+ERROR · · Score: 0
      Let's say for a moment it is confirmed that the thing will hit. Then we will have to determine where its going to hit. We know that damages will only be localized

      Not so! Most of the Earth's surface is OCEAN. That means there's a 2/3 probability it will hit the ocean. This means large tidal waves that could affect massive areas of coastline. If it hit in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean it ould be enough to submerge the UK, New York City, Florida, Boston, D.C.

      Wait, D.C.? I welcome our asteroid overlords!

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    2. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Or another possibility: what if it turns out that an impact will be on an industrialised country "Gog", sufficiently far from a political/economic rival "Magog" to offer no real threat to "Magog"? Would Magog dare to offer less than 100% of what it can offer to preventing the disaster, either publically or otherwise?

      To get a clue as to the answers, look at the recent devastating earthquakes in Iran - even though Iran was on his "Axis of Evil", Bush was offering aid almost immediately. Sure, besides the humanitarian side, there is also political capital to be made on such a gesture, but that's by the by. I have absolutely no doubt that if this, or any other asteroid, is going to hit us then every capable nation will be working 100% to prevent the impact, no matter where it might be.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by idolcrash · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not necessarily, at least, not two cities on either side of the Atlantic. I live right on the coast (a few minute drive from the ocean) and using a script on NASA (?) somewhere to predict the impact, and if it was 2000 miles (or km) out to ocean (about the middle I think) and if it was about 1300 ft (I'm nearly certain, this was a few days ago) deep, I wouldn't even feel it, and the only thing that would occur would be some readings on local seismographs (of course, a few figures were estimates). I hardly think that it is going to be extremely destructive, unless it lands near a highly populated area or a major food producer.

    4. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Fahrenheit+450 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Meh, what do I care? I live in Albuquerque...

      Bring on the tidal waves, bitches!

      --
      -30-
    5. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You might find this interesting then, in regard to the humanitarian aid offered to Iran in the wake of the Bam earthquake: "President Mohammed Khatami has said only $17m of assistance had been received from abroad, out of the $1bn initially promised." (full article). 30,000 dead, 70,000 left homeless and only 1.7% of the promised humanitarian aid delivered a year later - this thing had better not be on a collision course if that is anything to go by!

      BTW, I can only assume that whoever moderated the parent "Troll" has had a little too much egg nog this evening...

    6. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the available data.

      Impact at: 13:53 GMT
      Impact will on nightside earth.
      Impact zone covers: West Coast, Americas, Pacfic basin, East Asia. This pretty much means risk to US/Russia which means something will be done if its predicted to hit.

    7. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > We know that damages will only be localized...

      Only if it hits land. If it hits at sea the tsunami could do significant damage thousands of miles away. Even if it hits land there will be world wide climactic effects.

      > Do powerful countries will prefer to do nothing
      > to avert making a mistake that could possibly
      > send the asteroid on their head?

      Since it is aimed at the eastern hemisphere no screwup could cause it to hit the US (though an ocean strike could damage the US). However, the climactic effects alone would probably cost the US more than the price of an intercept mission. Add in the PR value of a successful intercept and the US has a strong incentive to act.

      > What could possibly do a small country in africa
      > if nobody wants to help them?

      Evacuate.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by inburito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to have no clue of the kind of destruction that tidal waves are capable of. Maybe a quick glance at what is going on around Indian ocean right now would provide some frame of reference. Widespread destruction around a region spanning thousands of miles.

      Today's quake right outside of sumatra essentially leveled all the coastal areas around the indian ocean with water causing massive destruction several miles inland. And the resulting tidal waves were "only" 5 meters high as they reached the shore. (there is a direct mathematical relation as a function of the depth of ocean outside the shore). Good luck living few minutes off the coast of the affected water body.

      It is quite possible that an earthquake off the coast of Africa could cause huge tidal waves and massive destruction in south america. A direct hit in the middle of atlantic would devastate a lot of the coastal cities around eastern coast of u.s. and western europe. Of course the size of meteor would matter a lot but even something that is comparable to an earthquake around 9-10 on richter scale would change the world as you know it.

    9. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by idolcrash · · Score: 1

      According to the previously mentioned script, the quake in the ocean would be about a seven. Thanks for the extra information though, and you're right, I know next to nothing about wave properties. I also believed the script said something about the waves, but, again, I forget.

    10. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by inburito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeh. The reports I heard from se-asia were that the quake there was around 8.9. Vertical movement in the bottom of the sea was on the order of 10-30 meters. Displacing such a huge mass of water has rather far reaching effects. The curious aspect of a tidal wave such as this is that it can be literally less than foot in amplitude while in deep sea (thus being virtually undetectable on its own) and only once it reaches more shallow waters it starts rising.

      Another nasty side-effect of a meteor crashing on earth is that it might trigger earthquakes elsewhere around earth. Faultlines with tension already built up might just be triggered. Nevertheless, ocean is literally the worst place on earth for a meteor to hit. Somewhere in the middle of nowhere in siberia, sahara, gobi, australia or alaska would have the least effects.

    11. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or another possibility: what if it turns out that an impact will be on an industrialised country "Gog", sufficiently far from a political/economic rival "Magog" to offer no real threat to "Magog"? Would Magog dare to offer less than 100% of what it can offer to preventing the disaster, either publically or otherwise?

      For starters we would need to figure out why countries in the future have such gay fucking names.

    12. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by justins · · Score: 1
      Do powerful countries will prefer to do nothing to avert making a mistake that could possibly send the asteroid on their head?

      What could possibly do a small country in africa if nobody wants to help them?


      For starters, they could kick Yoda out.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    13. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sigh, the falling standards of education... "Gog" and "Magog" are two nations/tribes/persons that can be found referenced in the Bible, Koran, legends of Alexander the Great and numerous other places. In each case, Gog and Magog are usually connected with some great foe - for instance Marco Polo thought they were the Mongol hordes and the US and USSR were likened to Gog and Magog during the Cold War. In almost every case the legends/tales involve great devastation, the end of the world and general chaos. Given the topic at hand, it seemed a particurly appropriate combination of nations to use.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    14. Re:Let's say that the thing will hit by Maxite · · Score: 1

      It actually all depends on how you try to look at the wave. Tsunamis (or tidal waves) travel extremely fast, over 100 mph (approx. 160 km/h) in some cases. While yes, in areas of the ocean or sea which are deep they are barely noticeable if you consider height, they are likely to be travelling a LOT faster than the normal waves around them. So you could indeed notice a difference between the waves out in the deep sea.

      --
      Ah, you found me!
  53. Re:The torrino scale creates unneeded histeric peo by BigGerman · · Score: 1

    or, we can just establish a color-coded threat-level scale. Simple, powerful, well understood by the general public ;-)

  54. Re:Probability now 1/12. by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    Oh my God!. It's 100% now! Where is Superman when we need it?

  55. hitting the moon? by BigBossBert · · Score: 1

    Anybody known how much chance for a moon impact? That would be so cool to see happen.

    1. Re:hitting the moon? by Grave · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that the moon would likely be knocked a bit out of its orbit. Perhaps not to the point of leaving the Earth's pull entirely, but enough to cause massive disturbances in the tides due to gravitational changes. And that could severely damage a lot of coastal areas. Not to mention the possiblity of it creating a massive debris field around the planet, which would make entering space all the more hazardous.

      Of course, I'm just guessing at this, here, and may be completely wrong.

    2. Re:hitting the moon? by TimToady · · Score: 1

      It's gonna change the orbit of the asteroid a heck of a lot more than the orbit of the moon...we might just be able to measure the change in lunar orbit, assuming the impact doesn't dust up the laser reflectors we left there once upon a time.

    3. Re:hitting the moon? by Fwongo · · Score: 1

      Zero, the moon is on the other side at that date.

    4. Re:hitting the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already happened nearly a 600 years ago, which is why we now see 51% of the moon at all times. Not making this up, just cannot find the reference to it. Slashdotters to the rescue please.

    5. Re:hitting the moon? by Zocalo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I read something about knocking the moon out of Earth's orbit, viz "Space 1999", on one of those bad Sci-Fi science sites some time back. In a nutshell, the amount of energy required in a single blast to force the moon out of Earth orbit would infact vaporise it. The article didn't go into great detail about what the knock on effects with the remains would be, although disruption of tides would be a given. Then again, maybe not... If the impact was within a certain energy range then although the moon would be come molten and a large quantity of ejecta would be blasted into space, the vast majority of the mass would, although molten, still maintain its orbit.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:hitting the moon? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Doesn't follow unless the moon is directly behind Earth and so shielded at "impact" time.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:hitting the moon? by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 0

      Actually, if i'm not mistaken, didn't the rotation of the moon slow down to this point because of how long it's been revolving around the earth, that it just 'equaled out'?

    8. Re:hitting the moon? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      It's tidal forces, the Earth's rotation has also been slowing down but not as much. Given enough time the Earth and Moon will always have the same faces aimed at each other.

    9. Re:hitting the moon? by TimToady · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the asteroid will go straight when it goes past the earth? It won't. Its path will bend toward the moon. There may be no shielding effect at all, and in fact the moon may be "antishielded" slightly depending on the focusing power of the earth's gravitational field for a rock passing at a particular speed and distance.

    10. Re:hitting the moon? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      This is true. The safest place for the moon would be off to one side, not "downstream" of Earth.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    11. Re:hitting the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is that the moon would likely be knocked a bit out of its orbit.

      WTF?
      Mass of asteroid: 7.5e10 kg
      Mass of moon: 7.34e22 kg

      Moon is thousand billion times larger than the rock in question. Speck of dust. It's not moving all that fast either, few hundred megatons won't budge the moon more than you get thrown of your feet by a passing speck of dust. Object of this size would need to be traveling at relativistic speeds for anything more than local effect on a planet or big moon like Luna.

      Of course, I'm just guessing at this, here, and may be completely wrong.

      Maybe you should stop guessing if you don't know jack about the thing you're talking about?

  56. MOD parent up ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could crate hilarious pranks!

  57. publication / details? by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    Reasoning about probabilities is pretty tricky stuff and even reputable physicists often get it completely wrong. Does anybody have more details (maybe a pointer to a publication) about how they arrived at these estimates and what assumptions went into it?

  58. 100% of what? by barakn · · Score: 1

    That's what the Torino scale measures. Low numbers such as the current asteroid has are nothing to worry about. And 100 % of what? We have no idea what the final observational accuracy will be, partially because we don't even know what technology will be observing it 25 years hence. Additional numbers will make things more confusing, not less.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  59. "Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by CharonX · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here some calculations I made via the Earth Impact Effects Program.
    My Parameters: Diameter 390m, Density 3000kg/m^3, Impact Velocity 11 km/s, Angle 45 degrees, Distance from Impact 25 km (sounds acceptably close but not "hey, it hit me on the head" close - if you are closer than that... though luck.)
    If it hits Rock:
    Final Crater Diameter: 4.87 km = 3.02 miles
    The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 5 seconds. Richter Scale Magnitude: 6.6
    But watch for the air blast... Max wind velocity: 186 m/s = 416 mph - Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.

    If you are at least 100 km away, you will still feel the earth shake and hear the air blast, but little damage will be done.
    To sum it up, sorry, nope, humanity won't get extinct if this one hits us, and you won't be too affected unless you are rather close to it (100km) or if it hits water (Tsunami anyone) and you live nearby on the coast.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
    1. Re:"Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by OntoBaba · · Score: 1

      Well that sounds all good, but consider what the NASA website says about their figures:

      "Diameter - This is an estimate, based on the absolute magnitude, and assuming a uniform spherical body with visual albedo pV = 0.154. Since the albedo is rarely well determined the diameter estimate should be considered quite rough, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two.

      "Mass - This estimate assumes a uniform spherical body with the computed diameter and a mass density of 2.6 g/cm3. The mass estimate is somewhat more rough than the diameter estimate, but generally will be accurate to within a factor of three."

      Combining the two uncertainties means that the mass of the rock could vary by a factor of six or more. Then there's the angle of impact, adding even more uncertainty. Wanna run those figures again?

      --
      (The one and only) OntoBaba http://emystics.org
    2. Re:"Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by CharonX · · Score: 1

      Sure.
      If I increase the Diameter to 800m and the density to 6000kg/m^3 (worst case scenario and add a bit), I'd say 200km is "safe" distance, 150km is so-so (expect some damages through air-blast) and anything close than 100km is bad (heavy airblast damage).
      The crater would be 12km big.

      --
      +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
    3. Re:"Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      This program tells me nothing about the tsunami resulting from an ocean strike. I would guess that the collapse of a 4 mile diameter "crater" in 1000' of ocean would do something unpleasant, but what?

      I suspect that a land strike would be preferable: much easier to evacuate a 200km circle than thousands of miles of coastline.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:"Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by dsb3 · · Score: 1

      If it hits Rock.

      What if it hits paper? That'd win for us, right?

      EVERYONE ... in 2029 you gotta always go "paper". "scissors" are right out ...

      --

      Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    5. Re:"Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      means that the mass of the rock could vary by a factor of six or more

      No, estimated mass is accurate to about a factor of 3; the uncertainty in diameter is already accounted for by this number.

    6. Re:"Earth Impact Effects Program" Calculations by CharonX · · Score: 1

      No actually, since it hitting Rock has bad results for us, we can deduct that the asteroid is actually made out of (admittingly very dense) Paper.
      Thus our best pick would be scissors. Picking paper would only cause us to repeat the even over and over again, with no clear winner.
      Except the aliens that want humans kept busy, so they can continue plotting to steal our socks.
      I AM ONTO YOU..... gibble....

      --
      +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  60. Well, I'm glad Bush is in power-4 yrs of this BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Every article. How does this happen? Somehow, no matter what the topic, no matter how completely non-related it is to politics, somehow, somebody finds a way to insult Bush. Seriously, the imagination of Slashdot is breathtaking."

    And we all are going to have to listen to four more years of it. Makes you want to slit your wrists, doesn't it?

  61. Time to do something about it .., by Laser+Lou · · Score: 1

    Since we're discussing asteroids, here's a link to a 3d asteroid blasting game that my project partner and I made recently for class, using OpenGL. Its not feature complete, and it doesn't show anything for the ending, but its playable.

    --
    No data, no cry
  62. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by usermilk · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What's everyone so worked up about? So there's a comet, big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head." - Homer Simpson, 2F11, Bart's Comet

  63. Apotastrophe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some days, I'd rather be hit by an asteroid than have to read another news article with a misplaced apostrophe. "It's" is short for IT IS. You don't need an apostrophe for the possessive sense of 'its'.

    1. Re:Apotastrophe by phreakuencies · · Score: 1

      I know, sorry... English isn't my first language.

  64. Let's say we can determine where it will hit by Tau+Zero · · Score: 1

    Would it be wrong to leave a package on it to re-aim it at a later date? Imagine if we had something on a rock going past Earth in 2005. If we could suddenly divert it to take out Pyongyang, should we?

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  65. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Zonnald · · Score: 0

    Hey settle down, a typo can also be hitting a key inadvertantly, where ever it is on the keyboard. The real issue is proof reading.
    Why not gently ask the poster to Preview first.

  66. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Zonnald · · Score: 0

    Inadvertently. Damn I forgot to proof read!

  67. the speed of this thing ? by mec_cool · · Score: 0

    what about the speed of this thing ? does anyone knows how fast it goes ?? I mean, space is a big thing, and there could be many more out there. maybe one will hit us soon. we ought to be prepared. first we need telescopes !

  68. Probability by Bradmont · · Score: 1

    Probability is nothing more than a measurement of what we don't know. Since we now know it didn't hit us, the probability was 0.

  69. Re:The torrino scale creates unneeded histeric peo by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 0

    Actually, it IS color coded.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torino_scale

  70. Eastern Hemisphere? by mnmn · · Score: 1

    Someone mentioned in a reply to my previous post, that its scheduled to hit the Eastern Hemisphere. Say it was headed for Beijing, will the US help with sending nukes to the asteroid? Or will they be like.... go ask North Korea?

    What if it were to hit central Africa? "All those AIDS people were gonna die anyway". Or what about the Arctic? "Who cares about Eskimos, Canadians and Russians?".

    I think the best place for the asteroid to aim would be north Atlantic ocean. With the stakes high for US and Europe, we might finally see a withdrawal from Iraq, unless the president is still Bush, in which case, invading Iran would be a higher priority. "We suspect the Iranians are steering an asteroid... terrorists!".

    I wonder if its big enough to alter the Earths orbit, or rotation. If the days will be 24.01 hours instead of 24 hours, or heck we might even be rid of the leap year. Maybe we should aim for that and change the course of the asteroid...

    What if there were two asteroids headed for Earth, one coming real close, the next definitely hitting the Earth? Would you invest in an orbital rocket, and try to hitch a ride on the first one to survive? (much less fuel than going to Mars).

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Eastern Hemisphere? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      I think a bigger question would be, "how would the Europeans act if there was no aid money to bilk, and no dictator they're cushy with to use this to their advantage?"

      This asteroid is tiny; it'll make life bad for a decent number of people, but will hardly make any real lasting changes. Yes, it's going to be bad for the people affected by it, but it's hardly going to be earth-changing. It's nowhere near devestating.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    2. Re:Eastern Hemisphere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me thinks you are possibly retarded.

  71. Grow Up: Bush Won With Smallest Margin Ever by reallocate · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Bush won with the smallest popular vote margin of any President going after a second term -- ever.

    That total did not include my vote, but it is time to start dealing with reality and stop dealing with smug ill-informed conceits.

    Get over it.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Grow Up: Bush Won With Smallest Margin Ever by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      But he did get the greatest number of popular votes for a presidential candidate - ever.

      It was no Ronald Reagan victory for sure, though.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    2. Re:Grow Up: Bush Won With Smallest Margin Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, the arsehole stole the election not once but twice in a row. Either that or Americans really ARE as stupid as the world has been saying all this time.

    3. Re:Grow Up: Bush Won With Smallest Margin Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have issues with accepting reality.

    4. Re:Grow Up: Bush Won With Smallest Margin Ever by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kerry got the second most, ever. More population means more of everything.

      It's like when they trot out the old, "Home ownership is at the highest level..." when the economy is so weak they can't drum up any other stat.

      They did that this time around.

    5. Re:Grow Up: Bush Won With Smallest Margin Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on...everybody knows it's not really democracy unless a Democrat wins! If a Republican wins, obviously there was cheating involved or the quaint heartland folk have suddenly become plumb stupid again (despite their previous voting record).

      God, I wish I could be so open-minded as to see the complex political landscape in such a clear-cut, black-and-white manner.

  72. Re:Just remember what Douglas Adams would say... by Zonnald · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute, that asteriod, yellow?

  73. Well, we are all doomed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Over the hill Bruce Willis won't be able to save us this time...

    1. Re:Well, we are all doomed... by Zonnald · · Score: 0

      Why not, an over the hill Clint Eastwood did.

  74. Bummer, dude. by solios · · Score: 1

    You went and spoiled the propable apocalypse for yourself. :| And with the cash that's going into the kids, you could've bought guns and had yourself a grand old time, too!

  75. 2004mn4.com domain registration by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

    Damn! Rodney Holmes beat me to it! 1. hear about potential global castastrophe; 2. register domain name; 3. profit!!!!

  76. Re:The Foundation by Naurgrim · · Score: 1

    Where's my Mod points when I need 'em?

    I know, I been trolled. Go back under your rock, troll.

    --
    .......You Are,
    ...What You Do,
    When It Counts.
  77. Re:The torrino scale creates unneeded histeric peo by VertigoAce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are numbers besides the Torino scale. The press doesn't use them because they're not as easy to explain. A value of 4 on the Torino scale explicitly means that the public should not be at all concerned or even really aware of the possible impact. It is meant to attract the attention of other astronomers so that more measurements can be done.

    As far as a measure of progress, here's a simple one. At 100% progress the probability of impact is either 100% or 0%. Intermediate progress is the width of the window in which the impact might occur. If this window narrows to such a point that it does not include the earth, you get a 0% probability. If the earth is bigger than the entire window, you get a 100% probability. Anything else means there is more work to be done. The rate at which the window narrows will depend on the orbit of the asteroid, but that would give you a rough idea of when you'd be 100% sure.

    If you are really curious, the locations and time of every observation that contributes to this is available online. It's interesting to note that more observations were done today than any other day. This is a direct result of the object being identified as an object of interest on the Torino scale.

  78. Move the entire solar system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 30 years? That's a good one, I almost fell off my chair.

  79. Even More Humiliation by soloport · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not so! Most of the Earth's surface is OCEAN. That means there's a 2/3 probability it will hit the ocean.

    Oh, great. Just what we need. Even FEWER blue states. Terrific.

    1. Re:Even More Humiliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only it were that easy to eliminate Hollywood and the New York liberals... (wishing)

  80. OMG Friday the 13th!!! by joecm · · Score: 1

    We're all going to die!

    1. Re:OMG Friday the 13th!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those that didn't understand the comment... April 13th, 2029 is a Friday.

      Good thing we are doing some impact testing already on object similar to this...

      (http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Comets/DeepImp ac t.html)

  81. Homeland Security by CoolSilver · · Score: 1

    I see homeland security extends into space upward exponentially. Notice the threat scale is color coded as well. How is the Palermo Scale different from the Torino Scale? The Torino Scale is designed to communicate to the public the risk associated with a future Earth approach by an asteroid or comet. Well if anything our missile defense system can shoot it away with other missiles and sattelites with laser beams attacted to their freaking solar panels.

  82. Love Thy Neighbor by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    We're close neighbors (NASA simulation) of 2004 MN4. A spacecraft ought to be sent to slice and dice this rock before it cuts in front of us. It's an excellent opportunity for making a test.

    What kind of techniques may be used? Bomb? Laser? Drill? Garrote? Chainsaw, even?

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:Love Thy Neighbor by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Anything that will impart a small amount of the right sort of momemtum to it at just the right point in its orbit (which will be somewhere far from Earth). A bomb detonated the right distance a way, a chemical rocket shoving on it, an ion rocket shoving on it for months, even something exotic like painting one side of it white.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  83. The Moon ? by Foddrick · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they search for asteroids that could possibly hit the moon ? If "the big one" hits the moon and causes it to break up, it will suck for us down here anyway.

  84. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I doubt anyone would help if it fell on mr Bush ;)
    And yet, everyone will expect mr Bush to help out if it falls on France.
  85. USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    USA Today's web site got the story at the 1-60s stage. If the print edition carries the story, it's at the national coverage level.

    Google News has the story at the 4th position is Sci/Tech at the moment. That's just below the 3-story coverage on the Google News Front Page.

    I think all hell is about to break loose in the news coverage. The NASA and JPL PR staff are probably driving each other crazy tring to prepare, before the Press drive them crazy.

  86. Yes, a threat, also: an opportunity by mtaht · · Score: 1
    Considering the mass (8e+10kg estimated), orbital inclination (3.3 deg), and eccentricity (.191276) 2004MN4 is a pretty good candidate for exploration .

    The probability estimate needs to be refined to account for the Yorp effect.

    Further observations will show approximately what 2004MN4 is made of. I have hope that it's a rocky body with quality ores such as nickel/iron... but only a Deep impact style probe would give us truly hard data.

    Now, if you look at the orbital plot, you'll note just how close this rock is right now... and how close it gets not just on april 13, 2029.

    While the newspapers and the slashdot articles are focused on the potential impact energy, (m*v), I'm far more interested in m.

    This rock has more mass than mankind has put into space since the beginning of the Space age; far, far more mass than is projected to be in the International Space station. And there it goes by, whizzing overhead, on near miss after near miss, for the next couple centuries.

    Assume 2004MN is 1% nickel. Earth value of 8,000,000 tonnes of nickel is: 12,200,000,000 US dollars. (well, until the nickel futures market crashes harder than this asteroid will). Value of any material, if it were in earth orbit, is 10,000/lb and that's too many zeros for me to type here. For just the nickel. Oxygen is even more valuable. Slag is valuable.

    If we just had a booster on the pad with enough oomph, we could get a probe there in a matter of weeks.

    IF this asteroid contains valuable materials (be they platinum, iron, nickel, gold, oxygen, or carbon), it would be a bonanza for mankind's space efforts.

    Divert Dawn (launch date 06/06), or Deep Impact (launch date 01/12/05). Let's Find out!

    This asteroid (and many other NEAs like it) is not just a threat, but an opportunity. It's an opportunity to get a leg up into space.

    Can we afford to take a look? Can we afford not to?

    1. Re:Yes, a threat, also: an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made a mistake here: You are forgetting the speed at which the object will approach earth. It's moving so fast that the value of it's mass in orbit is 0, since you have to decelerate it in order to use it.

    2. Re:Yes, a threat, also: an opportunity by mtaht · · Score: 1

      Some amount of mass would need to be expended to move it or refined fragments of it into a more suitable orbit.

    3. Re:Yes, a threat, also: an opportunity by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Materials in Earth orbits are worthless except for a few like Oxygen. Why? Because we can't do anything with them right now. We can't even extract them from the Asteroid may I add because we lack the methods or machinery. Then once we have the raw materials we need to make them into things. Are you aware of how many different factories, personnel, machines, etc. are sued to make say the space station? So you'd need to set up a whole manufacturing industry in space which no one would do since that is a long term (20+ years) investment and no one likes those. Sure we could send the stuff down to Earth but that's probably more expensive in the long run than mining them on Earth.

      In other words: the asteroid is worthless to us right now.

    4. Re:Yes, a threat, also: an opportunity by mtaht · · Score: 2, Informative
      75% of known asteroids are carbonaceous, which has an empirical formula of CO32-. In other words, there is a 75% chance that more oxygen exists on this asteroid than mankind has ever lifted to orbit.

      An s-type consists of nickel, iron, and magnesium - and an m-type - oh, my - what a motherlode one of those would be!

      We can't do anything with materials in orbit right now because we don't have any materials in orbit right now.

      We don't lack for methods of microgee refining (many experiments have been conducted) but we do lack for machines that have been designed to do it... currently.

      With a sufficently large supply of raw materials we can substitute brute force what we currently do via expensive materials currently lifted to orbit - radiation shielding and structual materials, for example. Certainly many key components of a space station would continue to be needed to manufacture on earth, but the bulk structural materials of the ISS could be fashioned in space using in-situ materials - if we had those materials.

      Imagine how much faster our space presence would grow if we didn't have to ferry up food and oxygen, just people and advanced devices.

      Setting up a whole manufacturing industry in space is a long term investment, and I agree that few would make such an investment... but with the potential payoff in trillions, some will.

      Lastly the cost of sending things down is a lot cheaper than sending things up, but you are probably right - most materials we make in space will stay in space.

  87. Is 4 on the Torino scale a 2 on the Pinto scale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We all know Pintos are the much more dangerous of 1970's Fords.

    And how big is 1,570 MT in PGT? (Pinto Gas Tanks)

  88. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and when...

  89. the size estimate got smaller too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    FYI...

    When the probability got upgraded from 1.6% to 2.2%, the diameter got downgraded from 440m to 390m.

  90. To put it in gaming terms... by mdubinko · · Score: 1

    Roll a d20, if you get 1 ,2, or 3, go to the next step.

    Next step: roll d20 again. If you get a 1, 2, or 3, the earth just got hit. -m

    --
    --- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
    1. Re:To put it in gaming terms... by eegad · · Score: 1

      Hey!!!! No fair destroying the earth while I was in the bathroom! ... Has anyone seen my mountain dew?

  91. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition, you probobly shouldn't take spelling advice from an illiterate fucktard who doesn't know grammar.

    And of course, i've probobly done the same in this post, blow me.

  92. False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asteroids of this size you don't have to worry about. If they do hit earth, it'll destroy some stuff but not be catastropic.

    What you have to worry about is the bigger asteroids. Most people think that large asteroids would impact the earth and cause global devastation a la Deep Impact. Not true. Large asteroids would hit the atmosphere, and the atmosphere would be superheated by the asteroid crashing into it at such a high velocity that it would basically increase the surface temperature of the earth by thousands of degrees. Similar to being boiled alive.

    And no, nuking the rock before it hit earth to make it impact the earth as a million smaller rocks rather than one large rock would still have the same, if not worse, effect.

  93. Lesser of two evils... by HitByASquirrel · · Score: 0

    Considering that previous post about the probability of a devastating comet/asteroid catastrophe in the next century, wouldn't the impact of this small(rel) asteroid statistically lower our chances of being hit by an apocalyptic-sized one?

    1. Re:Lesser of two evils... by phreakuencies · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a joke: "- Why did a mathematician travelled on an airplane carring two bombs?" - Because he knew the odds of ONE bomb being on board a plane was really small."

  94. To put things in some perspective... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

    1950 DA previously had the highest calculated chance of impact--about a 1 in 300 chance in 2880. It had the previous highest rating on the Palermo Scale, 0.17. Although it's a larger rock, its chances of smacking into our homeworld are still lower than 2004 MN4, which ranks about 1.03 on the scale. To get some idea of what these numbers mean, here's a quickie overview from the fine eggheads at JPL. Short version if I understand it correctly: it measures the odds of impact compared to the background level odds of a random hit from an undetected object of similar characteristics.

    Yep, the news media should have gobs of fun with this on Monday.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  95. Don't worry about it... by AllenChristopher · · Score: 0, Troll

    If an asteroid hits the Earth, the red states will be completely paralyzed by the pre-apocalyptic hysteria.

  96. Bah by CBob · · Score: 1

    Any idiot can make craters given a large enough budget.

    Now, put it in a Earth capture orbit, and I'll be impressed.

  97. Re:Probability now 1/12. by relaxrelax · · Score: 1


    I demand a recount!

    Oh, sorry, Bush is in power and has antimeteoric domes to sell.

    Just remember to fix the voting system and it won't happen again.

    --
    Microsoft is pure dog-ma. FreeBSD is pure cat-ma.
  98. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Macrat · · Score: 1

    You must be one of those worthless English Teaching Assistants who can't get a real job.

    The English language changes as it is used. Not as it existed in some old book.

  99. Not that simple by jobugeek · · Score: 1

    The density of it must be determined. If it's a solid rock then a bomb may divert it, but some asteroids look like swiss cheese. A nuclear bomb even detonated near it would blow it into a million smaller pieces which would then would cause it to rain large rocks.

    --
    I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
  100. Even if it hits, the outcome is bad, but fatal... by Marton · · Score: 1

    According to this calculator the crater would be about 9 kilometers in diameter, It would cause a 7.1 strong earthquake and a 44 m/s shockwave a hundred kilometers from the epicentre. (Assuming 90 degree collision angle and iron composition - basically, the worst.)

    Note that this assumes 4940 megatons in kinetic energy, and Nasa says it's "only" 1600.

  101. Art Bell will be thrilled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The number one prophet of doom and gloom will be almost orgasmic about this news. According to Art and his cronies, the world is about to end any minute now. They will jump on this news like flies on shit.

  102. Blow it up with a bomb by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

    Before everyone jumps on the "lets nuke it " bandwagon, take into consideration that this things impact velocity is 28,163.0279 mph. Mach 1 at sealevel is 761mph. This thing is running mach 37, and our best attempts at a rocket intercept have gone up in smoke ( if the damn thing even left the launch pad). Hitting this bad boy will be no simple feat. Especialy If NASA is involved. Hell, they did not see 2004 YD5 untill it was leaving our proximity, and it came in between us and some of our geosync satellites.

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  103. Did anyone else check the calendar? by EngrBohn · · Score: 1

    I just checked -- 13 April 2029 is a Friday.

    --
    cb
    Oooh! What does this button do!?
    1. Re:Did anyone else check the calendar? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I think it's great, there could be no more of those silly superstitious people after Friday the 13th, 2029!

  104. What i'm concerned about... by johansalk · · Score: 1

    Are tidal waves. If this thing hit an ocean it could provoke an insanely huge mega-tsunami.

  105. Fire that blocks out the sun... by dinodriver · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If it hits water, tidal waves will cause massive destruction.

    If it hits in a heavily forested area, it will start a fire that will burn so much that it will create clouds of smoke and ash that will block out the sun for a very long time. That would suck.

    1. Re:Fire that blocks out the sun... by Dmala · · Score: 1

      If it hits in a heavily forested area, it will start a fire that will burn so much that it will create clouds of smoke and ash that will block out the sun for a very long time. That would suck.

      Except it wouldn't affect /.ers too much, we're all used to crouching in front of computers in the dark anyway.

    2. Re:Fire that blocks out the sun... by Maxite · · Score: 1

      Unless us slashdotters have a greenhouse equipped with fluorescent lights, it's likely that we'll be affected as our food sources die off.

      --
      Ah, you found me!
  106. Wet Hot American Summer by ziegast · · Score: 1

    Now that we're getting closer to 5%, you can bust out your 20-sided dies and start rolling. For the comet-paranoid, here's a movie rental that will put you at ease: Wet Hot American Summer.

  107. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exactly. Nudging it by a tiny fraction of a mile per hour with 20 years to go will make it clear Earth easily. 1 mph is more than enough with only 1 year to go. Actually, 1/2 mph is more than enough with 1 year to go, assuming you force it to go in the direction closest to missing the Earth, which is to say, nudge it max of half the diameter of the Earth in 1 year.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  108. Yeah, great time to break it too. by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    Merry Christmas. I've got you 2% more of a chance that you're going to die!

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  109. But if it impacts on land.... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    ....You have another factor to consider: the massive amount of debris and dust that will be blown into the atmosphere. We're talking vastly more sun-blotting dust blown into the atmosphere than the Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815, which blew 15 cubic miles of dust into the atmosphere and pretty much eliminated summer in the much of the world for nearly two years. In short, we'll have a much less bright days on Earth for around three years, and agricultural output could be cut by huge margins during these three years, leading to a potential for worldwide starvation by the end of the three years.

    Also, such an impact could trigger off any nearby earthquake fault lines, too, and that could also cause large amounts of destruction far away from the impact point as earthquake faults are triggered off. :-(

  110. Om...this doesn't look good but... by ChangeOnInstall · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They just upped the chance of impact significantly...I can't believe this isn't making bigger news!

    Updated Impact Probability

    --
    What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
    1. Re:Om...this doesn't look good but... by dahl_ag · · Score: 1

      Lookie! Here is a page with an EXPLANATION of what a 99.9% probability of impact is. Please don't let this post scare you.
      http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ip?9.99e-01
      Or was this guy just looking for a funny mod? Eh.

  111. Forget using a nuclear warhead. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a potentially big (pun not intended) downside to using a nuclear warhead: it could break the asteroid into smaller pieces, and the "shotgun impact" from a broken asteroid could actually be more devastating than a single impact.

    A better solution is to assemble an large ion rocket in space, then dock it with the asteroid maybe in 2025. Fire off the ion rocket to run for maybe 30-40 days non-stop, and it may change the orbit of the asteroid enough so it misses the Earth at a relative safe range. Maybe by then we'll have even better ion rockets, and the possibility exists we might even slow down the asteroid enough to place it in the L1 zone between the Earth and the Moon. Given the fact that asteroids have very high quality mineral content, someone could make a financial killing (pun not intended :) ) mining this asteroid after it arrives at the L1 zone.

    1. Re:Forget using a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I hear that argument a lot, the one about the "shotgun effect" but in this case I am not sure I buy it. If it is broken into multiple pieces, the peices would still fall fairly close together but most importantly it would increase the total surface area so that more of the material would burn away in the atmosphere.

      A blast isn't going to create a clean break with it being divided into equally sized pieces. It will be broken into peices of many different sizes ranging is size all the way down to dust. All of those particles will burn up in the atmosphere and what would make it to the surface would still be greatly diminished in mass from what would have hit had the rock been left intact.

      You could reduce the impacting mass by quite a bit and still keep the damage area fairly tight. If the asteroid is a loosely backed rubble pile, as many asteroids are suspected to be, the thing is probably going to fall apart in the atmosphere anyway and you are left with the "shotgun" scenario in any case.

      I think the main point we should be getting to is that since it crosses Earth's orbit it will probably impact SOMEDAY anyway and we should be sending something to it to determine it's makeup now while we still have the time to do something with the information.

    2. Re:Forget using a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so this rock is four HUNDRED meters across. (Mind you, that's a mere speck compared to the ones in the movies.)

      We have 25 years. And it crosses earth's orbit a little more than twice a year.

      I want you to imagine the amount of city that is vaporized by, say, a 10 megaton nuke (the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons or .015 megatons). It does tend to damage an area somewhat larger than 400 meters in diameter, I believe.

      You have 25 years. In that time, a 1 m/s delta-v equates to 120 earth radii (this is horribly crude, but you get the idea).

      You move the rock 1 m/s, and in 25 years, it moves about 120 earth radii. Now, that's in an inertial frame. In terms of orbits, the effect is many times that.

    3. Re:Forget using a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      determine it's makeup

      "its".

  112. Re:Probability now 1/12. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you not take a (obvious, but maybe not very funny) joke?

  113. and flying cars, don't forget the flying cars by toby · · Score: 1

    and instant coffee will be banned

    --
    you had me at #!
  114. Your nym is almost right by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    "Dipshit" is a little closer.

  115. Cockup by darthdavid · · Score: 1

    With ~25 years of planning time it would require such a major cockup on the part of every industrialized nation on planet earth for this thing to hit us that it's not even funny.

  116. Important Footnote on the Site by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting


    "Impact Probability
    The probability that the tabulated impact will occur. The probability computation is complex and depends on a number of assumptions that are difficult to verify. For these reasons the stated probability can easily be inaccurate by a factor of a few, and occasionally by a factor of ten or more."

    What they don't say is whether the inaccuracy means more or less risk - or both. I assume on either side.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  117. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Actually, no one would expect Mr. Bush to help no matter where it fell.

    Oh, wait, I forgot about Saudi Arabia...

    After all, Dad might be there at any given time...

    OTOH, the impact could splash all that oil over to Israel and we wouldn't have to send them all those billions in aid...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  118. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by jusdisgi · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ballicker.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  119. Wonder what the odds are... by IroygbivU · · Score: 1

    of it hitting the moon? And would it cause a major crater?

  120. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    If I'm reading the table right, there are several risky orbits in years following the "Torino 4" orbit. Give it a nudge and you have to be lucky and skillful not to get another intersecting orbit.

  121. Thanks a bunch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The chaos, the devestation, the panic, the collapse of all social systems... jeez, that would honestly be one of the coolest (And last) things to ever happen in most of our lives."

    You just gave away my secret plan for world domination. Bastard.

  122. Too far out by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else somewhat disturbed by not so much the prediction, but how far out this is predicted to occur?

    I mean, saying something is going to hit in 3 years is fine, but the timespan on this collision is extremely long. I would have to say that just because of the variables involved, there's no way they could be accurate worth a damn past 5 years at this point.

    Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I remember just 2 years ago there was a story on Slashdot about how more money (I'm assuming federal) should go into NEO (Near Earth Object) research because of this massive threat of asteroids hitting the Earth.

    Then there was a story about how under-funded it is. I mean, don't get me wrong, but how is a horribly funded institution claiming that some asteroid is going to hit in 30 years anything other than a plea for more funding?

    I guess I just don't buy into this "asteroid is going to destroy the Earth" religion. It smacks of a not-so-cleverly-disguised request for more year-end funding.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more research done on this, but right now just seems really, really, fishy.

    1. Re:Too far out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are you on slashdot? It seems to me that anyone displaying such a blatant cluelessness about The Way Things Work could not possibly be interested in the typical content of slashdot.

      You sir, are no geek. Go away.

  123. So what if it hits Luna? by Javanista · · Score: 1

    OK, so even if this thing plops onto terra firma it probably won't lead to human extinction...

    ... but is it possible that since the Moon's mass is so much less than Earth that this thing could slam it with enough force to change its orbit, wreaking havoc on the Earth by proxy?

    I know the odds of this thing striking the moon are lower since the moon is smaller and quickly looping around us, but could the effect be more severe if the impact were to happen there?

    This asteroid weighs 83 billion Kg (and it could be as much as three times this mass) and is moving about 12,600 m/s. Has anyone done the calculations to see what kind of effect this 'mass exchange' might have on the moon's angular velocity if it struck there?

  124. No... by raehl · · Score: 1

    But I bet if you're really nice you might get some pity masturbation.

  125. In a related story... by raehl · · Score: 1

    George Bush decided that Social Security is Just Fine.

  126. Feeling blue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you read this, didn't at least a small part of you wish it would hit Earth?

  127. UPDATE!! UPDATE! UPDATE! Probability now 1 in 2 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    AS I WRITE THIS THE PROBABILITY HAS BECOME 1 in 2 Hitting earth.

    does anyone think maybe this is a hoax and that when the probability reaches 1, there will be some new product, like Microsoft-asteroid-proof backup announced? Me thinks so!

  128. UPDATE!! UPDATE! UPDATE! Probability now 99% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    AS I WRITE THIS THE PROBABILITY HAS BECOME 99% certain that it will be Hitting earth.

    does anyone think maybe this is a hoax and that when the probability reaches 1, there will be some new product, like Microsoft-asteroid-proof backup announced? Me thinks so!

  129. Re:UPDATE!! UPDATE! UPDATE! Probability now 1 in 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    AS I WRITE THIS THE PROBABILITY HAS BECOME 100% certain that it will be Hitting earth.

    does anyone think maybe this is a hoax and that when the probability reaches 1, there will be some new product, like Microsoft-asteroid-proof backup announced? Me thinks so!

  130. Re:UPDATE!! UPDATE! UPDATE! IMPACT CERTAIN by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative
    AS I WRITE THIS THE PROBABILITY HAS BECOME 100% certain that it will be Hitting earth.

    You have just been hoaxed I bellieve.

    Just look at the URL closely. this has got to be a joke on slashdot.

    neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ip?1

    replace the 1 with whatever you like and voila, instant impact probabilty to scare your freinds with.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  131. USE DEEP IMPACT ON JAN. 12 TO DET. COMPOSITION!!! by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    We need to find out whether or not it is solid rock (or iron!) or a pile of rubble! SO SEND DEEP IMPACT (URL:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/ main/index.html)

    It is currently scheduled for a Jan. 12th launch to some random comet, why not use it to determine the makeup of this asteroid instead? Of course this might delay the launch a few(?) months but that is a much shorter delay than building a new impactor probe etc.

    This assumes that the Delta rocket has enough delta V to get to this asteroid rather than the comet. My only comment is that since this is an earth orbit crossing asteroid there may be some opportunities in the near future!

  132. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully Mr. Bush should be long out of office by then, however, i wouldnt be suprised if some sort of terror event would require Mr. Bush to declair martial law to save us all

  133. USE DEEP IMPACT ON JAN. 12 TO DET. COMPOSITION!!! by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Sorry to repost this but... We need to find out whether or not it is solid rock (or iron!) or a pile of rubble! SO SEND DEEP IMPACT (URL:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/ main/index.html) It is currently scheduled for a Jan. 12th launch to some random comet, why not use it to determine the makeup of this asteroid instead? Of course this might delay the launch a few(?) months but that is a much shorter delay than building a new impactor probe etc. This assumes that the Delta rocket has enough delta V to get to this asteroid rather than the comet. After checking the orbital plots it looks like it gets close to the earth every year!

  134. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QUADRAPED!!!

  135. Re:MOTHERFUCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, who the hell needs standards, especially in communicatons?

  136. Re:Even if it hits, the outcome is bad, but fatal. by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

    They already know that it's not a solid iron object, and is closer to a dense piece of rock. Additonally, its orbital velocity seems to be around 12.59 m/s. While that would speed up, most likely, this is a "slow" meteor, and thus, would be less damaging than the assumed typical meteor speed of 17m/s. Yeah, this thing hitting is going to be for a very bad day for someone, but hardly world ending.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  137. Re:UPDATE!! UPDATE! UPDATE! IMPACT CERTAIN by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Why did you reply to yourself? o.o;

  138. As a Canadian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we're mostly afraid of being mistaken for Americans. Anything that we can clarify to avoid being so misidentified is a Good Thing. If it means saying, "I'm not an American, I'm a Canadian" then so be it.

  139. Constructive suggestions :D by univgeek · · Score: 1

    1) Take a BIG bag of tactical nukes. The briefcase kind. Low-yield (5kT), low area of devastation. This should be quite easy given the number of nukes held by the US/Russia/China et al.

    Get to the asteroid. This should also be pretty easy, its orbital period is pretty close to ours. So not much delta-v required. And I guess it passes us a little more than once a year.

    Since this guy has a smaller orbital period than ours, it would be easiest I guess, to decrease the period sufficently to miss the Earth. The impact energy is 1.5GT (from the NASA website).

    Major Assumption - if we knock off say 0.001 of the maximum velocity, then we can ensure that the orbit misses us completely. This means that we need to give the asteroid 1.5GT*0.001 = 1.5MT of energy.

    If each tactical nuke has 5kT and is exploded about 600m from the center of the asteroid, the energy imparted to the asteroid would be around 4.4% of the total energy (solid angle subtended by the asteroid, on total radiated output). This means that each nuke would impart 0.2kT to the body. Now this will hopefully be small enough that the asteroid doesn't fracture.

    Now we need to explode 7500 of these tactical nukes in the same orientation w.r.t the asteroid to get the desired effect. Assuming we can do one explosion a day, gives us just enough time to do this. Hopefully, we could use a larger bomb, or need to give less of a delta-E.

    Using an engine of some sort?
    The asteroid has kinetic energy of nearly 6.6e18J (mv^2/2 using Vimpact and mass from http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004mn4.html). Again 0.001 of this would be 6.6e15J of delta-E we have to provide.

    With one of the largest nuclear thrusters ever developed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Thermal_Rock et) we could generate 4000MW of power for 12mins. Assuming that current tech. allows us to generate 400MW indefinitely, we would need to fire this for 6.6e15/.4e9 = 190 days.

    Of course, I'm probably massively screwing up the required energy to deflect the asteroid. But a factor of 10 either way would be acceptable.

    So the second approach looks feasible. Minor exercises for the reader - get the nuke rocket there, fix it on, and make sure the thrust is on at the correct times.

    But hey, I'm sure we can get Bruce Willis to take on the job :-D. And we have ~ 23 years to do it...

    --
    All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
  140. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    There is no reason that the United States should be the only one safeguading the sky, its our world.
    Then you really don't understand the universal hatred and fear that the US has earned in the world.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  141. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    And yet, everyone will expect mr Bush to help out if it falls on France.

    No, not at all. Bush has set himself up to be the savior of Christianity, not humanity.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  142. And in other news... by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

    Software manufacturer Microsoft today admitted to another vulnerability in its popular Windows operating system. If left unpatched, a computer may be vulnerable to attacks from big rocks falling from the sky. Dubbed the `Friday the Thirteenth' weakness, the flaw is present on all current versions of Windows.

    However, Microsoft has played down reports that this bug may prove disastrous. "Whilst this may cause problems in some isolated instances, we are confident we will have a patch ready shortly," announced Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer." In the meantime, we strongly urge all users of our software to ensure their anti-virus and firewall software is properly configured. Most of all though, don't open unexpected attachments in email and certainly don't attempt to download planetoids from outer space."

    Mr Ballmer is also reported to have said that if the Friday the Thirteenth scenario is proven unlikely to occur, developer resources would be redirected to finalising the new Windows Operating System, codenamed Longhorn. Longhorn is expected to be released before the arrival of the Friday the Thirteenth asteroid, due in 2029.

    When asked about the security features of the new operating system, Mr Ballmer said, "Competitors have always regarded security as something of a necessity, built in from the ground up. Friday the Thirteenth proves that our `sky-down' approach is far more forward thinking than they may ever have imagined."

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

  143. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dudes, what's happening to you? Four hundred comments and no mention of our asteroid overlods.

  144. Duck and cover! by IAR80 · · Score: 1

    Duck and cover! Try covering your head with a newspaper.

    --
    http://ebgp.net/ccc/
  145. Would NUKE work? by Lotharjade · · Score: 1

    Just curious, but would that work? Space is mostly vacuum right? Doesn't a nuke work by atoms spliting and hitting other atoms? True some would hit the asteroid, but doesn't much of force come from atoms in atmosphere being split?

    How do we know how much force a nuke would create by going off say a mile from an object in space?

    Wouldn't hitting object directly produce much more of a splitting action akin to how a jewler hits a diamond with a chisel?

    --
    Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
    1. Re:Would NUKE work? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Just curious, but would that work?

      What? Parent didn't state WHERE those nukes would hit... Exploding nuke on or slightly under surface would do a very small nudge, exploding nuke in space near it, almost nothing.

      Space is mostly vacuum right?

      Right.

      Doesn't a nuke work by atoms spliting and hitting other atoms? True some would hit the asteroid, but doesn't much of force come from atoms in atmosphere being split?

      Nuke works either by splitting or fusing atoms, depending on whether we're talking about hydrogen bombs (which would probably be used here, since they're more powerful) or old-fashioned primitive nukes. However, no atoms in atmosphere are split, only fissionable material (uranium, plutonium..) within the bomb! Atmosphere does contribute to destruction not by adding any more fissionable material, but by being heated which causes it to expand _FAST_, and cause tremendous pressure wave of hot gas (eg. "normal" explosion).

      How do we know how much force a nuke would create by going off say a mile from an object in space?

      Without a medium for pressure wave to propagate in, almost nothing, huge amount of energy released in nuclear explosion is heat, in space that would be totally wasted, leaving only radiation pressure.

      Wouldn't hitting object directly produce much more of a splitting action akin to how a jewler hits a diamond with a chisel?

      Hitting object directly (or better yet, blowing the bomb a bit under the surface) would cause parts of it to vaporise, and fly to space and thus (very slightly) pushing object towards opposite direction of edge hit. And since there's nothing to stop it in space, it would continue moving in that direction forever, perhaps - if done long enough before the impact - changing the orbit so it'd miss.

    2. Re:Would NUKE work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about an anti-matter weapon

  146. I don't remember where I read it, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    several solutions were considered for dealing with threats from bolide collisions like this. One of them was a big bomb. The thing that most people remember is the line from Armageddon where the guy says something like "if you hold a firecracker in your open hand it doesn't hurt you." Well the guys who thought up the nuke solution weren't dumb: its just a matter of how you define "big" in big nuke. Apparently there is no theoretical limit on the yeild of a nuclear device (ie think giga or terra ton yeild instead of megaton.) This changes the analogy from holding a firecracker to holding a bunkerbuster!
    Apparently they did not proceed with this idea for fear of some psycho/terrorist setting it off on earth.

  147. actually, it has a 98.7 impact probablility by heby · · Score: 2, Funny

    check it out here.

    that must be the lamest cgi script i've seen in my life...

  148. analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long before a boinc project comes out with the task of mapping out the asteroids orbits and sizes, since the official sources say there are too many to map.

  149. Has anyone noticed... by bfwebster · · Score: 1

    ...that April 13, 2029 is a Friday?

    Not a good omen. :-) ..bruce..

    --
    Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
  150. Think a bit more broadly by Presence1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Assuming that the thing hits us, we have LOTS more to worry about than only whether we personally get 2nd degree burns from the core fireball. Even if it hits on land, there will be a fairly wide zone of ejecta debris (hot rock) falling, starting fires, etc. If it hits in the ocean, it will be MUCH worse -- think colossal tsunami, as in several hundred feet. 1500 megatons is not the end of the world, but it is nothing to sneeze at.

    If we are lucky enough to have it hit in a very sparsely populated land mass, then we have a big fireworks day, and some lingering weather effects (very red sunsets for years, and a cool decade). That is too much to hope for.

    Realistically, whether it hits populated land or ocean, it is a mess. Although you may personally escape the impact or tsunami damage, no one will escape the economic damage, which will take years to recover.

    Where will it hit? The time will be 9:21PM in London. It is coming at the earth from "behind" in its orbit. So, a 'direct hit' would be on the equator somewhere along the terminator (day/night line). Of course we don't know enough about the orbit to even know if it will hit, so there is as yet no way to tell where it will hit. Roughly any time zone from about GMT+8 to GMT-3 is at risk.

    I'm currently choosing to be an optimist, even assuming that more certain observations confirm this to be on a collision course. My hope is that the global nature of the economic disaster will cause the nations of the world to fund a successful deflection mission, which will be cause for great celebration on that particular Friday the 13th.

  151. My God, You're Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is wrong with you?

    Put the computer back in the box, try to get a refund, and cancel your AOL subscription.

  152. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deflection... Actually, just dropping its Heliocentric orbit (braking at perihelion, mostly, which is down by Venus) would work best.

    We actually need to send probe to this asteroid (like the one to Eros) with enough frequency and depth to learn what it's made of and what it'll take to move it.

  153. did you say 42?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you say 42?!

  154. Re:USE DEEP IMPACT ON JAN. 12 TO DET. COMPOSITION! by david614 · · Score: 1

    This makes sense if the delta V on the delta (hah) can be adjusted to handle the change in mission. D.

    --
    ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
  155. Date format? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain (or provide a reference to) the date format: YYYY-MM-DD.DD. So, when is 2029-04-13.89? Google let me down.

    1. Re:Date format? by Nickalreadyinuse · · Score: 1

      So, when is 2029-04-13.89?

      .89 x 24 = 21.36 hours
      .36 x 60 = 21.6 minutes
      .6 x 60 = 36 seconds
      21:21:36

      So in other words, Friday, the 13th April 2029, 9:21 PM.

  156. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, no one would expect Mr. Bush to help no matter where it fell.
    Liar!
  157. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No, not at all.
    You are a liar too!
  158. Probability goes up again, now at 2.7% by Nickalreadyinuse · · Score: 1

    Closest approach with the nominal orbit down to 86 702 km (53 874 miles).
    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004mn4.html

  159. Liar. Marshall plan was 90% grants, not loans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia article on Marshall Plan

    Total grants: $11,820,700,000
    Total loans: $1,505,100,000

    Your own home country, the UK, received $2,805,000,000 in grants.

  160. Media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has there been any media coverage in your country yet? Here in Belgium, nobody seems to worry/know.

    1. Re:Media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much in the USA. USA Today and CNN had a small story when the odds of impact were 1-in-300 or 1-in-233. But I've seen no major media pick up the fact that the odds are now 1-in-37. This surprises me greatly.

    2. Re:Media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, here's MSNBC mention of 2004 MN4 from when the threat was 1-in-45.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6751433/

    3. Re:Media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing in Argentina. 0 news on media.
      Maybe the headlines are with the catastrophe of Asia, but inmediatly after that are the usual stupid things like Mrs X married footbal star and the like. Other times when some object was at 1 Torino Scale they used it.
      Also very strange is google:
      http://www.google.com/search?q=2004+MN4&hl=en&lr=& start=0&sa=N
      The most recent news is more than 24 old.

  161. It now has a 99.99% chance to hit earth by waynegoode · · Score: 0, Redundant
    The odds of it hitting earth are now at 99.99%.

    Or, if you prefer, they are now at 1 in 1,000,000.

    Has anyone else looked closely at the 1/45 URL?

  162. Re:Incoming Asteroids? Use a nuclear warhead. by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

    Of course what we should really do is drop everything and try to capture this into earth orbit - then we would have the ultimate space station!

    --
    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  163. Re:Liar. Marshall plan was 90% grants, not loans. by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected.

    And UK is not my home country FYI.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  164. april 14 2059 is a bad day by open2.be · · Score: 1

    On the NASA site I simulated up until April 14 2059.. That day scares me..

  165. april 14 2052 is a bad day by open2.be · · Score: 1

    arghl should have used the preview function.. it's 2052 not 2059..

    1. Re:april 14 2052 is a bad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strange, that date is not on NEODyS' list of close approaches: http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?ob jects:2004MN4;main

  166. It's gonna miss (NASA confirms) by Nickalreadyinuse · · Score: 1

    NEOP of JPL

    Two later than 2029 Torino class 2 possibilities remain, even though the news release mentions "no concern".

  167. So, enlighten me, tell me what you think you know by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    "So, enlighten me, tell me what you think you know about me, what kind of a person you think I am."
    I have no idea what kind of person you are since I do not know you. I can guess that your politics lead to Marxism not just socialism. You seem to hate Christians and Americans equally. You seem to hate me enough to put me on your foe list. You are way to sure of your facts and hate it when someone shows you facts that contradict them and will ignore them since they just distract you from the greater truth that you are sure of. Such as you grossly misstated that most of the Marshal plan where loans when in fact it was mostly grants. The fact that you asked your "friends" if you where just like the Americans you hate and they disagreed with you is funny. You most likely have few friends that have a different view point than your own. Most likely because you feel that anyone that can not see just how right you are is not worth your time or they must be flat out evil.
    My one hope is that you actually think that your view might actually help more people than other views. I disagree that one system of government can work in every country. Although I believe they all have to be based on serving the will of the people.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.