Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid 2004 MN4 May Hit Earth After All

ControlFreal writes "Asteroid 2004 MN4 was introduced earlier on Slashdot, and although scientists are now fairly certain that is will miss earth on April 13th, 2029, the modification to its orbit caused by Earth's gravity may still cause an impact one or a couple of orbits further down the road, the Times reports; the impact probabilities in 2035, 2036 of 2037 will not be known until the exact modification to its orbit is known; in 2029, that is. By then it may be too late for effective counter-measures. An impact would cause an energy release equivalent to about 1 Gigaton of TNT (~4e+18 Joule), and while that won't cause a massive extinction event, it causes widespread devastation. More info on 2004 MN4 can be found here and here."

857 comments

  1. Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting


    From the summary:


    An impact would cause an energy release equivalent to about 1 Gigaton of TNT (~4e+18 Joule), and while that won't cause a massive extinction event, it causes widespread devastation.


    I hope this rock hits our planet. I really do.

    This may be the spur humanity needs to get us up off our collective keisters and establish a viable off-planet colony before it's too late. It would be an unprecedented catastrophe, but still survivable, and it seems like this is the only way we're going to learn.

    Then again, it could be a bad thing...instilling a sense of false security. (Hey...this asteroid hit us, and we're still here. Guess all those asteriod doomsday scenarios are bunk.)

    I rather suspect the former will be the prevailing attitude...trouble is, mankind has a notoriously short attention span...would this command enough attention for us to start a space colony project...and actually finish it?


    The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program.
    - Larry Niven


    Will our eulogy be: "The humans became extinct because they couldn't concentrate hard enough on their space program."?

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Good! by Momoru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Establishing an off planet colony isn't exactly the same as getting up to turn the TV off, even if we started really focusing on this idea now, without some new propulsion technology i doubt even by 2029 we will have this option.

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program.

      How do we know that? Who says they didn't? All of human history would barely register on the fossil record. An intelligent saurian race could well have evolved, had a catastrophic world war, etc. and we'd be none the wiser... except maybe a large extinction event...

    3. Re:Good! by uberdave · · Score: 1

      The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program.

      How do we know the dinosaurs didn't have a space program? Obviously the ones who remained behind became extinct, but the ones who took to the stars would still be en route to Proxima, would they not?

    4. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program.
      - Larry Niven


      Wouldn't it be funny if they did have a space program and just haven't bothered coming back?

    5. Re:Good! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The problem is which part survives?

      If Europe and/or the USA survives we just might do that.

      If the rock lands say in the mid atlantic crush both with debris, and tidal waves, china would then rule supreme.

      It all depends on who is alive afterwards.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:Good! by tavilach · · Score: 1

      Our eulogy will actually be, "I am the last human ali-- Oh crap!"

      --

      "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." -Archimedes
    7. Re:Good! by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In general terms, having your collective dna stuck at the bottom of a gravity well relying on the "stability" of a single biosphere is not a a good long term policy.

    8. Re:Good! by zapadoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I hope this rock hits our planet. I really do. This may be the spur humanity needs to get us up off our collective keisters and establish a viable off-planet colony before it's too late.

      Personally, I think we should focus our efforts on keeping the planet we live on viable. If some big rock later undoes the hard work, so be it.

      Meanwhile we're hell-bent on destroying a perfectly viable planet with our own home-grown stupidity - at the rate we are going we'll eventually finish the job whether or not an asteroid beats us to the punch is just a matter of timing.

    9. Re:Good! by darkstar949 · · Score: 2, Funny

      More likely is that people will ignore it until a week before it hits because they would treat it the same way as global warming - it doesn't exist until it begins to affect them, and then it sits in committee for awhile while people decide what to do about it.

    10. Re:Good! by daeley · · Score: 1

      If the rock lands say in the mid atlantic crush both with debris, and tidal waves

      USA != East Coast

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    11. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live on the East coast it is.

    12. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      without some new propulsion technology i doubt even by 2029 we will have this option.

      New propulsion technology? You mean like Nuclear Pulse, Nuclear Thermal (also in Trimodal for low atmospheric work), Nuclear Salt Water, M2P2, and hundreds of other mature, semi-mature, or proposed methods that we haven't used because it's "too damn expensive to get off this rock"?

      Propulsion is *not* the problem.

    13. Re:Good! by 0racle · · Score: 5, Funny

      That was done on Voyager. It wasn't funny at all.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    14. Re:Good! by Zugok · · Score: 1

      wow you sound like Char Aznable.

      But, according to End of the World, if there is a nuclear war, then this sort of thing just migt not happen (yes I know it said meteor, but this is close enough).

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    15. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you thinking what I'm thinkin? T-Rex army with light sabers. Yoda might be one of them, wasn't he green or something?

    16. Re:Good! by Danimoth · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could capture it and use it as part of a space elevator. I guess it would be moving kind of fast and be hard to slow down, but hey, its coming to us, saves a lot of fuel going out somewhere else and capturing one.

      --
      No smoking sigs indoors.
    17. Re:Good! by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. - Larry Niven
      Wouldn't it be funny if they did have a space program and just haven't bothered coming back?

      That episode of Star Trek:Voyager really sucked.

      Not kidding, there really was one.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    18. Re:Good! by macmurph · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to risk life and limb in order to inseminate all of those martian women thus saving the human race.

      Can you say par-tay?!

    19. Re:Good! by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Similar advice to the stock market. Maybe if we present it to the gov't as a stock market plan.

      "Would all of you invest in ONE single company, given an unknown risk ratio - or at least knowing that it is a high risk plan where it is either a total win or a total loss?"

      And most of them would say "No we are not stupid."

      Then you smack them in the face "well lets find another Menshara class planet you pleebs!!!"

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    20. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, the U.S. aerospace industry isn't on the East coast, only the politicians and beaurocrats holding it back. And the taxbase.

    21. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Establishing an off planet colony isn't exactly the same as getting up to turn the TV off, even if we started really focusing on this idea now, without some new propulsion technology i doubt even by 2029 we will have this option.

      We have the engine technology now, electrostatics such as ion engines ( http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/ds 1.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/ip sworks.html), hook them up to nuclear generators and you can send robotic or crewed probes anywhere in the solar system. Their are plausible answers for other technological concerns as well. We have the way, all we need is the will and funding, and if there is the will then the funding will be forth-coming.

    22. Re:Good! by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Of course not! Its infested with all those hairy icky mammals who still think digital watches are 'kinda cool'.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    23. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really care either way. I'll probably be dead by then.

    24. Re:Good! by delong · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with those designs is legal - the US, Britain, and (through the former USSR) Russian are prohibited by the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty from exploding nuclear devices in space. That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material. I'm all for nuclear propulsion, but those pesky international treaties get in the way.

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

      except they didnt have the brain space in their skulls big enough to have enough cognitive ability to do anything of the sort

    26. Re:Good! by goates · · Score: 1

      Nah, there won't be any eulogy for us. Not when we get wiped out for an interstellar bypass...

    27. Re:Good! by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      1.) The water and shock waves created by such a blast would reach very far inland
      2.) The US government is seated on the east coast. Oops.

      --
      -mkb
    28. Re:Good! by Momoru · · Score: 1

      Um except that all the links you provided talked about how DANGEROUS those methods are, not how expensive they are. And none of those solutions describe a way to transport humans reliably to and from say Mars in a reasonable safe, repeatable manner. Furthermore, since all those ideas involve nuclear radiation, good luck getting them tested here on earth. We would rather use inefficient heavy polluting coal power plants instead nuclear power plants despite the fact that they only product steam as pollution (and nuclear waste). Would you propose a resumption of nuclear testing just to work on these ideas? Watching the original atomic testing on the Bikini Atoll already makes me sad, the odds of a ELE occuring in our lifetimes is extremely slim compared to the risks involved to life on earth in any of the methods you suggested.

    29. Re:Good! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wasn't that the basis for the 1980s cartoon, "Dinosaucers?" They actually found another planet in Earth's orbit (180 degrees around) and got out of here before the shit hit the fan.

    30. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When humanity is staring down the barrel of an asteroid strike, then these treaties will probably not be such a big deal...

      Besides, whenever has our beloved President ever let a treaty stand in his way?

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    31. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or ancient humans, perhaps skinny and grey is what happens when the gene pool is closed and in a controlled environment!

    32. Re:Good! by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      You ever see the cartoon in the 80s "Dinosaucers"?

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    33. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      And none of those solutions describe a way to transport humans reliably to and from say Mars in a reasonable safe, repeatable manner.

      When did we start talking about Mars? What does Mars have to do with this discussion?

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    34. Re:Good! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      A pre-existing treaty no longer seems to be a reason to stop the US from doing something. Look at the treatment the Anti-Ballistic Missle treaty got when it didn't allow for the development of a missle defense system.
      Bush, "Treaty, what, oh, look at the kitty."
      Joking aside, an international treaty is only as good as the willingness of the signatories to give it force. Who, exactly, is going to stop the US governmant if it decides to burn the treaty and fire up a nuclear drive? The other signatories, not likely, they will yell and scream and complain about it, but in the end they will be impotent to do anything about it.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    35. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general terms, having all those chemicals at the bottom of a gravity well is what allowed them to evolve life in the first place.

    36. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure the government would happily sit inside the beltway until the shockwave hit. :-P

    37. Re:Good! by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Sure its good. Presuming the theory of Natural Selection is properly applied, the organisms with the smart DNA will be able to realize the potential threat and devise a strategy to maximize its perpetuation. Or the DNA most likely to survive such an system event. Survival of the Fittest.

      Granted, if the asteroid was able to exterminate ALL life, that could present a problem. But we're empirical evidence of the unlikeliness of such an event. In other words, yay DNA! Boo human civilization.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    38. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material.

      That's why the modern Trimodal TRITON engine *doesn't* release any materials. And once you get into space, it doesn't really matter how many nukes you blow up, as long as the debris is on an escape trajectory.

      None the less, my point holds. The problem is *not* propulsion.

    39. Re:Good! by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      Will our eulogy be: "The humans became extinct because they couldn't concentrate hard enough on their space program."?

      It's an idiotic comparison. Dinosaurs didn't have a space program, but neither did the turtles, crocodiles, and freshwater fish, and they mostly survived. Nor did birds, possums, or lizards, and a number of those survived. So obviously it's possible to survive an impact event without anything terribly high tech (unless the turtles had a space program and the paleontologists haven't figured it out yet). You'd probably do fine riding out an asteroid impact with an underground shelter with enough food and heating fuel to last a few years. Maybe there are good reasons for a manned space program, but asteroids aren't one of them.

    40. Re:Good! by drsmack1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hey, fuck you. I live here too you know. If it does hit us I hope it drops right on top of your fucking head you idiot.

      A billion or so people dying so we can be "taught a lesson"?!?

      Maybe if we are all lucky - someone will come along and teach you a lesson about always wearing body armor. Because you never know.

    41. Re:Good! by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do we know that? Who says they didn't? [who says the dino's didn't have a space program.]

      In all the fossil record, we never find one screw nor washer, no bolts, not a single microchip, no industrial manufacturing complexes, etc. There you have it. Proof in the form of lack of evidence :-), in the best tradition of sco.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    42. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um except that all the links you provided talked about how DANGEROUS those methods are

      No, they talk about the difficulties inherent in how dangerous they are. I don't know if you've checked up on the shuttle boosters any time recently, but they are EXTREMELY dangerous. The key is mitigate the danger in as many ways as possible.

      BTW, most of what you're reading is the 1960's technology. The TRITON Trimodal link is an example of a "safe" engine built in modern times. Besides that, most of these engines are designed to be deployed in space where the extra radioactive pollution doesn't matter.

    43. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a world war with what? Sticks? If there was an intelligent saurian race they certainly left behind a lot of unrefined raw materials and almost nothing else.

      No. If there had been an intelligent race here already capable of making large scale war, we would have had far fewer raw materials to start with and there would be a great deal more traces of the saurian civilization left.

    44. Re:Good! by megarich · · Score: 1
      You sir are f up!

      Anyhow lets just say you get your wish, the supervolcano will make us go extinct :). And if that doesn't kill you, good luck finding water supply on your colony.

    45. Re:Good! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Judging by the results here, the blast wouldn't arrive at all if it hit in the middle of the ocean, as significant energies wouldn't travel beyond a few hundred kilometers. However, a tsunami would certainly be formed. While there are no stats given at that site for the size of such a tsunami, I doubt that it would reach more than a few miles inland, and there would be time to fly the major sections of government out of the area, if they weren't removed well before the impact anyway.

      (Yes, I know the numbers at the site aren't exact, and there's some guesswork involved in impact angles and so on, but they're good enough for this discussion.)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    46. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think the rest of us would be better off without the East Coast.

    47. Re:Good! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I hope this rock hits our planet [since it] may be the spur humanity needs to get us up off our collective keisters and establish a viable off-planet colony before it's too late."

      I strongly doubt that. Such a catastrophe will push many governments and citizen groups over the edge of accepting Fascism as a survival tactic. Within such regimes, the ability to look outward to the liberties of space is very repressed. In effect, there will always be a constant reward for killing people and taking their stuff ... and that environment isn't conducive to all the social prosperities and stabilities that we relied upon to even have a space program in the first place.

      2004MN4 would merely whack Humanity back to the social depravities of the Middle Ages. It will take many hundreds of years before cultures rediscover the wonderful benefits of letting your neighbor live long enough to invest in -- and profit from -- your enterprises.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    48. Re:Good! by madmancarman · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it be funny if they did have a space program and just haven't bothered coming back?

      Rumor has it they're coming back at the end of April to build an intergalactic bypass, and that they've written some really awful poetry for the occasion.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    49. Re:Good! by Kenshin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What if they had really compact brains?
      Like comparing a Pentium to a '60s mainframe?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    50. Re:Good! by jd · · Score: 1

      Neither do any of the current world leaders. Hmmm. Actually, that might explain why we no longer have a space program.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    51. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Irrational flames aside, I stand by my earlier statement.

      A billion deaths is certainly a terrible tragedy, but EVERYONE dying is inestimatibly worse. Do you understand that I'm talking about the survival of the species here?

      By the way, if I happen to be one of those billion, I still stand by my earlier statement...if it teaches the rest of the species to look after its survival, I'd be fine with it.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    52. Re:Good! by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the crusades caused near as much damage, for a "lesson" in religion. I'm sure it wasn't a billion, but it was a large amount. Actually, let's just add up all the wars fought where one group is trying to "teach" the other a lesson, and see how many people have died.

      If the asteroid doesn't kill us, we'll kill ourselves. So maybe the lesson would be good, in the long run. Maybe we'd unite and stop fighting (9/11? Invading Iraq in response? etc etc etc)

    53. Re:Good! by blogeasy · · Score: 1

      They would have to have built some very big spaceships.

      --

      Browse the Information Directory
    54. Re:Good! by aCapitalist · · Score: 0

      I hope this rock hits our planet. I really do.

      Only on Slashdork would this be +5 interesting.

      How about this. I hope we have a massive nuclear war. This may be the spur humanity needs to implement a comprehensive missle defense system.

      Would that be +5 interesting?

      Use your heads moderators.

    55. Re:Good! by cortana · · Score: 1

      People would just say "we just got hit by a rock, lightning never strikes twice in the same place!"... and nothing would be done.

    56. Re:Good! by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are quite wrong.

      The last 10,000 and particularly the last 300 years we have marked this planet in so many ways that it would take weeks just to catagorize the number of permanant marks we have left here. If you have any questions just look at the variety of objects you will find next to any road.

    57. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, it could be a bad thing...instilling a sense of

      being dealt God's Vengeance.

      And the aftermarket of people claiming to be His spokesman who will advise us on every conceivable matter to avoid further such calamity.

      A spur to develop space travel technology will be lost in a cacophony of competing propositions, such as building deeper, more fortified concrete bunkers for your home, razing moral blights, etc.

    58. Re:Good! by kizzbizz · · Score: 1

      No, It'll sound more like- "Damnit, why'd we let you gourge on all those damn fish?!?!"

    59. Re:Good! by STrinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If every human on the planet disappeared tomorrow, our foot-print would be visible in the fossil record for megayears to come. Even if every screw and bolt, nut and washer were crushed beyond recognition by geological processes, they'd still leave behind very distinctive mineral deposits.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    60. Re:Good! by cortana · · Score: 1

      Don't take it so personally, it's a thought experiment!

      "A billion or so people dying so we can be "taught a lesson"?!?"

      Compared to *everyone* dieing when the big one arrives?

    61. Re:Good! by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 0

      Mars has probably the best chance of developing a sustainable off Earth colony. The moon, while closer and thus easier to reach, has the problems of no atmosphere, limited water, and limited heavy elements. Mars, while light on atmosphere has the gravity and material to form and keep one.

    62. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, I hope it'll hit so that we'll all get a clue and realize that there are bigger issues in the universe other than our petty little differences.

    63. Re:Good! by grazzy · · Score: 1

      And you probably will, in all disaster movies I ever saw america goes first.. soz mate.

    64. Re:Good! by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe it's evidence that Thomas Gold's observations are true - that oil is an abiotic substance constantly "leaking upward" from the Earth's core, that the "oil is decomposed dinosaurs" story is an absurd theory, propagated by the oil companies to trick us into paying more for oil by making us think that it's almost gone, when in fact all the oil fields are constantly refilling:

      See this and this for more info...

      The biggest conspiracy theory, ever! And just think if it's true. All the X-Files, all the UFO stuff, all the black helicopter stuff is all concocted by the Oil companies to keep us in the dark and disbelieving the "Conspiracy People".

      The scariest, most intriguing thing about all the conspiracy theories out there: At least a few of them are true. The question is: Which ones?

    65. Re:Good! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, no, you should be saying that to me. I want all life to be exterminated. Including me, obviously.

      So I welcome one or another form of total annihilation.

    66. Re:Good! by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      I think the rest of us would be much better off without the West Coast, myself. With the exception of the Silicon and Sonoma Valleys .. I think we'd miss them.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    67. Re:Good! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1
      I hope this rock hits our planet. I really do.

      Are you NUTS!?!?
      That's were I keep all my stuff!

      Plus, the world is kind of shaky now anyways. Something like this would probably just sink us all into some barbaric, warring state.

    68. Re:Good! by scotch · · Score: 5, Funny
      mankind has a notoriously short attention span.

      Notorious to whom? Short compared to attention spans of what other species? Compared with animals? Do dogs and cats sit around behind our backs and say shit like this:

      Dog: mankind has such a short attention span
      Cat: tell me about it. me and my feline brethren have been working on catching mice for thousands of years. Some of our members have been known to study a mote of dust for upwards of 4 hours
      Dog: I hear you - it's almost as if mankind is famous for having a short attentions spam. Infamous you might say. Heck, I'd go so far as to say they are notoriously short attentioned - wait, where's my tail? Did you seem my tail?

      Or maybe you're communicating with aliens.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    69. Re:Good! by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      I'm with Mike Crichton on this .. I think our epitaph will be, "They Didn't Understand What They Were Doing."

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    70. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. I'm rather appalled by the arrogance of this post bitching about the short-sightedness of man when it displays a ridiculous amount of short-sightedness itself.

      Think about it: "The Earth is going to be rendered inhospitable by an impending collision with an asteroid."

      "That's okay, we'll build up our space program enough that we can build a colony that we can escape to."

      "Alright, supposing we humans build up the ridiculous amount of technology that would enable us to a) Find a different planet capable of supporting a permanent settlement and b) move enough humans off-planet and towards that permanent settlement in time to avoid the destruction of the species, what prevents that new settlement planet from being obliterated a few hundred thousand years later?

      "..."

      Seriously, what we really need to figure out a way to deal with this problem that doesn't involve "turn tail and run".



      (Obvious counter-flame aside) Clearly, if there was NO OTHER OPTION, turning tail and running for a different planet would be better than extinction, but it seems monstrously short-sighted to think that the best solution automatically is "well, we'll just work on a getting a new one instead".

    71. Re:Good! by macmastery · · Score: 1

      Since you're so much smarter, it should be easy for you to figure out how to get elected and put your medulla where your mouth is.

    72. Re:Good! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      A billion deaths is certainly a terrible tragedy, but EVERYONE dying is inestimatibly worse.

      Exactly who would it be worse for? Several billion people dying would be a far greater tragedy then everyone dying simply because if everyone died no one would be left to mourne us. We were there, now we aren't. The universe goes on.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    73. Re:Good! by hypervinetest45 · · Score: 1

      Sooooo, essentially what you're saying is that you're hoping that upwards of hundreds of thousands of people are needlessly squashed by this rock so that we can finally make progress towards living on Mars? Idiot. Even with the ability to terraform a planet such as Mars, we wouldn't last long without a food source. Last time I checked we couldn't launch a shuttle carrying eight guys into space without randomly turning our astronauts into french fries. Honestly, the intelligent alternative would be to try divert the course of the asteroid with the admittedly limited technology that we have. We're trying to divert widespread devastation, not create a great set of box-seats to watch it from.

    74. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you dont understand the science, thats like saying maybe nano isnt nano because the atoms could be smaller than normal atoms

    75. Re:Good! by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      For the curious.

      And no, it wasn't very good at all (of course this is Voyager we're talking about...)

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    76. Re:Good! by InfoVore · · Score: 5, Funny
      New propulsion technology? You mean like Nuclear Pulse

      I posted this to my local SF group boards a while back. Hope you like it:
      10,000 Tons of Launch Weight: $500 million.
      2000 Mini-nukes: $1 Billion
      Finding a country to let you launch: Priceless

      For normal trips to LEO, there are chemical rockets.
      For everything else, there's Project Orion.

      Several guys in the group work for Lockheed and want it on a T-shirt.

      Cheers,
      I.V.
      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    77. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the fuck did this get +5 insightful, parent knows nothing of the amount of brain matter needed for complex thought. just like you have to have critical mass for a nuclear reaction

    78. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I must have missed something. Exactly when did lack of a survival instinct become hip?

      All my arguments have one basic premise: the human race should survive. If you're too irrational to accept even this basic idea, there's simply no point in continuing the debate.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    79. Re:Good! by EverDense · · Score: 0, Troll

      What if they had really compact brains?
      Like comparing a Pentium to a '60s mainframe?


      You mean like conservative politicians?

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    80. Re:Good! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      In general terms, having your collective dna stuck at the bottom of a gravity well relying on the "stability" of a single biosphere is not a a good long term policy.

      Feh. All you've got to back that up is a bunch of analogies and a complete lack of hard evidence. You sure don't see anybody else out there doing any better than us, do you?

    81. Re:Good! by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 1

      interesting reads...thanks.

      --
      Obama is a twitter sock puppet
    82. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Intelligence is not a prerequisite for holding public office.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    83. Re:Good! by Columcille · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is, when the asteroid hits, say good-bye to the infrastructure that would make a space program possible. We would survive, but just how much would be left? I'd guess it would be some time before interplanetary colonization would be possible. And what's the complaint as far as present progress goes? Progress is slow going, but there is still progress taking place. We will establish bases off our planet eventually, it just takes time.

      --
      I love my sig.
    84. Re:Good! by soft_guy · · Score: 0, Troll

      There are actually very few problems that wouldn't be solved if we were able to destroy the East Coast and Texas.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    85. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't be to bad if if hit smack dab in the middle east, so the rest of the world could live in peace.

    86. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      You sure don't see anybody else out there doing any better than us, do you?


      As a debate point, that's about as idiotic as saying "I snap my fingers to keep the tigers away".

      As for analogies, a perfect one impacted the Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years ago (give or take).

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    87. Re:Good! by back_pages · · Score: 2, Informative
    88. Re:Good! by cartmancakes · · Score: 2

      It would be a shame if we all died because we weren't legally allowed to blow up an asteroid with a few nukes! :)

    89. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Gah. That's a depressing thought. Exactly the opposite of what I was hoping for.

      So, if no asteroid impact makes us complacent, and yes asteroid impact destroys our chances, is there any hope left for humanity?

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    90. Re:Good! by lostwanderer147 · · Score: 1
      While I don't believe in any theories of previous civilizations, there are a few things wrong with the assumption that because we haven't seen any screws, microchips, etc, there wasn't ever any advanced civilization. Consider some possiblities, just as farfetched as any others:

      1)A civilization built entirely on organic materials. This would all decompose over time, leaving no record.

      2)They packed it all up and left.

      3)There was such a huge mass extinction, with such power that it erased all signs (perhaps there was life before the collision that created the moon).

      While these are rediculous, they are just ideas. Take with liberal salt.

    91. Re:Good! by dagraz · · Score: 1

      The problem with those designs is legal - the US, Britain, and (through the former USSR) Russian are prohibited by the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty from exploding nuclear devices in space.


      And we all know how sacred international treaties are to our current administration...
    92. Re:Good! by uhlume · · Score: 1

      Well duh, maybe they had an organic space program! Huh, did you ever think of that?

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    93. Re:Good! by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Redundant

      ohh yeah definetly #4, lots and lots of terrorism... LOTS right? right? right? facts? nope none...

      ohh and #2 uhuh which is why crime rates have been decreasing in the US over the past 5 years.

      #1? yeah sure, everyone hates us, everyone also wants to be just like us... its a love hate thing.

    94. Re:Good! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Man, if an '80's cartoon could be true, why couldn't it be a cool one? Like Transformers? Or M.A.S.K.? I want a motorcycle that turns into a helicopter, dammit!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    95. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      ...what prevents that new settlement planet from being obliterated a few hundred thousand years later?

      Nothing. But are you actually saying that we can only have one settlement at a time???

      Seriously, what we really need to figure out a way to deal with this problem that doesn't involve "turn tail and run".

      While your devotion to the planet that gave you birth is touching, no one said that the options to escape the cataclysm and and to prevent the cataclysm are mutually exclusive. But if the latter option proves to be impossible, wouldn't you like to have the former option in reserve?

      Find a different planet capable of supporting a permanent settlement

      What is it with you people and planets??? Why, after you manage to escape from one gravity well, would you beeline straight for another? Humanity's future is not on a planetary surface. It's in habitats in space.

      "..."

      Honestly...quoting ellipses from another post has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen on Slashdot. Bar none.

      Please log off before you embarass your species further.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    96. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Texas isn't that bad. It's been made to look bad lately because the Bushes moved there, but they're not even Texan: they're from New England.

      Personally, I think the USA should reorganize itself into larger regions with greater autonomy from each other, and from the federal government. The federal government should be drastically reduced in size and scope, so that it only provides for defense, space exploration, international treaties and diplomacy, etc. The rest should be handled by the semi-autonomous regions, which are large groups of states in a region: Texas, Alaska, and California would probably be their own regions; other states would be parts of larger regions, such as New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the Southwest, the Pacific Northwest, the Ohio area, the Dakotas area, etc. This way, people wouldn't be able to complain that their tax money is used to pave roads in a totally different part of the country, or whatever. Taxes from your state wouldn't be wasted on infrastructure in slacker states in another region because some politician there wants to create jobs by building unneeded roads. Laws that make sense in your region wouldn't be overruled by Federal laws because some activists on the other coast think they know what's best for everyone (like California trying to legalize pot but the Fed overruling them). If people are pissed off by their politicians, they won't have far to look for blame because most of the decisions affecting them are being made by politicians located within a couple hundred miles, not 3000 miles away on the other coast, and the total number of politicians affecting them will be less.

    97. Re:Good! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      There wouldn't be too much peace with the majority of the world's oil supply suddenly being rendered unattainable...not to mention the rest of the world frantically trying to lay claim to that area.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    98. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope this rock hits our planet. I really do.

      Yeah, right. I'm confident it's once again one more chicken-little story. Isn't it surprising that although supposedly there's a big risk of an asteroid impact at annual/decde level, somehow it's been millions of years since last major hit? Somebody should call the bullshit, WRT these doomsday projections. Although the severity of the risk scenario is high, its likelihood is extremely low, so from risk management perspective, it's much less important than actual real world problems that have both reasonable severity, and fairly high probability (ie. high risk index).

      I guess I'd rather take Cold War back, to get these paranoid/allergic-minds reactions focused on something other than these current concoctions ([bio-]terrorism, asteroids, super-duper mega-tsunamis [as in order of magnitude bigger than ones that have occured, aka freak tsunamis]). Or maybe get all these otherwise bright minds properly balanced; instead of getting emotional with these spooky scare stories, maybe evaluate them based on common sense.

      As to space programs; I'm not opposed to them, but I think it's much less useful to think of (and sell) them as glorified life-boats, rather than as modern day voyagers, colonists, adventurers.

    99. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeh you know, that good ol' organic stuff that can hold up in 0 atm, and also handle multiple g's, and house a propulsion system without catching on fire. w00t

    100. Re:Good! by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      If memory serves that moon creation theory has a mar-sized asteroid hitting the *still semi-molten* Earth... I don't see life evolving on molten rock... not in any form that could develop what we call civilisation, anyway...

    101. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      parent knows nothing of the amount of brain matter needed for complex thought.

      Do please elaborate for those of us familiar with the rather convincing scientific evidence suggesting that parrots are at least as (and probably more) capable of "complex thought" than whales.

    102. Re:Good! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like anybody who lives anywhere thinks that people who live in other places are stupid/immoral/incompetent, whatever.

      Is it so hard to understand how absurd that viewpoint is?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    103. Re:Good! by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 1

      http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html

      (I'm joking, but I thought it would be appropriate. :P)

    104. Re:Good! by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      BTW, Apache has a 'speling' module for you...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    105. Re:Good! by syukton · · Score: 1

      65 million years and a lot of heat and pressure within the earth's crust and mantle (remember continental drift and how the crust is "recycled") will remove all of those objects from existence, if they ever existed in the first place.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    106. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm all for nuclear propulsion, but those pesky international treaties get in the way.

      Yeah, right... and how many international treaties does US government actually obey nowadays?

      At least the current president seems comfortable basically all but ignoring things like Geneva convention, Kyoto treaty, half a dozen WTO treaties etc. etc. etc. So if he really cared, this wouldn't be much of a problem, for better or worse. Either ignore it completely, or re-interpret it in an obscure way and claim conformance/compliancy.

    107. Re:Good! by crotherm · · Score: 1



      So tell me, what is so much worse out here than in your neck of the woods? The USA's largest port is in southern California. Lots of good schools out here, Cal Tech, Stanford, Berkley, USC and USC's ISI which is home for the IETF. JPL is out here, a couple of super computer centers, Areospace, heck, California is the world's 5th largest economy.

      And lets not forget Napa Valley for wine and the Central Valley which is the nation's largest producer of food. I hear Yosemite, Sequoia, Red Woods, etc are nice places to visit.

      Yep, the rest of the country just might miss the west coast.

      p.s. Notice I did not even mention Oregon or Washington.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    108. Re:Good! by arose · · Score: 1
      having a short attentions spam
      Mine isn't about attention...
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    109. Re:Good! by jmc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I think we should focus our efforts on keeping the planet we live on viable. If some big rock later undoes the hard work, so be it.

      Couldn't agree more.

      How much would it cost to create a colony on Mars? What would we be able to do on own planet for the same amount of money? It seems to me that for the same amount of money we could develop a way to protect all of humanity from an asteroid strike, rather than send off a select few to the new home of humanity in the stars.

      Besides, is colonizing Mars really any easier or better than colonizing a post-apocalyptic Earth? I would think a self contained biosphere built on Earth would be hella cheaper than one built on Mars. I would guess that Earth after a worst case asteroid scenario would still be more habitable than Mars. If nothing else, the "colonists" will sure have a ton of biomater to subsist on for awhile.

      Personally, these arguements that we need to colonize space because we're trashing Earth sound a bit to me like someone who wants to buy a new house because they don't feel like cleaning their perfectly good existing house. Yeah, the new house may be more fun and exciting, but any way you rationalize it, you're still just rationalizing it.

    110. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Survive how long?

    111. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yo momma is a rather convincing scientific piece of evidence

    112. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're saying a whale or parrot could create a civilization--one capable of creating a space program? just because brain size isn't exactly proportionate to intelligence doesn't discount that you need a certain amount to have sentience

    113. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well we have fossils so your point is kinda null

    114. Re:Good! by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      This may be the spur humanity needs to get us up off our collective keisters and establish a viable off-planet colony before it's too late.

      So with 2 planets being inhabited we are twice as likely to be hit by an asteriod? Good logic. Nothing better than becoming two targets instead of remaining one.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    115. Re:Good! by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      Very interesting, but they don't say how the oil could possibly be created. My personal theory is that sulphur eating bacteria is producing the oils deep underground. It has also been recently discovered that bacteria in the ocean floor is creating methane, but I have forgotten what bacteria eats. I was surprised at the amount of natural oil seepage that enters the ocean.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    116. Re:Good! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      The United States should honor its treaties. There are consequences for the way our government acts, including the fact that we don't always honor our treaties.

      No argument there. I'm not sayng that the US should just "go it alone", just that this is not really an impediment to a nuclear drive happening. Honestly though, I would prefer the US to work with other nations to create an exemption to the treaties , which are stopping this from happening. I'm willing to bet that most of the other signatories would be willing to work on it.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    117. Re:Good! by gewalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Creationist website warning. However, it does have fossil screws, hammers and a couple of other fossil artifacts. the link

    118. Re:Good! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Hey, fuck you. I live here too you know. If it does hit us I hope it drops right on top of your fucking head you idiot.

      A billion or so people dying so we can be "taught a lesson"?!?


      Yeah, too bad it wont kill all 7 billion of us. Maybe evolution would replace us with a species that isn't fucked up and evil.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    119. Re:Good! by macmastery · · Score: 1

      I think you need to be smart enough to get a majority of people to elect you. Clearly intelligence isn't the only criterion.

    120. Re:Good! by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      The actual amount of radioactive materials released by these designs is pretty trivial - only of political importance, not environmental. However, the risk of disaster is large. A uranium-based fission pile can be made quite safe if it's never been used: uranium is a *lot* safer than most rocket fuels. Once you start using a fission pile you start building up dangerous decay products, but even that might not be a problem for an engine that wasn't re-used.

      Orion is the exception, but orion is silly for moving anything smaller than a city into space.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    121. Re:Good! by macmastery · · Score: 1

      So, you're basically saying that the planet needs a backup strategy?

    122. Re:Good! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Only (1) really works - otherwise there would be too much garbage left behind (as garbage) for us to miss. And (1) only works if their technology was organic from the start - no flint axe heads, nothing. Still an amusing concept, however.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    123. Re:Good! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Petrified wood works pretty well for all those requirements. It's a bit heavy, but you didn't specify light weight. ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    124. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were small dinosaurs too, you know.

    125. Re:Good! by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      These are not treaties agreed to for the rest of eternity. There are time schedules for every participant who wants to cancel their participation, usually on the order of 6 months or so. And it strikes me that the kind of threat we are considering might be a good reason.

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    126. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that Bush is the one who likes the idea of nuclear-powered space propulsion; he's got NASA working on a concept for Jupiter. I don't like just about any of his policies myself, but you can't blame this one on Bush.

    127. Re:Good! by lgw · · Score: 1

      For all we know, hales cold - if they had hands, and an environment in which the first important technological development - fire - could happen. (Pigs are pretty darn smart as well, but again no hands.)

      Parrots are a lot smarter than you'd figure for their brain size. I'm not sure if that an argument that big brains aren't as important, or that some thought is easier than we are guessing, however. UNtil we understand the mechanism for abstract thought, all we can measure is rough problem solving ability, which isn't all that enlightening.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    128. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      petrified wood of course being so organic...

    129. Re:Good! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Don't mess with Texas!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    130. Re:Good! by fbartho · · Score: 1

      dude I would rather have it scare the shit out of us, get us off our asses and then realize that some dumbshit forgot to convert from degrees to radians or vice versa... it would get us off our asses... AND no loss of life. Because realistically I don't expect I'll be personally prepared with a bunker by then so I'll be as vulnerable as an aborigine when it hits for all the strength and structure our society currently has.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    131. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrm, those numbers look a little low to me. At current rates, launching 10,000 tons into orbit would cost something like $100-200 billion, not $500 million. Even assuming some massive efficiency factor in using non-chemical propulsion in the atmosphere (good chance getting that past the environmental lobby), it'd still be significantly higher than $500 million. Not to mention depleting the Earth's fossil fuel resources. :)

    132. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The damage done by the asteroid strike will be >> the damage done by the propulsion system -- thus making the problem those treaties are designed to protect against moot.

    133. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to be mentioning the fact that an option to withdraw was written into the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty had a provision for both sides such that either could leave the treaty at anytime it wants as long as a six month withdraw period is obeyed. In such a condition, the other party was also automatically freed also.

    134. Re:Good! by nuknuk · · Score: 1

      If we could just become the Masters of Orion, we would have a Huge Gaia planet, jeez.

      --
      You can pick your nodes, and you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friend's nodes
    135. Re:Good! by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      Ok, so when in recient history has the american goverment really been bound by such treaties ?

      My perception (certainly over the term of the current president) is "We'll do what ever we want because we've got the biggest military."

    136. Re:Good! by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Pinky! Are you pondering what I'm pondering?!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    137. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Hrm, those numbers look a little low to me. At current rates, launching 10,000 tons into orbit would cost something like $100-200 billion

      What the hell? Why oh why doesn't the concept of "launching via blowing up big damn nuclear weapons" ever sink in with people? Forget the damn popcap rockets! We're talking about REAL power!

    138. Re:Good! by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      You gotta love Slashdot. Saying that our government should honor its treaties is modded "Troll". Yeah.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    139. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like anybody who lives anywhere thinks that people who live in other places are stupid/immoral/incompetent, whatever.

      Maybe some people are like that, but I'm not. I haven't been to lots of places, but I don't think of everyone in those places as stupid. I've never been to Germany or Japan, but they certainly don't have a reputation for idiocy.

      However, I have been to the east coast and to the southeast; in fact, I grew up in Virginia and Tennessee, and only moved to the southwest 5 years ago. I've spent a lot of time all over the southeast. So after spending 25 years there, I think I'm definitely qualified to make statements about the east coast, my former home. While I certainly wouldn't say everyone there is an idiot (or that everyone anywhere is an idiot for that matter), I feel like I ran into a lot more stupidity in the southeast than in other areas of the country that I've been to.

      I think a better theory is that people who think of people in other places as stupid/immoral/incompetent have probably been to those places and had negative experiences there which caused them to form this opinion. A viewpoint formed by personal experience is certainly not absurd.

    140. Re:Good! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Those are poor unenlightened souls who have not read Footfall.

      Pity them :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    141. Re:Good! by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I lived in Texas for a long time. I know Texas and I hate Texas.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    142. Re:Good! by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      How can you seriously doubt that the US is the most hated country in the world?

      The US is probably the most "loved" country in the world too.

      And I seriously doubt its by the same people.

      My company did a market study and found out that we were the most named brand when people were asked what brand they would most avoid. We were also the most named brand when people were asked what brand they most wanted to buy. We are also the #1 brand in our industry and have been for a long time. Gee big surprises there!

      Same with USA.

      The problem is that US gives people a good reason to hate it.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    143. Re:Good! by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Sooooo, essentially what you're saying is that you're hoping that upwards of hundreds of thousands of people are needlessly squashed by this rock so that we can finally make progress towards living on Mars? Idiot.

      I'm an idiot too.

      Even with the ability to terraform...

      It's gonna take just as much work and time to figure out how to divert this doom as it is to figure out how to inhabit other planets. I don't understand why you call this guy and idiot for wanting some to get the hell off this planet, all while he's thinking about ensuring the persistence of the human race. Instead, your comfortable with sitting back and saying "Ahh, they'll deflect it.".
      I doubt you ever considered what would happen if they couldn't figure out how to deflect it. What's wrong with a plan B?

      Sure we still blow up people with the shuttles, but these are FIRST generation crafts. They're no different than say the first generation ocean fairing vessels. They share many similarities with the first vehicles. Hell, they even share similiarties with mankind moving to a different continent. Speaking of which, you'd probably be the tribe member that pouted and said "I'm staying here because we don't know if there is water where you are going", while the rest of your tribe moved on to find the other continents and migrate to better areas.

      Fine, stay here if you want. He's probably bored sick of watching popes die and Iraqis fight and south americans starve and all the other boogeymen we serve to ourselves. He wants to move on. He realizes there will never be a society where sickness doesn't exist, where greed doesn't rear its ugly head, and where everyone is equal.

      Personally, I want to get the fuck outta here too. You know why? Because I don't want to die for Bush's (or even YOURS!) oil.
      I don't want to die because the Iraq is sick of Isreal and finally blows it up with a massive nuke.
      I don't want die because some religous fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic with a powerful bomb that my house is near.

      I don't want to die for the sake of religion. Perhaps us inhabiting other worlds will someday create different planets that are diverse. And maybe, JUST MAYBE, one of those planets will not be (run|controlled|influenced by) religion. That, sir, I feel, will prove to be one of the best cultures we could ever foster.

      Honestly, I'd die on a shuttle in a heartbeat, but if you wanted me to die for your oil, I'd kick you in the balls.

      Hope that came out right...

    144. Re:Good! by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Thanks.
      I agree 100% with what you just said.

      P.S. You only mentioned being fine with billions of people dieing, so your post should not go negative. If, however, you dissed OSX, you'd be troll in no time.

    145. Re:Good! by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      See this article in Wired for more details on how it is created.

    146. Re:Good! by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You failed to see the rest of his point, or at least you failed to acknowledge it:
      Meanwhile we're hell-bent on destroying a perfectly viable planet with our own home-grown stupidity - at the rate we are going we'll eventually finish the job whether or not an asteroid beats us to the punch is just a matter of timing.
      We can fix this place up, but what's gonna happen when the one comes that we divert?
      What happens with global warming is killing us?
      What happens when we get into a nuclear war?
      What happens when earth starts naturally changing it's weather pattern to something that threatens or survival?
      So what if we can protect ourselves from one thing? FFS man, can't you see we *NEED* to invest time into getting out of here so our species can survive. So what if we fail 10,000 times, at least we're trying!

    147. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think that http://www.realultimatepower.com/ would have something to say about REAL power

    148. Re:Good! by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      65 million years and a lot of heat and pressure within the earth's crust and mantle (remember continental drift and how the crust is "recycled") will remove all of those objects from existence, if they ever existed in the first place.
      That's funny , I can still find leaf imprints in 100-million year old coal seams.... why can't I find any evidence of tools?

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    149. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. Millions of human lives are not worth a space colony, and you seem to be really detached from compasion, morals and humanity itself.

    150. Re:Good! by jd · · Score: 1
      Let's see. I've about 150 people listing me as a friend on Slashdot, out of 30,000 or so users, which gives me 0.5% of the popular vote. I also get about +20 karma a week, which means a Slashdot opinion poll would probably give me an approval rating of about 0.01%.


      By Slashdot standards, I feel that's pretty damn good - but it's not really what I'd call the sort of ringing endorsement you'd want to see in a serious campaign. I might be able to steal the technology vote from Ralph Nader, but that's about it.


      Could I get the kind of endorsement I'd need? Sure, if I had a few hundred million I could spend on electioneering and back-handers. Modern elections are 80% about who has the money, and 20% about who has the backing of the corporate giants. These days, you don't even need people voting for you to win, you just need a corrupt voting system and the resources to exploit it. (Yes, I include England in that, where the political parties are going to be involved in "collecting" votes. Yeah, right.)


      Now, I could see myself being marketable as an advisor. I certainly know what can be done and know where to look to find out how. I could also see myself doing a much better job running a quango than most, for much the same reason. But these are at the periphery of politics - the border between those who make the decisions and those who actually do things. I could function along that border very well. If I ever made the right contacts, that might well be worth considering.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    151. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://angryflower.com/astero.gif

    152. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to read science fiction too, and I admit a lot of the scenarios presented seem as though they are obvious steps, but...

      Are you even sure sustained off-planet life is possible? I know the ISS could be considered somewhat, but if I'm not mistaken they survive on food brought from Earth? Does anyone know anymore about the possibilities of survival without Earth?

    153. Re:Good! by jd · · Score: 1

      I think so, Brain, but how would you get the rhinocerous to tap-dance on the tulip without hiccuping?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    154. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leafs WERE the tools!

    155. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you've still only accounted for about half of the east coast. I was born and raised in the northeast, am presently living in Chicago, and have visited the southwest/west coast/southeast. I have to say that what you are describing about stupidity in the Southeast seems to match up with what I've heard and seen but has nothing to do with the northeast.

      I won't claim that everyone in the northeast is a rocket scientist (every part of this country has its share of idiots) but my experience has shown that people in the Northeast are at least as smart as those found on the west coast, Chicago, and southwest. My guess would be that it has something to do with the quality of the public education systems in the respective states. Many of the southern school systems have very poor reputations.

      So, please don't speak for the whole east coast if almost all of your experience is south of the Mason-Dixon line.

      -GameMaster

    156. Re:Good! by zapadoo · · Score: 1

      - What happens with global warming is killing us?

      We are on a freight train running at a brick wall of our own making. If we can't look after our own planet, one infinitely easier to coexist with than Mars (or any other planet) then who can say we will make a good job of it on another?

      - What happens when we get into a nuclear war?

      Ditto.

      I certainly hope you aren't imagining some utopian future society will evolve, Star-Trek-like, out of the ashes of a crumbling society that is more likely than not going to engineer our species own demise.

      And even if preserving the species from some unknown fate was deemed worthy of spending trillions of dollars and decades of time and focus, do you really have any faith that the "species" would be preserved in a meaningful way?

      Do you believe those who control access to the new world on some new world will be apolitical? That's hardly likely, as the same folks building the new world will be from the same organizations, governments and companies that end up destroying our world. Think about it.

      - What happens when earth starts naturally changing it's weather pattern to something that threatens or survival?

      I'm sure in 10,000 years we'll have figured that out, or perhaps come to the conclusion that leaving nature to its own is a good thing. I know I won't care by then.

      - can't you see we *NEED* to invest time into getting out of here so our species can survive.

      I see that we *need* to invest time in preserving our home planet. If we screw up this world we don't deserve a second chance.

      Death is inevitable - who says mankind deserves to continue for ever and ever?

    157. Re:Good! by jmc · · Score: 1

      What happens with global warming is killing us?
      What happens when we get into a nuclear war?
      What happens when earth starts naturally changing it's weather pattern to something that threatens or survival?

      Well, I think in each case, we can still find a cheaper and easier way to perpetuate the species right here on Earth, rather than 30 million miles away on Mars, in an environment that would be less hospital to humans than even a post nuclear war ice age Earth.

      Like, "Oh no, thanks to a nuclear winter the average temperature on Earth has dropped 20 degrees! Hey, I know, lets go colonize Mars, with an average temperate 100 degrees less than ours! And guess what? There's hardly any oxygen either! Yeah, it's gonna be great!" :)

    158. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're lucky there's not a mod for asshole, asshole.

      List the treaties and how we violated them or shut the fuck up.

    159. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America haters never let the facts get in the way. I say we should kick them out of the country and let them see how the rest of the world really lives.

    160. Re:Good! by Durf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because spending trillions of dollars on a project that might get a few hundred of the planet's richest and most powerful people off the rock (cuz, you know, they'll totally pick the most deserving folks when armageddon time comes) is way better than spending that same amount on developing crops that could survive another deep freeze and keep hundreds of millions alive back here. Pushing the boundaries of science and going to Space, The Final Frontier is all well and good, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's an urgent task that needs our attention by the year 2029. Besides, the gamma-ray burst that kills us all is going to get those wealthy bastards up on Mars, too. :-D

    161. Re:Good! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I lived in Texas for a long time, too. I know Texas, and I don't hate Texans.

      I'm proud to not be counted among them, and I hate Texas summers, but there are a lot of very nice things about Texas. Austin is high on that list.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    162. Re:Good! by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the best reason for withdrawing from the ABM treaty is to allow nuclear-powered spacecraft. The ABM treaty killed Orion, for instance.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    163. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with this. In my adventures to the northeast and to the "midwest" (being the Illinois and Ohio areas) haven't encountered as much stupidity as I have in the South.

      The public schools in the South are definitely inferior, but I wonder how much that actually reflects on the population at large, rather than simply being a function of the South's continually poor economy.

      The northeast has its own problems, however: extremely nasty weather, and a high cost of living. Combined, these are driving a lot of people out of the northeast to other parts of the country (mostly to the south I think, but some are coming west too). It made a lot of sense to live in the northeast 100 years ago because of the strong economy and presence of good jobs, but you can get that elsewhere without the miserable weather now.

      Of course, when I think of some calamity happening to the East Coast, I'm really thinking first of Washington DC. :-D

    164. Re:Good! by Before+The+End+Chaos · · Score: 1

      I don't need a cat or dog to tell me that an attention span so short that we're ignoring threats of future global destruction is too short.

      --
      If you think you're a hardcore roleplayer, come prove it to us at ArmageddonMUD.
    165. Re:Good! by Shifty+Jim · · Score: 1

      They didn't have a space program, but have developed a fairly advanced society in an alternate dimension. It's only through that valiant efforts of John Leguizamo and Bob Hoskins that we're not all subjegated monkeys.

      --
      "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." -Isaac Asimov
    166. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We certainly wouldn't miss the freaks, looneytunes and whackos that make up most of Los Angeles and San Francisco... but yeah, we'd miss Napa, Yosemite, and Washington (with the exception of Redmond) and Oregon.

    167. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh (plays air violin).

    168. Re:Good! by mathi · · Score: 1

      They will not come back but they might send their immense silver robot as an ambassador: "I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

    169. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "too damn expensive to get off this rock"?

      I wish you luck and bid you adieu. I happen to love this little blue fart bubble in the cosmos.

    170. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I would also like to see space colonies, they're not the obvious answer to that threat, even if you don't consider changing the course of the asteroid. It would be far easier to construct big biosphere-2-style colonies here on earth than to construct them in space. For the case that there is not enough sunshine after the impact, build nuclear reactors and deploy a large reserve of nuclear fuel at each of the colonies. The electricity can be used to create artificial lighting for the plants and to regulate the temperature.

      Space colonies face two additional problems:
      - you have to get into space, which isn't cheap
      - earth will still be the most habitable planet in the solar system, there will be much of what is needed to survive (plenty of water, organic material etc.)

    171. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > New propulsion technology? You mean like Nuclear Pulse

      Nope.

      > Nuclear Thermal (also in Trimodal for low atmospheric work)

      No, that's not it.

      > Nuclear Salt Water

      Wrong one again.

      > M2P2

      Sorry, not it either.

      > and hundreds of other mature, semi-mature, or proposed methods that we haven't used because it's "too damn expensive to get off this rock"?

      I think OP meant a propulsion system we could actually BUILD Einstein, that means we'll have to be able to afford it too.

      It's priceless to see how the average forum troller is so enlightened that they can do away with the more 'trivial' problems of humanity for the sake of their personal fondness of some half-*ssed boffin who thinks he has a new idea for once.

    172. Re:Good! by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Establishing an off planet colony isn't exactly the same as getting up to turn the TV off, even if we started really focusing on this idea now, without some new propulsion technology i doubt even by 2029 we will have this option.

      Yet those of us who actually pay attention to real science know we don't need any new propulsion technology. We have the option right now, we just choose to not exercise it.

      Some of us are, on the other hand, quite familiar with what it takes and know that getting there is the easy part. We've had the propulsion technology since the late sixties.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    173. Re:Good! by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      How much would it cost to create a colony on Mars? What would we be able to do on own planet for the same amount of money? It seems to me that for the same amount of money we could develop a way to protect all of humanity from an asteroid strike, rather than send off a select few to the new home of humanity in the stars.

      Over the course of 10-12 years from the word go, about 25-30 billion or so if you want to live quite well and have a lot of luxury and high tech toys for the sake of having high tech toys. That includes a minimum of 24-48 people on Mars, and all they need to provide for their own power, food, air, and water as well as ability to expand their living quarters and the beginnings of heavy industry.

      Not a paradise, but a lot more than you may realize can be done with today's or even testerday's technology.

      The cost of a system you propose? About 10 times that, and over a longer period of time.

      Besides, is colonizing Mars really any easier or better than colonizing a post-apocalyptic Earth? I would think a self contained biosphere built on Earth would be hella cheaper than one built on Mars. I would guess that Earth after a worst case asteroid scenario would still be more habitable than Mars. If nothing else, the "colonists" will sure have a ton of biomater to subsist on for awhile.

      Yes, actually it is. First, you don't need a fully self contained biosphere. Second, on a post-apocalyptic Earth where are you going to find the capability to build a fully self contained biosphere when we haven't been able to do it on a pre-apocalyptic Earth?

      Indeed agriculture on Mars is remarkably easier due to lack of contamination of post-apocalypic dangers, no roving bands of mailman hunting humans, and plenty of dry land to keep us from growing webbed feet.

      Personally, these arguements that we need to colonize space because we're trashing Earth sound a bit to me like someone who wants to buy a new house because they don't feel like cleaning their perfectly good existing house.

      Fortunately, those are strawman arguments put up by people who don't know what it takes and thus assume it must be the end-all-be-all of technology.

      Most of us don't want to go to Mars (for example) because it's "dirty" here (it really isn't that bad), or even to keep mankind alive after a nuke exchange or asteroid impact. We seek to go because we *can* do it, because it is a new place to go, and it brings new challenges and opportunity to mankind. Humans are a migratory species. Denying that only leads to problems of misunderstanding.

      There are other reasons. It's cheaper to set up a Mars colony and use it for space based asset production (food, water, air, heavy materials) than it is to do it from here. If you want a system to protect "all of humanity" from asteroid threats you'll need a lot of material in orbit. Enough so it will take several decades to get it into orbit. And you still won't have any better of a launch infrastructure when you get halfway.

      On the other hand, a Class 2 Martian base backed by a Class 1 Martian Colony can provide the interplanetary transit system for shipping that material as well as support infrastructure in about two decades. That's starting from the word go. Given the way orbital weapon systems progress we'd barely have any assets in space by then, if any.

      http://www.marshome.org/
      http://www.marssociety .org
      http://www.moonsociety.org/

      These are all decent places to start exploring (no pun intended) what is known. Granted, for true understanding you'll need to go beyond mere web pages but the resources to get there are on those sites.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    174. Re:Good! by Warblimp · · Score: 1

      Lucky for a few of us, I hear the Dentrassi cooks like nothing better than to annoy the Vogons. But, then again how many us have a electronic sub-etha signaling device? Other than myself of course.

      --
      Beware the observant.
    175. Re:Good! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      "Wouldn't it be funny if they did have a space program and just haven't bothered coming back?"

      Yet...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    176. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! I sure hope to get laid by 2029.

    177. Re:Good! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Well, there's always the off chance. Also, between the tyrannies of complacency and Fascism, there are further chances for collective acts that perform the necessary breakout.

      You must realize that a breakout MUST follow revolutionary methods. Primarily I mean that people must not on bend rules, but break them with ear-splitting cracks. No one is REALLY going to build up a space industry just to have Humanity colonize space itself "for the good of all". That's a load of idealist crap. What has happened time and time again is that plans go awry and people break free, by taking advantage of a collapsed oversight or a massive bankruptcy. This is why I loathe the current crop of astronauts as cultivated by NASA and the military ... they are highly obedient elites who are heavily subscribed in the Status Quo, so we can expect no revolt from them at all.

      When a pack of spacefarers finally says "fuck it" and then takes off on its own path (perhaps cutting loose of Cislunar space for the Asteroids), then I'll know that the "break out" has occurred. Until then, it'll just be the usual obedience and tight ties to the mother world, and those folk will retain the lines of dependence that will strike them with whatever also happens to befall the Earth.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    178. Re:Good! by master_p · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we use all that nukes to blast the asteroid off its collision course?

    179. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad SOMEONE around here lives up to their user name.

    180. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      65 million years and a lot of heat and pressure within the earth's crust and mantle (remember continental drift and how the crust is "recycled") will remove all of those objects from existence, if they ever existed in the first place.

      The continental plates sort of float on top and usually do not get subducted. So that part of the crust does not get recycled very much.

      In fact, it is thought that the continental plates get larger over time, as some of the less-dense parts of the oceanic plates stick onto the edges of the continental plates.

      (IANAG, but I do find this stuff pretty darn interesting.)

    181. Re:Good! by LucasGreen · · Score: 1

      Like the anti-ballistic missile treaty? Bush didn't care for that one so it's gone. Who's to say that a future president won't ignore this one?

      --
      P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
    182. Re:Good! by raodin · · Score: 1

      Ocean crust is constantly recycled - it subducts.

      Continental crust is NOT constantly recycled - it doesn't subduct.

    183. Re:Good! by csk_1975 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a debunking of the 100 million year old hammer and ancient spark plug. Sheesh :)

    184. Re:Good! by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Great. Citing the McNews Network.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    185. Re:Good! by RoLi · · Score: 1
      Sure we would have it. The Apollo-Program took about 10 years and they started from scratch (IIRC 9 years from beginning to first moon landing), so in 24 years we could do much, much more than that. With the know-how of Russia it would be even easier.

      And it isn't really that "difficult", there is absolutely no new technology needed either (but of course it won't hurt).

      To build a colony on Moon or Mars you just need lots of stuff to build it, which merely means we just need more of what we already have. (More and bigger rockets)

      You certainly can build a colony purely with 1960's technology.

      Just imagine what you could load on 10 Saturn-V rockets. If you are serious, you don't need a ticket back to earth so you can easily build greenhouses, habitats and a lot more.

    186. Re:Good! by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Pipe down Mr. Griffin.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    187. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does a treaty or international law stop the United States of America? That's a joke. It's convenient for the US government to blame treaties and international law so they don't have to waste money on something worthwhile instead of lining the pockets of their collaborators. (Yes, I am an American, goddamnit, it's my government and I'll trash it if I want to, that's the American way.)

    188. Re:Good! by Momoru · · Score: 1

      I think the difference here is that the nuclear test treaty is wanted by Americans too. While the missle defense program has no downside for most Americans, a resumption of nuclear testing is really a hot button issue, and if the current president suggested it, it would no doubt cause 100 news stories about fetal mortality etc from nuclear fallout.

    189. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think OP meant a propulsion system we could actually BUILD Einstein, that means we'll have to be able to afford it too.

      You sir, are obviously an idiot who either can't read or can't be bothered to read. We DID build nuclear thermal engines. They were done. Ready to fly on the Saturn V. They simply weren't needed as the time, because the LHOx engines matured faster. Nearly ALL Mars missions call for NTR engines, which is why the TRITON got built.

      As for nuclear pulse propulsion, most of the work has actually been done, including tests to verify the basic concept. (Test Video) Von Braun himself was a big proponent of launching a mini-Orion on the Saturn V. His idea was that the V would get things to orbit, and the Orions would take them to the solar system. Too bad our government stabbed him in the back by dismantling the Saturn V program...

      It always amazes me how people will happily chime in with criticizim even in the face of overwhelming evidence. No wonder you posted as AC.

    190. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we use all that nukes to blast the asteroid off its collision course?

      The Triton engines doesn't use nuclear weapons. It uses a nuclear reactor to heat the propellant for thrust. For the discussion on moving the asteriod, search the topic for my post on reviving the Orion project.

    191. Re:Good! by XipX · · Score: 1

      Would you rather he used "FOX 'news', fairly unbalanced"?

    192. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it doesn't really matter how many nukes you blow up, as long as the debris is on an escape trajectory

      Actually that doesn't matter either, if the Earth is going to be smashed to tiny molten pieces anyhow.

      "Where's the ka-boom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering ka-boom!"

    193. Re:Good! by bitchell · · Score: 1

      No we don't want to be like you at all. Thats exactly the small minded thinking that makes everyone hate America. You are not the centre of the universe.

    194. Re:Good! by Berner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a couple of questions... First does anyone have any kind of definate data on this rock? Like trajetory and speed, will it pass in front of the earth or behind it?

      These are important questions, without knowing this it is quite literally impossible to figure out if it is possible to catch it (best case) or deflect it (worst case).

      Propulsion may not be a problem, at least not when it comes to traveling to the asteriod in question. But do we have a propulsion technology that could (with 10 years of drive time) slow/speed up this rock until it falls into a stable orbit around the earth?

      I want an extra planetary habitat for a population in at least the thousands before I'm 50 so that I can still enjoy zero-gee. This asteriod would probably make a perfect place to put such a colony.

      Having this rock in orbit would probably also increase the rate at which we can build ships/habitats/other in orbit, with the bulk materials already up there we can build solar-powered smelters (basicly mirrors) and away we go.

      I REALLY would like to see this rock in a stable orbit, how many of the science-fiction goals wouldn't be within reach if we just got abundant materials for buildning? (space-elevator anyone, anchor material is cheap!)

    195. Re:Good! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "There are actually very few problems that wouldn't be solved if we were able to destroy the East Coast and Texas."

      You're telling me that viewpoint is not absurd? I don't care if it's formed by personal experience or not. When personal experience reinforces bigotry, that doesn't make it any less ignorant.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    196. Re:Good! by VirtuousPagan · · Score: 1

      FYI, the U.S. never ratified the Kyoto treaty, so it was never obligated to conform to it.

    197. Re:Good! by VirtuousPagan · · Score: 1

      For an informed discussion of the reasons why governments have not realistically addressed the asteroid collision problem, read Catastrophe: Risk and Response, by Judge Richard Posner.

    198. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just recycle water. It's what we do here...

    199. Re:Good! by danila · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if you want to use the technology, start development and then start the renegotiation process to make exemptions for nuclear propulsion.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    200. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? What exactly are you arguing for here?

      If I travel into an inner-city slum, and half the time I get mugged, why would it not make sense for me to conclude that slums are dangerous and have a large proportion of muggers? Is this bigoted? I think not.

      If I travel into a rural region and run into many people who have no college education, is it bigoted for me to conclude that people in this region are generally uneducated? I think not.

      According to Merriam-Webster, "bigot" means "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". If a person forms his opinions from personal experience, that would seem to be the opposite of bigotry. Bigotry is closely related to "prejudice", which obviously means coming to conclusions without any good evidence, or worse, in the face of contradictory evidence.

      If you were to hang out in a ghetto for a week, and met a bunch of highly intelligent, well-educated people, and never got mugged once, and then continued to believe that the ghetto is just full of low-lifes, that would be bigoted. But forming your opinion based on personal experience is completely logical, and is the most sensible way of forming opinions.

      Your post doesn't make any sense at all. How else would a person form an opinion, other that to learn about something firsthand? By listening to some anonymous fool on Slashdot?

      As for the first line, it should be plainly obvious that the idea of destroying the east coast and texas is completely tongue-in-cheek, and is meant as a joke. If this concept of "humor" is beyond you, then I truly pity you.

    201. Re:Good! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "If I travel into an inner-city slum, and half the time I get mugged, why would it not make sense for me to conclude that slums are dangerous and have a large proportion of muggers? Is this bigoted? I think not."

      Of course not. If, however, you conclude that blacks and/or Latinos and/or poor people are dangerous, then that IS bigoted.

      "If I travel into a rural region and run into many people who have no college education, is it bigoted for me to conclude that people in this region are generally uneducated? I think not."

      Of course not. If, however, you concluded that those people were stupid, or not as worthwhile as you are, then you'd be a bigot.

      "Your post doesn't make any sense at all. How else would a person form an opinion, other that to learn about something firsthand? By listening to some anonymous fool on Slashdot?"

      You're certainly entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to make a judgement as to whether that opinion has merit or not. In my judgement, broad generalizations are sloppy thinking, and I indict them as such.

      "As for the first line, it should be plainly obvious that the idea of destroying the east coast and texas is completely tongue-in-cheek, and is meant as a joke. If this concept of "humor" is beyond you, then I truly pity you."

      There are jokes that are funny, and others that are not. I didn't think this joke was funny.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    202. Re:Good! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The United States: Love us or hate us. You can't ignore us.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    203. Re:Good! by hypervinetest45 · · Score: 1

      I doubt you ever considered what would happen if they couldn't figure out how to deflect it. What's wrong with a plan B?

      Dude, there isn't enough money for a 'Plan A'. There's a significant difference between accepting the reality of a potentially grim situation and 'pouting', as you so inadequately put it.

      Fine, stay here if you want.

      Thanks, can I have your money? You would have just squandered it on 'Star Trek' DVDs and masturbatory aids, anyhow.

      He's probably bored sick of watching popes die and Iraqis fight and south americans starve and all the other boogeymen we serve to ourselves. He wants to move on. He realizes there will never be a society where sickness doesn't exist, where greed doesn't rear its ugly head, and where everyone is equal.

      You naive sap. Jump on your astro-bus of love and friendship if you must, but know that you can't overcome human tragedy by running away from it. Prejudice, fear, intolerance and war can be found wherever we humans hang our hat.

      Because I don't want to die for Bush's...I don't want die...

      Therein lies the reason why you chimed in with your two cents. The simple freedoms you now enjoy came at a high cost. Many men and women, young and old, gave *their* lives to preserve your current way of life, whether they agreed with the decisions of their government or not.

      Your concept of a hippie planet is laughable at best. In an era of spacefaring humans, your planet would last all of 3 seconds as its populace races offworld to escape a call to arms.

      Honestly, I'd die on a shuttle in a heartbeat...

      Hell, I just want you to *die*.

    204. Re:Good! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      As the center of the universe, we demand that you spell center the way we spell it.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    205. Re:Good! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think that living on Mars/Venus/Moon will be any easier than living hear after any of the mentioned events?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    206. Re:Good! by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Dude, there isn't enough money for a 'Plan A'. There's a significant difference between accepting the reality of a potentially grim situation and 'pouting', as you so inadequately put it.

      I never said there was enough money for Plan A. I never even implied it, I agree we'll never have enough money for it. Nope, No, and aboslutely no difference. You're scared. You'd rather take the easy way out and just see if we can ride it through. I'm proposing you that you can, but I, along with several (possibly hundreds of) thousands of people move on with our existence. Keep the fucking pope, we don't want him.

      Thanks, can I have your money?
      Yeah, take it all. Be warned, I live in the U.S.A., it's likely I'm running the normal rate race and my debts are more than my assets.

      You would have just squandered...
      Get personal if you want, /. woudln't be /. if people actually realized that opinions can differ without taking it personally. At any rate, I don't watch Star Trek, and I'm more than capable providing sexual gratification without aids.

      You naive sap...
      Re-read that man. Seriously. My blurb said exactly what yours did. He's bored sick of watching it because it's all caused by religion, the same as it has always been.

      Therein lies the reason why you chimed in with your two cents...

      Actually, it wasn't, but nice try. My reason was different than that, but take your time and you might find it. More to the point: Yes, they did come at high cost. Some of these were important things, like leaving the queen behind. Like fighting off taxation without representation. Like fighting off facist regimes. Perhaps even fighting back against ruthless cartels. However, the chances are even better that most of your and my ancestors that died fighting, died fighting for one thing:

      #1. Religion.

      Hell, I just want you to *die*.
      Good luck with that.

    207. Re:Good! by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Roughly, I picture it as something akin to having another mail server in a different state.
      It's redundant.
      For some reason, I've always had a strong urge to want to live a long time, and have my kids live a long time. Some people lack this feeling, which disturbs me. It does make me question whether some people just supress it, or if they just
      don't naturally have it.
      It's amazing how easy it is to get flamed for considering this idea.
      I wonder how the explorers in our history were able to surmount the pessimism of people.

      Anyway, it's not so much Mars/Venus/Moon. I mean, do you really thing we shouldn't try because it's hard?

    208. Re:Good! by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      your just jealous... Admit the truth!!

    209. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You do realize this slogan was coined by the state government in an anti-littering campaign, don't you?

      Sure, littering in any place is a bad thing, but a slogan discouraging it is certainly nothing to boast wildly about.

    210. Re:Good! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Find any place that does silk screen shirt printing. Seeing as how you work for lockheed, n the DC area, look in Fairfax City, Fairfax County, VA. (I think you have an office near there). Near the Ice Arena off of Picket Rd. in (with 100 yards, same side of the road.) If none of the guys are in the DC/ mVA/MD area, find one locally. Silk Screen printings are the best so make sure that is the kind they do. Setup costs a little bit, but if you order 20 shirts it should be less that $20 a shirt. I have had to had shirts made before, and they do good work. Add a picture to the back if you want, the printings are fairly detailed. Actually, check around with your secretaries/PR/HR people or whoever does company events/promotions. They might have needed to have had some made and will know where to get them from.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    211. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up Cunt

    212. Re:Good! by syukton · · Score: 1

      If the continental plates get larger over time, wouldn't that mean that the volume of the earth is ... increasing?

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    213. Re:Good! by InfoVore · · Score: 1

      I don't work for Lockheed, my friends do. We have a local t-shirt place we use occasionally to make club t-shirts.

      Thanks for the info though.

      I.V.

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    214. Re:Good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      "If I travel into a rural region and run into many people who have no college education, is it bigoted for me to conclude that people in this region are generally uneducated? I think not."

      Of course not. If, however, you concluded that those people were stupid, or not as worthwhile as you are, then you'd be a bigot.


      I won't get into whether or not people are "worthwhile", because that gets into some realms of philosophy and religion that I have no opinion on.

      But stupidity is a fair target, and I think it's a fair assumption that uneducated people (in a society such as ours where education is easy to acquire if one has the desire for it) are generally stupider than educated people, for several reasons. More-intelligent people see the value of education, but an education also helps people make less stupid decisions. A leader who has a vast knowledge of history will make less mistakes that have been made throughout history than one who knows nothing of history, for instance.

      How many college-educated people do you know who dropped out of high school, went to jail, got pregnant as a teenager, and/or live in a ghetto while spending all their money on drugs, for instance? How many college-educated people are there in the KKK? These things all go together. While educated people are certainly not immune to doing stupid things (I've done my share, I'm sure), they tend to do them a lot less than uneducated people.

      In my opinion (and that of many behavioral scientists), intelligence is largely influenced by one's environment, especially growing up. Stupid parents usually produce stupid kids, and it's not because of genetics; it's for the same reason that abusive parents produce abusive kids: it's a learned behavior. People who made good decisions throughout their lives probably learned to do so because they either watched their successful parents and decided following their path was better than living in a slum. There's a few exceptions, where a kid grows up with in a slum and decides he wants something better, but even there he had to see that there was a better way in order to choose that path. In short, being "not stupid" is a learned behavior in most cases.

      Anyway, my point is that there shouldn't be any surprise when someone thinks that people in an area where education is severely lacking exhibit a greater-than-average amount of stupidity. And since the South is definitely no leader in the area of amount of education per capita, the idea that people in the South are generally stupider should be self-evident. Why this seems to anger a lot of people is beyond me; somehow they seem to take this personally, rather than treating it as an observation of the region at large and realizing that all populations have exceptions.

    215. Re:Good! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Intelligence and education are on orthogonal axes. I'd even go so far as to speculate that ignorance is on yet another axis, although it does correlate somewhat with the other two.

      I happen to think that making broad generalizations about any body of humans anywhere for any purpose is misleading and (dare I say it?) ignorant. I have no idea what your educational or intellectual credentials might be, but I do know that based on this particular piece of information that I think your reasoning skills are on shaky ground.

      It's easy for you to say "all populations have exceptions". In my experience, people don't make that exception. They proceed from the assumption that "People in the South are teh dumb...". That assumption is ill-founded (by virtue of the fact that my personal experience contradicts it) and inaccurate (since it doesn't predict the behavior of any given Southerner with any fidelity).

      How does it improve your life to carry that assumption in your head? How is that bit of mental shorthand useful? It's a prejudice, and it's not a useful one. So why have it?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    216. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ohh yeah definetly #4, lots and lots of terrorism... LOTS right? right? right? facts?
      Maybe you were asleep when this happened?
  2. Date of impact by thewiz · · Score: 4, Funny

    My bet is it will hit Earth on April 13, 2029. After all, it's a Friday!
    I wonder if Jason http://www.fridaythe13thfilms.com/ will show up.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:Date of impact by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to worry. As I learned from the movie Armageddon, we can just sent a couple construction workers to the asteroid, plant a dynamite on the asteroid itself.... blow it up before it hits earth. They'll have no problem volunteering as long as they never have to pay taxes again.

    2. Re:Date of impact by BigFlirt · · Score: 1

      Or... As I plan on learning at the end of this month... I need to meet Mos Def and make sure he brings along his Sub-Etha Sens-o-matic and a couple of towels.

    3. Re:Date of impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Certainly shouldn't be hard to find people willing to blow things up in order to never pay taxes again.

    4. Re:Date of impact by ultramarweeni · · Score: 1

      As I learnt from the aforementioned motion picture, the biggest problem in that kind of a mission is to keep them from quarreling with each other.

    5. Re:Date of impact by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just put a Liv Tyler type girl on the trip and you will have the smartest - geekiest minds of our time volunteering for that trip - tax free or no tax free

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    6. Re:Date of impact by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the thing is... Jason is already IN SPACE. So they will be doomed. Doomed!!!

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    7. Re:Date of impact by baggins2002 · · Score: 1

      I think, bringing back the 8-track is kind of scary though.

  3. Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    in 2029, that is. By then it may be too late for effective counter-measures.

    Bull. 2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare. If the asteroid actually posed clear and present danger, then a crash program to build an interceptor could be accomplished. With apologies to Pournelle and Niven (warning, associates link), the catch-22 is that we would have to give up our fear of the Orion. Using standard building practices + what we know of advanced hydrogen bomb design, we could potentially launch an Orion within three years. The options would be to either send it on an unmanned kinetic-impact course with the asteroid, or to send a team ala "Armageddon" (or some other lame stop-the-asteroid movie) to manually plant and detonate the charges.

    If I'm reading the info correctly, the asteroid is a mere 46 gigatonnes. So as long as we get to it fast enough, there shouldn't be any difficulty in nudging it into a higher orbit. Of course, we may only be able to buy some time in the short term. Orbital mechanics is tricky, and not as simple as just "pushing" the asteroid out of the way. We may actually have to push it toward earth to slingshot it into a more acceptable trajectory.

    One way or another, we have the tech. It's just scary as all hell to behold, and in a crash program would almost certainly add a small amount to the nuclear pollution that already exists on our planet. But if it's a choice between three random deaths from cancer or millions dead from a massive impact, I think the choice is fairly clear. Especially when the former is theoretical and the later is firm.

    1. Re:Orion Project by Neopoleon · · Score: 1

      *2029*?

      And to think I got all excited when I read the title...

      --
      - Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
    2. Re:Orion Project by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bull. 2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare.

      You've never had any experience trying to get the government to actually do anything concrete, have you?

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    3. Re:Orion Project by taniwha · · Score: 1
      Why Orion? it's all new, untested technology. We're all engineers here - we know nothing works right the first time, especially not rocket science. Want a kinetic kill weapon up there in 3 years, you better start pushing stuff we know and understand into orbit right now.

      But you have 20 years - kinetic kill weapons are not that a good idea, little thing called the "law of conservation of momentum" you're not going to move a 64 gigatonne something much by hitting it with the sort of mass you can afford to lift off of earth (and even if it say weighed only 46 megatonnes), maybe you'll break it in a few bits you still have all those bits (I know you saw the movie, they broke it into 2 bits and they both went around the earth ... but jeez it was a movie OK, they made it up, chances of that actually happening are much smaller than that of the thing hitting earth in the first place).

      What you do need to do is shift it's orbit, you don't need a lot of mass or a big motor, just time - get started now, drop and iron drive and solar cells on the thing now and fire it up, maybe deliver some more mass in 5 years, carefully watch where it's going and eventually drop it into the sun or Jupiter

    4. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      higher orbit? why? use the gravity pull of the sun and plunge that sucker into the solar sphere.

      if we burn up this crap it wont come back to haunt us. unless it was filled with liquid helium and accelerated the sun's death so that it decided "OH Helium! cool! time to supernova!" then that might suck, but then we would be inside the inceneration point well before explosion so it all will work out in the end.

    5. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been consistently working on the Orion project since it's conception... And it's had plenty of ground tests.

      Apparently they've recently managed to solve the one major problem to it: graphite ablation.

    6. Re:Orion Project by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure we could build a giant nuke and send it up there, but why not instead build a giant pyramid with a laser to alter the orbit? Then it's reusable for the next asteroid.

      I mean isn't that the founding fathers were trying to tell us when they designed the $1 bill? Isn't that what Kirk and Miramonte(sp) did to save her planet? Maybe our eulogy will be, "they didn't learn from their historical records"; a berrylium sphere should be enough to power the laser.

    7. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Orion? it's all new, untested technology.

      Exactly, all we'd really need would be an ion engine, one of which has been successfully flown in interplanetary space during the NASA Deep Space 1 mission. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/ds 1.html You can either power it with electic or nuclear generators (small ones like on Navy subs). All of these involve far more mature technology than the Orion project, which has only flown on paper.

    8. Re:Orion Project by Pinkoir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've never had any experience trying to get the government to actually do anything concrete, have you?

      You want an example of the technological progress a government can make in 6 years? Compare a tank from 1939 with one from 1945 (or for a more extreme example, compare an atomic bomb from 1939 with one from 1945). The military technology used by the combatants in WW2 improved massivly over the 6 years of the war and this is while several of the countries were having the crap bombed out of them. When properly motivated by immediate national interest governments have an enormous capacity to get things going.

      And don't give me any of this "Space travel is really hard and expensive" crap either. Most of the cost of the space shuttle is tied up in our desire to have the astronauts return alive to the ground with little risk of anybody on the ground getting killed. Once you throw those restrictions away (which I'm pretty sure you could count on with ~10^9 lives at stake) it gets a lot less impossible to put a lot of nukes on an intercept course with enough fuel to slow down near the offending rock..

      I'm not saying it's a walk in the park but the major roadblocks will be technological not bureaucratic.

      -Pinkoir

    9. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nahh, look for this hot redhead called "leeloo" she will emit a wierd beam out of her facethat will stop it 100 miles up.

      wait a minute, why the hell was bruce willis in that one too? what is that guy up to?

    10. Re:Orion Project by stlhawkeye · · Score: 5, Funny
      We not only have the technology, it's hard to predict what our situation will be as 2030 approaches.

      We all could be gone by then.

      For all we know, the United States of Arabia, formed in 2013, will be the world's lone superpower, we will be driving around in our fuel efficient hydorgen-powered Sayyarrah Ansar 4-doors, created by the Sayyarrah Motor Co in response to rising fuel costs after the world's industrial nations burned through most of the cheaply-accessible Arabian oil, leaving the United States sitting on top of the largest intact oil reserves in the world, which it stubbornly refuses to share. The USA (the Arabian states, I mean) will work with the Brazilians space program and the Federal Chinese States (formed after the Chinese Civil War in 2018) to launch an "asteroid-killer" probe at this thing from the secondary pad at Artemis International Station in the north polar region of the moon.

      Or it'll just, like, Africa, or Canada, or some other place nobody cares about, and we'll just live with it. Or the environmentalists will protest that it likely contains spaceborne elementary life forms and that it's an immoral sin of human arrogance to attempt to save our species by eliminating theirs.

      Print this post out now and re-read it in 20 years, it'll be fun!

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    11. Re:Orion Project by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've never had any experience trying to get the government to actually do anything concrete, have you?

      The US did Mercury and Appollo in timeframes that short. And global catastrophe wasn't a motivator then.

    12. Re:Orion Project by uberdave · · Score: 1

      I think you might finally have found an application for orion technology. However, not to do a kinetic impact, or send up a demolition team. Use the orion to push the asteroid into a usable orbit.

    13. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Elections are in 2036.

      Let's all make sure we elect a new president in 2032 that will want to go up for re-election.

    14. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why Orion? it's all new, untested technology. We're all engineers here - we know nothing works right the first time, especially not rocket science.

      Because most of the groundwork has been done to death. There are engineers out there who could build an Orion in their sleep, partly because it's so damn simple.

      The other issue is that there simply isn't enough time to build some other super-booster. Both the Saturn V and the Energia are out of commission due to a lack of production facilities. In the case of the Orion, you'd be building something far simpler and more along the lines of a traditional building or ship hull.

      But you have 20 years

      You'd have 6 years, because scientists will be uncertain until 2029.

      kinetic kill weapons are not that a good idea, little thing called the "law of conservation of momentum" you're not going to move a 64 gigatonne something much by hitting it with the sort of mass you can afford to lift off of earth

      Well, on the small side we could build an Orion of about 3000 metric tonnes. On the large side, we could build one of about 8,000,000 metric tonnes. Maybe it's just me, but I think 8 million tons + a significant amount of relative velocity could make a difference. :)

      I agree with you though, it's something of wishful thinking to hit it with a kinetic kill. The most likely scenario would be to take up station near the asteroid and go through several iterations of planting and detonating hydrogen bombs. The idea won't be to break it up, but rather to provide propulsion. As such, the bombs would be detonated on or near the surface of the asteroid.

      What you do need to do is shift it's orbit, you don't need a lot of mass or a big motor, just time - get started now, drop and iron drive and solar cells on the thing now and fire it up, maybe deliver some more mass in 5 years, carefully watch where it's going and eventually drop it into the sun or Jupiter

      The only problem is that we don't have engines that can make a dent in 46 gigatons of mass. As you pointed out yourself, the law of conservation of momentum is going to have a lot to say about a constant 1/1000 lb of thrust against that much mass.

    15. Re:Orion Project by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WWII was fought over a 6 year timespan. That's with technology that consisted of vacuum tube electronics. And it was in a destructive manner...trying to destroy your opponent's means of production. Plastic, RADAR, laser, jet technology, atomic weapons... all developed in 6 years.

      Motivate the human race enough and its ridiculous what we can accomplish. We're 3 generations removed from 'total war' economy. An extinction level event would be sufficient motivation for us to see such economic focus once again.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    16. Re:Orion Project by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Orbital mechanics is tricky but it's very well known. In fact, there's only one equation: F=Gm1m2R/r^3
      Where R is a vector pointing (from the pov of one mass) towards the other mass. whose magnitude is the distance between the masses, m1 and m2 are the respective masses of the objects in question, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the magnitude of R. (F is a vector also, and in the same direction.)

      (ok there are a lot of equations you could use, but all you need is the force equation to numerically calculate any orbit to whatever precision you require - assuming you have good position and velocity data)

      Just wash, rinse and repeat for all bodies in the solar system. (or at least all bodies that are close/large enough to have significant interraction)

      why so set on Orion? We have already built NERVA engine. The orion concept has only been proved with small conventional explosives afaik.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      why so set on Orion? We have already built NERVA engine. The orion concept has only been proved with small conventional explosives afaik.

      One word: MASS

      There is simply no other superbooster that can lift thousands of tonnes from the bottom of the Earth's gravity well, all the way to the other end of the Solar System. And when you're talking about several tons of Uranium per hydrogen bomb, then the extra lifting power comes in handy.

    18. Re:Orion Project by taniwha · · Score: 1
      first a tonne is 1000kg so 4.6e10 kg is 46megatonnes

      and secondly how are you going to lift 8,000,000 tonnes into orbit .... at ~2tonnes a loft (using today's technologies) that's 4,000,000 launches, (if you use AP based boosters how much HCl does that put in the ozone layer? in the US this may be a theoretical issue but I live in NZ and have to worry about the ozone hole daily, sunscreen goes on here even on cloudy days)

    19. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are in the middle of an extinction-level event. It may feel slow to you, but on geological time scales it's bloody amazing what's happening around us right now.

      Where's the motivation to make it stop? If it means I can't drive my SUV, it's not happening. Oo -- and what about my fat stock portfolio -- You can't prove anything, la-la-la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

    20. Re:Orion Project by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      As NASA speaks to Congress:
      NASA: How many of you plan on living for the next six years.

      Congress: 95% of us do

      NASA: Well you won't

      Congress: ***UPROAR***

      NASA: Unless!!!! You give us money to divert this huge asteroid that is heading to our planet and will hit us in less then six years. So can we count on your twenty billion dollar donation

      Congress: Uhm yea.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    21. Re:Orion Project by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      The US did Mercury and Appollo in timeframes that short. And global catastrophe wasn't a motivator then.

      Are you so sure? You young 'uns forget this cold war thing. Remember what the Cuban missle crisis was like? It was feared that Nuclear war would lead to a global catastrophe unlike any that the RIAA could even imagine creating.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    22. Re:Orion Project by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare.

      That's what is known as "too late". At best, that'll give us one chance to do something right that we've never ever done before.

    23. Re:Orion Project by AntiTuX · · Score: 1

      Actually, the motivator then was the cold war.
      You remember the cold war, right? You know, the pesky russians?

    24. Re:Orion Project by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      The problem is more intractible than it looks. And your analysis of the analogy somewhat suspect.

      There can be quite an acceleration of engineering improvements once you have the prototype in place. In the asteroid case, you would have to be able to design & implement a vehicle capable of getting the asteriod with time to spare (like a year), with a probable additional requirement of humans being able to survive the trip. (I'm having a problem believing you'll find enough qualified personnel to go on a suicide mission. Don't look at me, I prefer to figure out a way to survive an asteriod impact.) Especially since you now are relying on a technology which has never been implemented in the manner you describe (nuclear pulse propulsion). Then you would need to be able to generate enough force to alter the trajectory of a heavenly body. Don't think a nuke is going to cut it. (See Armaggeddon.) Even shattering the asteroid is a technical event, since we yet have drilled a kilometer in a low-gravity vaccuum. I suspect it probably was easier to design a working a-bomb, since it was easier to do testing.

      But I agree its not inconceivable to pull off a sucessful trajectory altering mission. But is it within the ability of a single nation like the U.S.? (Hello martial law.) Or do you think the most difficult trick would be surviving the war to establish a world gov't, and to wrap it up quickly enough to start working on the engineering problems. (Don't even try to suggest this could be done by UN committee.)

      Nah, I think the bureaucratic roadblocks will be just as difficult as the engineering.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    25. Re:Orion Project by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Actually, Orion is tested. I've got video of an Orion prototype launching itself and flying to some considerable altitude.

      Mind, that was done with conventional explosives, not nukes, but nuclear explosives are hardly a neglected area of research.

      Not that I'd want the asteroid interceptor to be the first live trial, of course.

      --
      -- Alastair
    26. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      first a tonne is 1000kg so 4.6e10 kg is 46megatonnes

      You're right. I seem to have misplaced a few zeros. Blast it all, I should have used the Google calculator. Still, that means our nukes will have a much better punch. :)

      and secondly how are you going to lift 8,000,000 tonnes into orbit

      Didn't pay attention to the original post, did you? It's called the Orion Project, and it works by using dozens of nuclear explosives for propulsion. 8 megatonnes is based on a combination of the upper limit of our 1960's hydrogen bomb tech and building materials tech.

      at ~2tonnes a loft (using today's technologies) that's 4,000,000 launches

      Who needs rockets? We don't need no stinkin' rockets!!! We've got nukes to blast us into orbit! ;-)

    27. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or it'll just, like, Africa, or Canada, or some other place nobody cares about,


      You must be one of those fucking idiot americans that everyone hates so much.

    28. Re:Orion Project by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      Any environmentalists who protest the destruction/diversion of an earth-impacting asteroid should be launched into space, in the hopes that the impact of their frozen corpses will deflect the asteroid just enough to make it miss the planet.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    29. Re:Orion Project by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      Throw it into the sun? Are you nuts? Once we control the thing we should put it into Earth orbit.

      Granted, it's only 400M across, so I'm not sure how much raw materail could be pulled out of it, but it's big enough that we ought to be able to hollow it out and use it as a station.

      At a minimum, we could keep it in orbit to use as a giant fly swatter for the next time a big rock is about to slam into us.

    30. Re:Orion Project by trixillion · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out yourself, the law of conservation of momentum is going to have a lot to say about a constant 1/1000 lb of thrust against that much mass.

      I started a similar criticism based on running the actual numbers. I was suprised to find out that it is feasible to move the rock by the radius of the Earth using ion engines. Off the shelf engines will give you .2 Newtons today with 4,500 Watts of solar array. You would need about 100,000 of them to practially move the rock. But they are light weight and so is the propellant (even 20 years worth.) The whole swarm would weigh only 1000-10000 tonnes. Nothing a few hundred to few thousand rocket launches could get up there. Expensive as hell, but doable.

    31. Re:Orion Project by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      Well around 25 years ago there was a show called Space 1999. In that tv show they predicted that in 25 or so years people would be living on the moon. Most predictions made 20-30 years out generally are way too extreeme.

      Here is my prediction. We will all be driving cars much like we do today. There will still be conflict in the middle east. Technology will advance, but nobody will be living on the moon, nor will there be flying cars for normal people to own.

      Print this post out now an re-read it in 5 years, then 10 then 15, heck for your entire lifetime and it will still be accurate. Things move very slowly.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    32. Re:Orion Project by Pinkoir · · Score: 1

      The wars happen when the impact location is published and couple hundred million people decide to change area code.

      As for getting qualified personnel to sign up for suicide missions, I don't think it's as hard as you suggest. After all you are drawing from an extremely large pool of people with a significant motive for seeing the project successful (ie their families go poof if it doesn't come off). The added incentive of having your name lauded pretty much until the end of history if you get 'er done should not be underestimated. A lot of people with the qualifications needed will be technical people who I posit have a higher occurance of agnosticism/atheism than non-technical equivalents. For types like that posthumous rememberance is the only kind of immortality they can count on. Like many /.ers I have no dependants so if you said there was a 99.98% chance I'd die but that my family would get 10 million and a 10% take of the box-office gross I wouldn't kick you outside without thought.

      -Pinkoir

    33. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You would need about 100,000 of them to practially move the rock.

      And therein lies the problem. You're talking about launching and installing an ungodly number of engines on that rock, whereas a light load of nuclear warheads could do the same job quicker. When you've only got six years, you don't have time to send a small army of astronauts to go install the things. Not to mention that 100.000 engines would probably stress the surface area of the asteriod. It's only 12x4 km, and you want ALL of those facing the same direction.

      If you're going to take the ION route, it's a much better idea to simply build a bigger engine. Using either massive solar panels or a nuclear reactor, you could get far more thrust in a shorter period of time.

    34. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Several tons of Uranium per hydrogen bomb? No offence batman, but I don't think you exactly understand how those work.

      A critical mass of Uranium-235 is somewhere around 112lbs. If you had several tons of uraniumin one spot you'd have one very large uncontainable spontaneous reaction going on.

      H-bombs (also called thermonuclear bombs) don't typically use uranium. They use a smallish bit of Plutonium, perhaps a bit of deutrium or tritium to boost the initial fission reaction, and a material called lithium deuteride. Neutrons and heat created from the fission reaction cause spontaneous fusion of the lithium and deuterium atoms.

      They can use depleted uranium (u-238), this is part of the third stage of the bomb. Because of the heat of the fusion, the normally un-fissionable uranium can be fissioned to give the bomb an extra kick at the cost of making a normally relatively clean bomb much more radioactive.

      It's much more practical to scale the amount of lithium deuteride in the bomb (which is only limited to the vehicle carrying it, and it's much lighter than uranium, obviously), because once the fusion has started it keeps going till there's no more fuel.

    35. Re:Orion Project by fmobus · · Score: 1

      How do you expect to reduce it's speed to orbital velocity without tearing it apart?

    36. Re:Orion Project by MrWim · · Score: 1

      And why are people afraid of Orion? Beacuse just one launch would kill many people and release huge amounts of radiation, not a good thing, especially considering there are alternatives and that there would have to be significantly more than one launch to get it right. It is a rediculous idea and you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.

    37. Re:Orion Project by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1
      The wars happen when the impact location is published and couple hundred million people decide to change area code.

      Actually, I seriously doubt that. With six years of time, I could see the world working to relocate all that people before the event. Unless its 296 million people in North America we're talking about...

      The added incentive of having your name lauded pretty much until the end of history if you get 'er done should not be underestimated.

      It shouldn't be overestimated either. It wouldn't be to the end of history. It would be to the end of its significance, basically a few centuries after man has left this star system. Hell, can you remember the names of the soldiers in the Charge of Light Brigade? How about the names of the 101st's KIAs at Bastogne? Names of the people who died while working on the Manhattan project?

      A lot of people with the qualifications needed will be technical people who I posit have a higher occurance of agnosticism/atheism than non-technical equivalents. For types like that posthumous rememberance is the only kind of immortality they can count on.

      Atheism/agnosticism is not the dominant philosophy among technical people. I'd argue its not even a significantly higher percentage (over 15% difference from the mean). Also, being an A/A does not mean you're stupid enough to value an extension in the conceptual knowledge of your existence. And how would you weed out the competent depressed suicidal people from the ones that could lose it at the wrong point? To me, the answer would be to recruit from the family types. But try $50 mil (EURO)/family.

      99.98% chance I'd die

      No, try 100% probability of dying. No return vehicle, not enough oxygen/food/water.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    38. Re:Orion Project by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      yeah and then wait 10 years for the ion drive to reach the asteriod and then another 30 years for it to change the course of the asteriod enough for it to not kill us... yeah sure...

    39. Re:Orion Project by taniwha · · Score: 1
      so you will be letting a whole bunch of these nukes off in the atmosphere? remember orion is different from some of the closed reactor propulsion systems that might work safely in the atmosphere ... it involves basically a bunch of atmospheric nuke tests up through the jetstream .... these are perfectly clean bombs? it's different if you do this far enough from earth that the fallout doesn't fall back into the atmosphere (remember it doesn't 'burn up' on reentry, just gets hotter and more diffuse) but you still have to get your 8Megatonnes of mass up there

      Oh and if you're using a nerva/timberwolf/whatever nuclear solution for launch please if it really is so wonderfully safe next time propose that you test it over the US rather than (as you did last time) propose to fly it over the southern hemisphere countries

    40. Re:Orion Project by trixillion · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not going to defend the ion swarm method as the most efficient; I lack the information to hold an informed opinion on the subject. However You could put millions of ion engines on the same surface and not stress the rock - we are talking about tiny amounts of force. Incidentally, you need aproximately 100k engines because you cannot put them all on the same face; the rock is spinning after all; so to maintain a force vector you need to cover the surface. You need the simultaneous force of only 10-15k of them. I don't see how you can avoid some form of swarm.

      One giant engine would have to be assembled in space. Heck, even 10 giant engines would have to be assembled in space. Why put all your eggs in a few baskets. Massive redundancy would be the way to go. That way if some fail or misfire over 20 year life time, we still live.

      Also, gravity will take care of attachment. All you have to do is provide the ion gnats with the ability to land at random locations on the surface and the ability to right themselves. Designated locations would be of marginal utility so why bother.

      Even if the rock isn't going to hit us, I think it might be a good idea to swarm it with ions drives. They would give you very fine control (if very slow) of the rocks orbit. The value of 50 gigatonnes of material parked in L4 or L5 cannot be overstated, even if it took a century or two to get it there.

    41. Re:Orion Project by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only the first nuke poses any meaningful fallout danger, and it's easy to design a bomb to minimize that (especially if there's not much metal at the lunch site). Plus, if we're launching a rocket using 2000 multi-megaton nukes, we can launch it from any place in the world that doesn't have 2000 multi-megaton nukes. ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    42. Re:Orion Project by lgw · · Score: 1

      BTW, you just need a warhead with a cratering radius of greater than 200m in the material the asteriod is made of. We can build bigger nukes than that, I think. The asteroid stops being a threat once it's vapor.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, some people care about Africa, you insensitive clod!

    44. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I know that Holly wood producers _DO_ get their ideas from Slashdot ...

    45. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      so you will be letting a whole bunch of these nukes off in the atmosphere?

      To save a few million lives, hell yeah.

      these are perfectly clean bombs?

      Nope. Hydrogen bombs used for this would be generally cleaner, but the guesstimates stated that about 3 people would get cancer after every launch.

      Wait, didn't I cover this in my original post? Oh yes, I did.

    46. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a rediculous idea and you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.

      Look who's talking. Mod parent down.

    47. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare. If the asteroid actually posed clear and present danger, then a crash program to build an interceptor could be accomplished.

      Slight correction: a crash program to build an interceptor could be accomplished if we have the resources that are available today.

      I know it's cliched to make dire predictions about terrorists, but what if they nuked NASA? Or what if they managed to cause a stock market crash, or something equally disastrous to industry? What if there's a recession? What if there's a world war?

      There are too many unknowns to simply assume that we'll have both the technology and the engineering capability to build rockets like we can today. Haven't NASA already lost the plans to some vital components that were used to go to the moon?

      The correct thing to do would be to build everything necessary to complete such a mission today, and then stick it all in heavily-guarded storage. Right now the planet has no insurance.

    48. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You could put millions of ion engines on the same surface and not stress the rock

      I wasn't referring to the structural space, I was referring to the available surface area. i.e. 100,000 operating engines most likely wouldn't fit in the area you'd need to target.

      One giant engine would have to be assembled in space. Heck, even 10 giant engines would have to be assembled in space.

      Who said they'd have to be giant? My understanding of ION engines is that they're limited by power availablility, not size. With the proper power source you could probably get 20 newtons out of something not much bigger than today's ION engines.

      BTW, you'd still need to get the engines there. Which means that someone in a really powerful ship is going to need to get out there and install them. Which probably still means an Orion launch. (At least if you want to do it in 6yrs time.)

      The value of 50 gigatonnes of material parked in L4 or L5 cannot be overstated, even if it took a century or two to get it there.

      Actually, it's 46 megatonnes. I screwed up the numbers. That's what I get for being in a hurry. As for its value, you'd have to do a composition check on it. If it's the same composition as our moon (likely), then what real value is it?

    49. Re:Orion Project by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      So we lose a large island and some people get cancer ... better than losing a medium continent.

    50. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Several tons of Uranium per hydrogen bomb?

      I was about to say you're right and I screwed up, but then I remembered what I was talking about: The depleted uranium shell used for the containment of the implosion detonation. Specifically, I was thinking of the following incident:

      November 10, 1950 - A B-50 returning one of several US Mark IV bombs secretly deployed in Canada had engine trouble and jettisoned the weapon at 10,500 feet (3,200 m). The bomb, carrying the depleted uranium tamper but not its plutonium core ("pit"), was set to self-destruct at 2500' (750 m) and dropped over the St. Lawrence River off Rivière du Loup, Quebec. The explosion shook area residents and scattered nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) of uranium.[6]

      The bomb weighed about 10,800 pounds. More Info

      Of course, my intial statement was misleading so I apologize for that. Just to make sure I got my facts straight, I looked up the weight of the largest nuclear bomb ever designed, the Tsar Bomba. It weighed in at about 27 tonnes. To send that anywhere but LEO, you would need a classical superbooster such as the Saturn V or Energia. We don't have any of those left, and it would provide only one detonation anyway. (Although at 50 megatonnes, it should have little trouble moving or even pulverizing the 46 megatonne rock.)

    51. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless you happen to be one of those people who get cancer...

    52. Re:Orion Project by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      unless you happen to be one of the people on that continent...

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    53. Re:Orion Project by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      slowly....very very slowly.

      Off the top of my head, I'd say that we could do the job by strapping the worlds largest ion engine to it and then adjusting its orbit over the course of many many years.

      Yeah I know that the thing weighs a lot and that ion engines produce only fractions of a G, but once we know precisely where the thing is and what direction it's going we can do the math and figure out where to point the engine.

    54. Re:Orion Project by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

      I have seen pictures of contrails where the contrail is made up of dot shaped clouds rather than the line contrail that jet engines generate. Supposedly these contrails were generated by secret US Air Force pulse drive aircraft. After reading the Wikipedia on the Orion project, it sounds to me like a pulse drive aircraft engine might be a design similar to the Orion except obviously not using nukes. A quick google didn't turn up much more. Anybody have ideas about whether this is plausible?

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    55. Re:Orion Project by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      Another WWII era tech that seems particularly relevant to this discussion: rocketry!

    56. Re:Orion Project by Pinkoir · · Score: 1

      With six years of time, I could see the world working to relocate all that people before the event

      I'm confused. In your earlier post you doubted the ability of governments to effectively coordinate a technical response to the meteor threat but now you seem confident that they could get together to relocate the 250 or so million refugees? You honestly think that that's easier?

      It wouldn't be to the end of history. It would be to the end of its significance, basically a few centuries after man has left this star system.

      That's a good number of centuries more than the vast majority of us can expect. I may not remember the names of the soldiers of the Light Brigade but I do remember Lord Cardigan, I don't know all the names of the fallen of Bastogne but I do remember that General McAuliffe said "Nuts!", I don't know about the poor saps who died of radiation poisoning making the first A-Bombs but I do remember that Oppenheimer was in charge and while nobody will remember the thousands of engineers, scientists and technicians who work on the anti-asteroid program they sure as hell will remember the names of the people on the ship.

      Also, being an A/A does not mean you're stupid enough to value an extension in the conceptual knowledge of your existence. And how would you weed out the competent depressed suicidal people from the ones that could lose it at the wrong point?

      Everybody has their own philosophy I guess; I think that the conceptual knowledge others have of my existence is pretty much the only real thing about me. Anyway, what about altruism? There's a hundred thousand American troops sitting in a foreign desert right now willing to risk their lives for their odd idea of freedom and a couple thousand guys lined up against them who are perfectly willing to die for their cause. I'd say that the continued existance of our civilization is an idea that a lot of people would be willing to back up with their lives. Hell, think of the Tommies, Anzacs and Canadians going over the top at 3rd Ypres. After two months of the worst hell imaginable they all knew what it meant but they went over anyways and for no more than a sense of duty to their Empire and their comrades. The bare bones fact is that people of our species are willing to die for a cause.

      And how would you weed out the competent depressed suicidal people from the ones that could lose it at the wrong point? To me, the answer would be to recruit from the family types. But try $50 mil (EURO)/family.

      Done, 500 million would be a pretty small part of the overall bill. You might be right about the family thing but that's why they have psychologists.

      No, try 100% probability of dying. No return vehicle, not enough oxygen/food/water.

      Works for me. Everybody dies, is there a better way of doing it than helping to save your entire civilization? And don't give me some crap about doing it in bed at 100 since the whole point of this is that if nobody goes then the odds of that happening become substantially reduced.

      I guess they could send robots or something...that would be an interesting bit of risk assessment, whether it's better to save mass and send robots which might fail or lift up a bunch of meat-sacs with their lifesupport systems an hope they'll do a better job. I bet in the event of this ever coming to pass they run parallel development streams since that's not the kind of call you want to be wrong about.

      -Pinkoir

    57. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to sound lame or anything, but this is some pretty cool stuff we're talking about. Just a measly 1 or 2 hundred years ago a conversation like this would seem ridiculous. To actually manipulate a giant ass rock to avoid killing us all is pretty amazing I think.

    58. Re:Orion Project by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      first a tonne is 1000kg

      Gawd, I was sitting there parsing it as 1024kg, it's time to go home.

      YLFI
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    59. Re:Orion Project by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      And don't give me any of this "Space travel is really hard and expensive" crap either. Most of the cost of the space shuttle is tied up in our desire to have the astronauts return alive to the ground with little risk of anybody on the ground getting killed.

      Close but not quite. Most of the costs wrapped up in current manned travel is in the insistence on a bloated and wasteful "resuable laucnh vehicle" strategy. "Disposable" launch craft have a far better safety record than the Shuttle's abysmal track record and for a lot less money.

      The major roadblocks however would still be bureaucratic. Nation vs nation level stuff. The US could foot the bill, take the risk, and go it alone in order to ensure it gets done and still get politically lambasted over it.

      We'd hear about how we first knew of this threat under Bush the Second's watch and he/we did nothing about it, how it was all for oil and about Americon Imperialism and space hegemony, and how the "War on Terrorism" was really just a big coverup for the eventual asteroid strike, etceteras, etceteras, etceteras.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    60. Re:Orion Project by Firehawk · · Score: 1
      No, try 100% probability of dying. No return vehicle, not enough oxygen/food/water.


      Even with a 100% probability of dying on a one-way trip for a reasonable chance of saving many millions of lives, I for one am pretty sure there would be thousands lining up to volunteer.

      If I felt there was at least a 20% chance the trip I was on would succeed (in deflecting the asteroid or blowing it up or whatever) I'd take those odds. Tell me the odds of success are less than 1% and I'll prefer to let someone else go...
    61. Re:Orion Project by taniwha · · Score: 1

      well then choose one of your islands rather than one of ours ... or start early, use an ion drive and save everyone

    62. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orion is simple the same way a rocket is simple (the conservation of momentum way) but will also be complicated in wholly new ways. Trying accuratly use nukes for propulsion will be something quite removed from trying to contain some burning hydrogen and oxygen.

      The Orion project in the past was killed by one of its own leaders. The guy worked with the UN to have nuclear detonations outlawed in earth's atmosphere, sea and in space -> exit Orion. He he, the irony :) Launching one of these things is a pretty unhealthy affair, although granted not as unhealthy as being stuck by an astroid.

      Frankly I think your believe in the propellor heads is a bit naive.

    63. Re:Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Pulse jets are completely different from Nuclear Pulse drives. I suggest you look them up on Wikipedia for more info.

      FWIW, all the information I have says that the Aurora either never existed or doesn't exist anymore. If I were you, I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

    64. Re:Orion Project by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      Well around 25 years ago there was a show called Space 1999. In that tv show they predicted that in 25 or so years people would be living on the moon. Most predictions made 20-30 years out generally are way too extreeme.

      I mostly agree, but there's always exceptions. Read any computer predictions from the days before the transistor. Nobody saw that coming. So basic a piece of technology caused a revolution that changed the face of computing within 20-40 years, and changed it radically.

      One hundred years ago (or so), it was believed to be an impossibility of physics for man to go to the moon. It happened in 1969. Not 20-30 years, granted, but still.

      Revolutionary science materializes within 20-30 years, but it rarely sees application for another 10-20. There's also practical considerations. We have and have had the technology for flying "cars" for a long time. What we don't have is a financial or social impetus to switch to them.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    65. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're right, about the mark iv bomb, but you're wrong in the fact that it's simply an implosion type fission weapon, with a yield of 20kt. It's the same thing we dropped on Nagasaki. Very big, very clumbsy, pretty heavy, and for a nuclear weapon, relatively low yield. Contrast that with a device that was made about 10 years later: the W-31. Weight 900-1000lbs. Yield: 1-40kt, depending on the build..

      We have in our stockpile weapons that weigh as little as 2800lbs that can do 5 megatons. We certianly don't need a saturn V to loft those.

    66. Re:Orion Project by dosboss · · Score: 1

      You've never had any experience trying to get the government to actually do anything concrete, have you?

      You don't get it. Even though Presedent Kenedy was very popular in government circles (Senators, Reps, et al), even he did not have the muscle (or 'political capital' if you like) to get the space program to the moon. Only by motivating the public, 'the mob' to use the ancient Roman term, into a frenzy of thinking of that single goal as a nation was he able to finally get it started - and continued after his death. Sure there's the symapathy factor for the continuation argument, but still that effort took millions of man-hours and billions of dollars - and in all that time and money did anyone screach at the top of thier lungs that the money and effort should go elsewhere?

      My argument boils down to this: it is not the government trying to do it, but the popular oppinion forcing the government to do it.

    67. Re:Orion Project by kamileon · · Score: 1

      leaving the United States sitting on top of the largest intact oil reserves in the world

      Funny you should say that, since China is the one sitting on top of oil reserves. They don't have the infrastructure in place to process it, but it's there. I get the impression that they are patiently waiting until there's a serious oil crisis, and the rest of the world crumbles, and THEN they'll tap their reserves, and be the only game in town.

      --
      To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
    68. Re:Orion Project by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      You must be one of those fucking idiot americans that everyone hates so much.

      You must be one of those humorless clods that everybody hates so much. What you read was irony, genius.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    69. Re:Orion Project by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      First of all we're not gonna be sure till we have 6 years left and I doubt anyone would launch a mission given the low projected odds as fo right now. Either way, ion drives will do jack shit as the problem is getting the requires mass into orbit (thus the need for an island). Once it's there Orion engines no longer produce much pollution (at Earth).

      We've already exploded so many surface nukes it's not even funny, and it's probably not that hard to get a few islands. I'm sure you'd be changing your tune very quickly if the rock was going to hit your country but then again people are selfish by nature.

      On that note, how about we use one of those fuckin islands which are going to be destroyed by the asterodi anyway ... eiehter way they're gone so we might as well use them for something. I doubt the people would mind too much either, as most would have evacuated anyway (seeing as a giant rock was going to fall on their heads).

    70. Re:Orion Project by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      Actually, 46 megatonnes of dust will have just as bad an impact on earth as a 46 megatonne rock. It's just that instead of the rock punching through the atmosphere and hitting earth, the dust will cook the atmosphere, and roast our air.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    71. Re:Orion Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much ado about nothing.Such yellow journalism is common for last few years.Which responsible scientist wil predict asteroid motion on such advance?

  4. yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's it. I'm moving. This neighborhood is really starting to suck.

  5. Bummer by pfizzle · · Score: 2, Funny

    So...let's party like it's 1999?

  6. *cue music* by blew_fantom · · Score: 5, Funny

    ~~Don't wanna close my eyes. Don't wanna fall asleep. 'Cause I'd miss you, baby. And I don't wanna miss a thing. Cause even when I dream of you The sweetest dream would never do. I'd still miss you, baby. And I don't wanna miss a thing~~~

    1. Re:*cue music* by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      If we're lucky they'll take all existing copies of that movie and place them in a big pile at ground zero, so that at least some good will come of this.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    2. Re:*cue music* by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, when does the music begin? I like music!

    3. Re:*cue music* by gijoel · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking of TISM's Greg the stop sign. Some day a comet going to wipe out all trace of Man... I'm banking on it happening before my end of year exams... A rich kid becomes a junkie... a poor kid an advertiser... what a tragic waste of potential.... Being a junkie's not too good either

  7. oohh shit... by charon_1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    **puts on tin foil hat**

    1. Re:oohh shit... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      That won't protect you.

      However, for $699 per head, we can protect you.

      Sincerely,

      Darl Mcbride.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:oohh shit... by TrippTDF · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd like to know what a piece of tin foil is going to do against a meteor impact.

  8. 2037... by athakur999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll be 59 in 2037 which is when I can start withdrawing from some of my retirement accounts.

    I guess I should go ahead and blow my money on a car or something instead since how big my 401k is isn't gonna matter when the monkeys take over the Earth.

    --
    "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    1. Re:2037... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'll be 59 in 2037 which is when I can start withdrawing from some of my retirement accounts.

      You are forgetting that we should get cure for aging in 20 years. So you might be 59, but you could look and feel like 20-30-year old. Retirement accounts are propably cancelled and people have to work their whole lives, unless they collect enough money to be without work for few decates.

    2. Re:2037... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > isn't gonna matter when the monkeys take over the Earth.

      They prefer to be called "Intelligent Simians". HTH.

    3. Re:2037... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Cure" for aging? Insightful?

      WARNING! WARNING! Moderators on crack. WARNING! WARNING!

    4. Re:2037... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1



      Well, you'll look like a 20-30 year old, but you'll have the senile mind of a 59+ year old.

      By the time you've reached 200 years old, you'll have forgotten just about everything that has happened to you earlier in life.

    5. Re:2037... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      The Congress is waaaaaay ahead of you on this sort of plan. They're arranging to have you blow all your retirement money on the stock market. Enjoy!

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    6. Re:2037... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have a few, only we give them mundane names like, "dentistry," "vaccination," "antibiotics," and, "nutrition."

      Even compensating for the mild skewing effect that cosmetic surgery has, overall, a 40 year old person in a civilised country today looks a hell of a lot younger than a 40 year old person in the same country would, say, two or so centuries ago.

    7. Re:2037... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Dude, no one's gonna make you put money in the stock market. (I'm tired of that myth.) Put it in bonds, or even US Treasuries. You'll still double your return over Social Security. Anyway, the stock market is the best known investment vehicle if you keep your money in it for at least 30 years.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:2037... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't gonna matter when the monkeys take over the Earth.

      In this world gone mad you won't spank the monkey... the monkey will spank you!

      - Jay

    9. Re:2037... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1
      I was only half-joking, but since you've raised the points, let's address your subscription to the talking points of the Republican Echo Chamber:
      • Dude, yes, you are being "made" to put it into the stock market by the very temptation. You spoke about bonds and Treasuries, but sure as shit, the VAST MAJORITY of these funds will be plopped into the stock market by Joe Average as he seeks to regain the dotcom glories. Quit kidding yourself.
      • Dude, your Social Security funds are NOW put into US Treasuries. What's the fucking difference? This method has been used since the Carter years in order to make the US Federal budget appear smaller than it actually is.
      If you really cared about privatizing everyone's SS funds, then surely you realize that the most private place for anyone's SS funds is their own pocket, right? So I can accept a 0-percent return (arguably, a better return than the negatives that have been recently endured in many stocks) on my money? After all, a guaranteed 0 percent return is as valid a choice as a CHANCE of higher returns in securities.

      And while I speak of privatization, you DO realize that the Federal government will have to go on a borrowing binge to make up for the lost SS income, right? This has been publicly stated many times. Where do you think that these funds will have to ultimately made good from? Yes, that's right: YOUR TAXES. So, to be clear, you are advocating that the government "give" you your SS funds back so you can play with the securities market (which the elite benefit the most from), and meanwhile, you'd better make a damned good return since your future taxes are going to skyrocket.
      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    10. Re:2037... by lgw · · Score: 1

      talking points of the Republican Echo Chamber

      I'm glad you didn't say "conservative" echo chamber! One of us is arguing for (potentially risky) progress, the other is resisting change. Let's try thinking about this instead of echoing talking points. ;)

      you are being "made" to put it into the stock market by the very temptation

      Arguments about individual responsibility and nanny-states aside, we agree it would be stupid to let the individual put money into individual stocks or even sectors. That's not the plan, however. Long term, stocks do quite nicely.

      your Social Security funds are NOW put into US Treasuries. What's the fucking difference?

      LOL, if only. The government steals all the Social Security funds for the pork-of-the-week, leving the taxpayer with a crap return. It's particularly bad because the payout is determined by vote, and can be raised or lowered depending on the political season (which is damn scary either way).

      If my money were actually in treasuries, I'd get at least double the return, and the money would be mine, not subject to the particular corruption inherent in democracy.

      So I can accept a 0-percent return (arguably, a better return than the negatives that have been recently endured in many stocks

      Clearly, privatizing SS would be a problem if people could invest in tech stocks. For that matter, the (financially) conservative approach is to be mostly in bonds by 10 years from retirement, and that would be a good rule for the system. You do realize that stocks have more than doubled in the past 10 years, despite the recent woes?

      you DO realize that the Federal government will have to go on a borrowing binge to make up for the lost SS income,

      Indeed, borrow or actually raise taxes (both I expect). But we're talking about a transition period. If youth entering the workforce today were in the "privatized" (odd term for a government program) system, there would be no need for pay-as-you-go Social Security 40 yeras from now, beyond 1% or so taxes for the disability and minimal life insurance program. Over the next 40 years the taxes would shift from one to the other.

      so you can play with the securities market (which the elite benefit the most from),

      Here is where you miss the ENTIRE POINT. Today the "elite" benefit from stocks (about 50% of Americans benefit, but anyway). The whole point of this program is to extend the benefits of wealth to everyone. You don't have to earn a high income to become wealthy, you just have to use some of your money as capital. Anyone can do it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:2037... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you didn't say "conservative" echo chamber!

      That's because I'm not talking about real conservatives. I'm talking about a class of established elite, currently dominated by the Neo-Conservatives ... which we could also call "warhawk Republicans". I must also place such blame upon the Neo-Liberals, who are as selfishly elitist as the other group. You might think of these as extremists who have hijacked both major parties.

      I'd like to meet an old-style Republican -- a real "conservative" who respects the US Constitution and overall fiscal conservatism. But those people have disappeared, having drowned in a wave of a new class of hypergreedy people. The Neo-Libs whetted their appetites for public money over the 1990s, riding the faux wealth of stock inflation, credit expansion, and outright accounting fraud. In comparison, the Neo-Cons are now enjoying a little war economy, which is their sick little hook into the public treasury.

      One of us is arguing for (potentially risky) progress, the other is resisting change.

      That's a nice Orwell you just pulled. I feel like I'm watching O'Reilly.

      I don't want my wealth poured into a loser. Retirement funds (and furthermore, the entire philosophy of the Social Security system) are SUPPOSED to be invested in the most stable investments that can be found. This implicitly MUST exclude stocks. But people nowadays are going completely stupid with the stock market, and cannot form a logical and reasoned thought about such finances since they are being short-circuited by hypergreed.

      The stock market is highly overpriced. It must crash. Despite the overall performance of the corporations represented in it, people continue to believe that you can go from highly overpriced to even more highly overpriced. It reminds me of that other, irrational bubble: the housing market. These prices cannot be sustained since the underlying economic activity doesn't have the energy to support it.

      At any rate, I'm perfect accepting of change in the Social Security system. Just give me my fucking money back. I know the perfect investment for myself, and that's MY POCKET. But that's not the intent of the current proposals for "change". The current proposals are all aimed at dumping even MORE retirement (i.e. long-term stable) money into the stock (i.e. short-term unstable) market to continue the process of "reflation" -- since reflation is the first thing people do when their outrageously overpriced assets start crashing.

      It's all crookery. It's corrupt from top to bottom.

      I said: your Social Security funds are NOW put into US Treasuries.

      You said: The government steals all the Social Security funds for the pork-of-the-week, leving the taxpayer with a crap return.

      Since the Carter Administration inclusive, SS funds have been put into US Treasuries. This is a fact. Go look it up.

      You could argue that t-bills are the most stable investments for such a program. I partially agree. However, I opposed having the government do that since it is a clear conflict of interest. This is so since that yearly t-bill sale merely provides the US Congress with more income than it otherwise would have morally. And THAT is where your "pork-of-the-week" comes into the picture.

      So, why isn't the ROI on t-bills reflected in SS payouts?

      Well, the US Congress has been actually taking some of those t-bills and replacing them with IOUs, and then are selling them for even more Congressional income. Sure, in that case, it could be that the ROI suffers. But the problem is NOT the investment of SS into t-bills. The problem is that the US Congress is stealing the funds while the American public watches "American Idol" slack-jawed in their easy chairs. The problem is that the American Federal government is completely out of contr

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    12. Re:2037... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      I'll be 60. It looks like I'll be able to turn our family's hobby -- raising and riding horses -- into my retirement income, after the fall of civilization.

      Looks like the next 20 years would be a good time to stock up on saddles, tack, and horse meds.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  9. Let's make an Ark B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've got a list of politicians and patent lawyers all ready and waiting for it.

    The only problem is, I'm not sure whether we should be on it or they.

    1. Re:Let's make an Ark B by ericdano · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hope it hits LA, we could whip out the RIAA and MPAA in one hit!

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    2. Re:Let's make an Ark B by flewp · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can just see it... the MPAA will try to sue the asteroid for violating Deep Impacts copyright.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    3. Re:Let's make an Ark B by William-Ely · · Score: 1

      I was going to say Paris Hilton's house but that works too.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:Let's make an Ark B by millennial · · Score: 1

      Come on, man... the MPAA would win either way.
      Scenario 1: Earth is hit by asteroid.
      Result: MPAA sues asteroid for copyright violation for Deep Impact.
      Scenario 2: Earth is saved by the actions of a brave, ragtag group of astronauts. One or more of them may die.
      Result: MPAA sues every government that contributed an astronaut for copyright violation for Armageddon.
      It seems like a 'win-win' outcome for those guys...

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    5. Re:Let's make an Ark B by Tedium+Unleased · · Score: 1

      If there's precious metals or gems in the asteroid, there might actually be something to sue for!

    6. Re:Let's make an Ark B by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Come on. What are the odds of L.A. still being around in 2035?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:Let's make an Ark B by ericdano · · Score: 1

      With Jack Bauer of CTU running things, very good.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
  10. Other effects by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I wonder if anyone's thought about the effects if the asteroid doesn't directly strike earth. Could it cut a swath through the geosynchronous satellites, destroying one, two or dozens directly? Might it perturb their orbits enough to destabilize the whole lot of them?

    I wonder how close it would have to come to have an effect like that, and what those probabilities would be like?

    As it is, I'm not losing sleep over a %0.042 chance that this puppy will shorten my retirement.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Other effects by myukew · · Score: 1

      I guess the probability of it hitting the earth and missing it by 150km are about the same

    2. Re:Other effects by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I wonder how close it would have to come to have an effect like that

      Well, I gather it would be 22,300 miles away...

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Other effects by Cymage · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't have to imagine a Near miss scenario.

    4. Re:Other effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may tear the atmosphere off. Then we are faced with an oxygen shortage, solar radiation, etc. It looks like extinction, no doubt. What is Geo. Bush planning?

    5. Re:Other effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could it cut a swath through the geosynchronous satellites, destroying one, two or dozens directly?

      Could it hit one or two? Sure. The odds are close to zero, but not exactly zero. Dozens? No way. I'm not sure it it's possible for it to hit two.

    6. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."

      As a geek, you ought to be ashamed that you even suggested that a tiny little rock would take out dozens of satellites. I can see how an English major or a Journalist could make that mistake, but you are on SLASHDOT here, and you should know some basic things about the space and how big it is.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:Other effects by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      I think it is pretty unlikely that an asteroid that will not pass closer then the moon would screw up the satellite networks. I imagine that the moon itself does more to disrupt them.

      (I'm assuming that you are talking about the gravity of the object pulling the satellites off course.)

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Other effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but you are on SLASHDOT here, and you should know some basic things about the space and how big it is.

      You must be new here...

      (Sorry... It had to be written...)

    9. Re:Other effects by mikael · · Score: 1

      Back in the early days of long range missile defence programs, the full moon rising over the horizon was known to create a false signal, as the radar systems were powerful enough to send and receive a signal reflected off the moon.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Other effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      How is "0.1 lunar distance" not closer than the moon?

    11. Re:Other effects by maotx · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know about you but with these numbers from NASA I'm getting ready to move to Mars.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    12. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Not new here, just damn disgusted at the silliness I see. I was the only person laughing my ass off in the theater when Bruce Willis had to crack an asteroid the SIZE OF TEXAS. It's frightening that nobody but me realized how stupid that was.

      Quick question: What's got more empty space between particles by proportion; YOU or the SOLAR SYSTEM?

      Quick Answer: You. Scale up your particles to the size of planets, and there's more space between then than between the planets of our solar system.

      That's the kind of thing that people should just KNOW.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    13. Re:Other effects by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it's only going to intersect the proper altitude at two points, right? Remember that geosynchronous satellites occupy a very narrow band over the equator. The asteroid may not intersect that plane at all. Even if it did, it'd be unlikely to hit anything.

      I'm not sure what standard spacing is out there, but I'm sure it's at least a few hundred km. The chance of a 1 km object hitting one of these widely spaced, small objects is not great.

      As for perturbation, I'm sure it's negligible. Even if it wasn't, the satellites should have sufficient station keeping ability to stay put.

    14. Re:Other effects by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      As it is, I'm not losing sleep over a %0.042 chance that this puppy will shorten my retirement

      So you think that a roughly 1-in-5000 chance is not too big of a concern? You clearly don't have any training in Risk Assessment

      .
      -shpoffo

    15. Re:Other effects by stlhawkeye · · Score: 3, Informative
      I wonder if anyone's thought about the effects if the asteroid doesn't directly strike earth. Could it cut a swath through the geosynchronous satellites, destroying one, two or dozens directly? Might it perturb their orbits enough to destabilize the whole lot of them?

      That's a lot of space. Geosynch orbit is 22,000 miles. Tack on 4,000 miles for the earth's radius, and it's a shell of space with a surface area of 8.5 billion square miles. Let's pretend we've got 50,000 satellites in that area by 2030. That means 1 sallite per 170,000 square miles. That suggests one satellite occupying a square of space 500 miles x 500 miles, and this thing is under a half mile across, probably less than a quarter-mile. The chances of it impacting anything in that orbit is incredibly tiny.

      Caveat: my math may be off, but the point stands. This object occupies a TINY region of space, and satellits occupy an even TINIER region of space. There's no cloud of buzzing satellites around the planet, they're sparsely populating a huge shell around the planet.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    16. Re:Other effects by Metapsyborg · · Score: 1

      Oh, thank God! So you're saying I can still watch DirectTV during this right?

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
    17. Re:Other effects by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Its a lot less likely than 0.042%. More like 0.015%. Yet, this is really troubling to me. Its not such a remote possibility at those odds. I'd still side with the house if the loss was only money, but... Or to look at it another way, you're more likely to have civilization wiped out than win the lottery...

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    18. Re:Other effects by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      "the full moon rising over the horizon was known to create a false signal"

      How would the mood being full affect a radar signal?

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    19. Re:Other effects by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      This asteroid isn't big enough to wipe out civilization. It might destabalize things if something like NY were hit, but it won't destroy civilization as a primary effect.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    20. Re:Other effects by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Of course this isnt true at all, because there is no such thing as time points of electrons flying around, so the area with enough probability amplitude should considered filled, not empty.

      Also, the solar system is a damn tight space compared to space in general... he here are WAY up from the standart 2.7*10^-27 kg/m^3 thats there in average.

      Also, whatrs wrong about exclaiming about an asteroid the size of texas? Its a rare event, i too wouldnt expect a rogue body that big in a collision orbit. There aint that many of those around in our solar system...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    21. Re:Other effects by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Are you a physicist that is sure that the climactic effects caused the asteroid impact wouldn't cause the starvation of 95% of the population?

      In any case, at 0.015%, I think it would behoove humanity to try to avoid this possibility. Hell, trading companies shoot for 9.9999% guarantee of uptime and accuracy. And its only over money.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    22. Re:Other effects by mikael · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't, but I guess a new moon would have so much RF coming from the direction of the Sun that the system wouldn't work.

      Satellite TV is rumored not to work during certains times of the year when the Sun is directly in line with the satellite and receiver dish.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:Other effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, trading companies shoot for 9.9999% guarantee of uptime and accuracy.

      Only 9.9999%???

    24. Re:Other effects by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Well, for uptime & transaction. Decimal precision uses much more nine's... ;)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    25. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Oh, but it IS true, no matter that particles have only statistical probabilities.

      You may not know where they are, but you know for 100% sure that they're in there somewhere. Plus, if you could observe the atom on scales approching Planck time, your generalization of considering the orbitals filled breaks down.

      So, you can use the technicalities to make a bogus assertion that it's not true, and I can use the technicalities to refine my statement of the system to make it true again. Big deal!

      Anyway, about the asteroid the size of Texas, where the fuck is it? And WHY isn't it round? Geez man, you started out real good, but you still don't get it. Even if you assume this thing is flying in from interstellar space, you can't explain why something larger than 500km in size or so isn't round. That should make milk fly out your nose!

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    26. Re:Other effects by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If it's in the equatorial plane, it can take out two by intersecting the geosynchronous orbit twice. Whether it can take out more depends upon the spacing of the satellites and the size of the asteroid. It's not going to have enough of a gravitational effect to severely alter the orbit of any satellite it doesn't strike.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:Other effects by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good reason that satellite TV dishes aren't shiny metal mirrors. Twice a year the LNA goes up in smoke (only in the tropics).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:Other effects by plover · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I didn't read enough of TFA to find out just how small this rock is. I was imagining a lot larger, with a sizeable amount of gravity, and wondering if the field could "sweep up" a couple on the way by.

      As a geek, you ought to be ashamed

      I am. :-(

      We now return you to your regularly scheduled ramblings.

      --
      John
    29. Re:Other effects by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Near-misses between geosynchronous satellites is becoming a very serious problem. By near misses, I mean close approaches of less than a kilometer, which is on the level of the position knowledge for dead objects. Particularly so in the closely-packed areas. As far as I know, nothing has actually hit anything else, at least not verifiably. At least not at GEO.

      20 years ago, the "space is big" argument held water, but the chances of hitting something if it gets low enough are not really negligible.

      Brett

    30. Re:Other effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."

      Pah, you Americans are at it again!

      s/drug store/chemist/

      When you quote something you're supposed to use the original version dammit!

    31. Re:Other effects by RoLi · · Score: 1
      Geosynch orbit is - as the name suggests - synchronized with earth's rotation.

      Therefore it's just a line over the equator and not a surface.

    32. Re:Other effects by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1

      So it's a ring of space. Aply the circumference formula, calculate satellite density and ... come to the same conclusion.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    33. Re:Other effects by danila · · Score: 1

      That's not true IIRC. Your understanding of the indeterminancy principle is the older naive one. The reality is that an electron is truly everywhere at the same time. It's not just that we don't know where it is, it's that it truly is spread around thin.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    34. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Fine, but this still doesn't address the fact that the space between one nucleus and the next is vast in comparison to the size of the nucleus. Forget the electrons.

      So, my original assertion is still true. Proportionately, there is more space in you than there is space in the solar system. I can keep this up all day.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    35. Re:Other effects by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, then of course you could also say: "forget the nucleus, there is sooo much empty space between the quarks".

      But its unimportant.
      The same with your electrons. "forget the electrons" you say, but they are the VERY basic thing that is "matter" as we use to descripe it.
      If it where anything else, you would fall through all those "space" in the atoms to the center of the earth.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    36. Re:Other effects by plover · · Score: 1
      That wasn't just false signals. The NSA deliberately focused on receiving the lunar reflected signals from Soviet launch telemetrics. They also experimented with using deliberate lunar bounce to transmit around the globe, before they had built their network of communications satellites.

      Pretty damn creative spywork.

      --
      John
    37. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      That's the kind of thing I'd expect a guy who failed chemistry to say. Give me a mole of anything, and I'll tell you how many atoms are there (1 mole, duh) and how much volume it occupies, by measuring. I know the mass and density of nucleic matter (and therefore its size), so I can calculate how much of that thing is nucleus and how much is empty space.

      OK, back to square one. What's your next move?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    38. Re:Other effects by imsabbel · · Score: 1


      Er. What has chemistry to do with it (answer: nothing, they are just idiots too stupid for quantum mechanics). (and also: you sound like somebody who never even heard a QM lecture, not to speak of passing...)

      Why do you "know" how much space the nucleus occupies? Right. Do some scattering, probe the potential well. But its just the same than with the electrons, just on a higher energy scale.

      And the rest of space isnt EMPTY, goddamit. It just has a lower density, which can be descripted by the particle wave of the electrons in it.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    39. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, you don't need to take my word for it, but I probably know more about all this than you do.

      But you on the other hand, are being overly pedantic.

      You are fucking right. Do I care? No, because my original point relies on a Newtonian view of the universe. Prove me wrong with the Newtonian view, or go away.

      QM is excluded from this, because I have DEFINED the original statment as excluding QM (implicitly, by speaking of distances between particles, and ignoring any wave behavior which wouldn't make sense with my original statement).

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    40. Re:Other effects by danila · · Score: 1

      You are talking about the principle of indeterminancy and about Plank time, but then you pretend you are talking within the Newtonian view. Pardon me, but it doesn't make any sense. You apparently have heard about all these concepts, but I don't think you have as good an understanding of them as you believe. It looks like you are rather ignorant in physics (or just very clumsy in discussions about it).

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    41. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      You know, if we could sit down to tea and you could quiz me, you'd find that I know a great deal about all these topics. But you haven't done that, and instead want to judge me based on a "fun fact" type of topic that you are reading strictly, and I am deliberately reading loosely. Yes, I said loosely. I'm not being at all rigorous here. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it.

      As I've explained before, if you mention quantum mechanics concepts here, you're completely missing the point which is to point out something using nothing but classical physics.

      I agree it looks like I'm ignorant in physics, but you're not getting the whole picture here of what I know.

      When you say " You are talking about the principle of indeterminancy and about Plank time" you should correct that to say that YOU are talking about those things. My mistake with you was not to point out right away that my "fun fact" thing was deliberately NOT taking 20th century physics into account.

      So, you are right, but I doubt that anyone truly enjoys a pendantic quantum mechanic hanging out by the punch bowl.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    42. Re:Other effects by danila · · Score: 1

      Then may be you can explain again this post? I absolutely fail to see your point and it looks like you don't know what you are talking about.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    43. Re:Other effects by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      No. I'm not explaining it to you again. You're fucking annoying, and you lack the intellectual and social skills to say "OK, I know what you mean. It's not scientifically accurate if you take into consideration quantum mechanics, but it's NOT MEANT TO BE ACCURATE."

      So, go fuck yourself. Just foe me now. I've been far too polite to you.

      And while you're at it, why don't you fucking write a letter to everyone that shows and sells the classic science movie "Powers of 10", because those fucking MORONS who wrote it actually DARED to show pictures of atomic particles, and they depicted them as SPHERES. Why, that's completely illiterate! They should be nagged to fucking death on the Internet.

      You're just the kind of person to do that. Nevermind that it's not MEANT to be a fantastical excercise. You've found your little tiny ant that you've fallen in love with, and you're going to ignore everything else but that little ant. You want to have sex with that little ant, that tiny little detail. You're an ant-fucker.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    44. Re:Other effects by danila · · Score: 1

      Nope. You are stupid after all. :) You second post didn't make any sense. Everyone told you that it doesn't and is inaccurate in the first place. But you just can't get it. Go ahead, insult everyone. But truth be told the olny people you should insult are your mother for giving you bad genes and your teacher for not beating you enough to learn something. :) Stupid.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  11. Conspericy theorists Unite!! by Bananatree3 · · Score: 0

    Isn't it JUST a little fishy that they would first announce it won't hit, and then they bring it back as a possibility?! I don't care whatever their reasons are, they are all conspiring I tell you! COSPIRING! God help us all!!

  12. 2035 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I knew the Republicans were lying about there being a Social Security crisis in 75 years. Now I don't have to worry about it. Whew.

    1. Re:2035 by Will+Fisher · · Score: 1

      or the whole 2037 32 bit integer time thing.

    2. Re:2035 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the current state of Wall Street, I think a lot of retired persons are very glad their Social Security money is not in there.

    3. Re:2035 by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      75 years? wat about the next 5. With 30 mill new retired americans. Got to love that 1940's baby boom u know.

    4. Re:2035 by master_p · · Score: 1

      What about the Unix date problem? imagine that: we are ready to send up a huge missile to knock off the asteroid, but the missile fails to ignite due to ...Linus choosing a 32-bit int for timer 50 years before. :-).

    5. Re:2035 by master_p · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that by 2035, 3d Realms will have completed the real-life Duke Nukem that they are building now, so we can send him to destroy the asteroid. And then 3d Realms will include the event as a whole new episode in the to-be-released Duke Nukem Forever in 2036! rumours are that the episode's title will be: "asteroid? what asteroid?"...

  13. I know what to do, are you with me? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I reckon if we gather up as much lead and place it by the Oval Office, we might just be able to alter the asteroid's trajectory and save ourselves from self-anihilation.

    So let's start collecting lead! Who's with me?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:I know what to do, are you with me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we've got enough lead there as it is...

    2. Re:I know what to do, are you with me? by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      Lead - don't be ridiculous. We ought to use gold ... and think of all the people it would attract ...

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    3. Re:I know what to do, are you with me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure this will help, -- something pretty damn dense is already sitting in there...

    4. Re:I know what to do, are you with me? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I reckon if we gather up as much lead and place it by the Oval Office, we might just be able to alter the asteroid's trajectory and save ourselves from self-anihilation.

      So let's start collecting lead! Who's with me?


      Lead the way.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    5. Re:I know what to do, are you with me? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      People aren't dense enough...well, some people, anyway.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  14. Ha! by Sairret · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew my Y2K shelter would come in handy. Who has all the Spam now!?

    1. Re:Ha! by macmastery · · Score: 1

      I have some extra spam that I'll mail to you.

  15. so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing?:) by NekoXP · · Score: 5, Funny


    19th January 2038 half of us will be dead! Who needs to count the seconds after
    that? :)

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we can just shoot some nuclear missiles at this asteriod.

    1. Re:no problem by niteice · · Score: 1

      No, because nuclear missles have engines that will only work in our atmosphere, and will only power the payload above the atmosphere.

      I suppose we could launch it on a space-shuttle type device to get it into orbit and have it retrofitted with space-based engines (Think Saturn V-style).

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
  18. Preperations by raider_red · · Score: 1

    We need to get a couple of spaceships ready for a rondevous. We'll also need a very high yield nuclear device, or a very powerful rocket to alter the orbit of the asteroid.

    Also, we'd better put Bruce Willis in cryo-freeze for the next 24 years.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    1. Re:Preperations by macmurph · · Score: 1

      What about a big trampolene or mattress at the impact point?

    2. Re:Preperations by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      I know you are joking, but this seems like a good place to mention that a nuke wouldn't be very useful.

      There are two ways that we could potentially administer a nuke to an asteroid:

      The first would be to actually drill into the thing like in the movie. A nuke detonated in the center of the thing would just blow it to pieces (assuming the nuke is powerful enough). Then we have just turned a bullet into a shotgun shell, effectively increasing its chances of hitting the earth. An extremely bad idea unless we can be sure the atmosphere will burn away the pieces, and even then you have a massive dust cloud in the atmosphere. So even then a bad idea.

      The second would be to detonate the nuke next to it. The energy produced by the nuke would raise the temperature of the surface of the asteroid and possible cause part of it to vaporize quickly enough so that the escaping matter would serve as a thruster that pushes it far enough away from (or toward) us that it misses.

      People often forget that nukes have nowhere near the destructive force in space as they do on earth, as there is no medium in which to create a concussive event. All a nuke does in space is make matter hot by tranfering enery to it.

      Someone once pointed out to me: If you detonated a 1 ton bomb next to a space shuttle (in a vacuum), as long as the shuttle wasn't hit by shrapnel, the crew wouldn't even notice (unless they watched it happen from the window).

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  19. Not enough time for counter-measures by jim_v2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no way of knowing, but at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel by 2035. Or at least something that we can knock it out of the way with.

    I can't even imagine what things will be like in another 30 years...I mean, if in 1915 you told someone that in 30 years a bomb would be built powerful enough to flatten a small city, they'd laugh at you.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by MasterOfUniverse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't even imagine what things will be like in another 30 years...I mean, if in 1915 you told someone that in 30 years a bomb would be built powerful enough to flatten a small city, they'd laugh at you. And in 1970 you told someone that in 30 years we would not colonize mooon at some extent, they'd laugh at you. So what's your point? All we can say is future is unpredictable, we can either have a technological breaktrhough of some sort and can zoom into awesome techs or just stay right here..

      --
      "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
    2. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I still wouldn't like to be in the path of 320^3 metres of gravel at inter planetary speeds.

      Heck, even if you managed to blast it into smithereens, they would still hurt :(

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      I have no way of knowing, but at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel by 2035. Or at least something that we can knock it out of the way with.

      I can't even imagine what things will be like in another 30 years...I mean, if in 1915 you told someone that in 30 years a bomb would be built powerful enough to flatten a small city, they'd laugh at you.

      It all depends on who you ask. Back in 1915 we had the infrastructure in place for what played out in years to follow. If we did not invest in making a nuclear bomb, I am sure Feynman, Oppenheimer, and the gang would have thought up something else.

      It was a new time in the 1915's, factories, assembly lines and the such were starting to change society.

      I don't know how much you can predict, but I would bet in 1915 if you told Henry Ford a bomb would be ready in 30 years that would destroy a city, he would have believed it possible, and depending on your salesmanship, he might have invested.

      What we need in the next 10 years is more space exploration, more testing of new shuttles. Once we get the infrastructure in place, we can solve problems as they come.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    4. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, if in 1915 you told someone that in 30 years a bomb would be built powerful enough to flatten a small city, they'd laugh at you.

      Yes. And, if in 1975 you told someone that in the next 30 years no rockets would be built powerful enough to send a man to the moon, they'd laugh at you.

    5. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to hell with the bomb, tell people in 1915 that you will be driving at 70-80mph and working 30-60 miles away from where you live and have a talking picture box that recieves 400 different things but nothing is worth watching, the train is pretty much an oddity becoming extinct and they are tearing up railroads faster than they laid them they would lock you up as a nut.

      Then they would hang you as you talked about instant meals out of that magical microwave, meat and food that never spoils and can be carried by army troops and cooked in the bag it comes in.

      let alone the thousands of other things that they would outright kill you for. remember these people were happy to follow lunatics like Kellogg and other insane "doctors".

    6. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think about this... launch a sattelite in LEO and have it simply fling 20 pounds of sand out. that alone would rip the shuttle to pieces and all LEO sattelites for a long time. if a tiny paint chip can almost shatter a shuttle window, a grain of sand with 2X the mass will rip through the thing, now imagine 30 billion of the things all spreading out...

    7. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by bcmm · · Score: 1
      I can't even imagine what things will be like in another 30 years...I mean, if in 1915 you told someone that in 30 years a bomb would be built powerful enough to flatten a small city, they'd laugh at you.
      And if you told someone in the late summer of 1969 that in 2005 there will be no moon base, and in fact no one will have been to the moon for 30 years and no one will be planning to any time soon? You think they'll believe that?

      And when we have something "better" than the atom bomb, asteroids are going to be our last concern.
      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    8. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by muddafunkinit · · Score: 0
      but at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel

      We should delegate it to HP. Think about it.

      1. Merge asteroid with existing asteroid of similar size.
      2. Resulting asteroid is 2/3 the size of the smaller of the two source asteroids.
      3. Go to step 1. Repeat.
    9. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I have no way of knowing, but at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel by 2035.

      Check out the timeline for the us space program, and you plot the trend.

      5 may, 1961 - Freedom 7, first manned sub-orbital flight
      20 feb, 1962 - Friendship 7, first manned orbital flight
      21 Dec, 1968 - launch Apollo 8, first manned lunar orbit
      21 July, 1969 - First manned lunar landing
      12 April, 1981 - First launch of space shuttle
      1 feb, 2003 - shuttle fleet grounded

      There isn't much advancement in this curve, and there is a whole lot of retreat. A once proud program, that had the capability to put a man on the moon, just last week, outsourced to get one of thier folks into low orbit. That is a rather telling 'detail' as to just how much advancement is really happening.

      Technology may be advancing, but I wouldn't be counting on anything the usa is developing to be useful in dealing with an asteroid collision scenario. The current administration has priorities higher than space travel, and, the debts they are running up to achieve those goals, will prevent future generations from persueing any meaningful space program during the timeframe in question.

    10. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by khallow · · Score: 1
      And when we have something "better" than the atom bomb, asteroids are going to be our last concern.

      Hrmm, not if we're about to be hit by one with a energy yield of 1000 megatons. It'll be pretty far up on the list of priorities I think.

    11. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea but you tell someone in 1975 you would have not only have access but get bombarded by porn over a "mysterious connection" to the world they wouldnt have believed you

    12. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Freedom 7 was not the first manned sub-orbital flight.

      Friendship 7 was not the first manned orbital flight.

      There was this country called the Soviet Union, remember?

    13. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by bcmm · · Score: 1

      I mean that people are more likely to kill us than the asteroid.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    14. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing to remember is the size of gravel (individual Pieces), While most, if not all of our stuff in LEO would be disintegrated, not much of the gravel would survive earth atmosphere entry long enough to reach the surface. Our satalite communications would be eliminated, but life on earth would survive.

    15. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Problem is, we don't know what exactly its composition is do we? I mean, if its solid Iron, it's gonna be a lot harder to "gravelize" than if its made from something weaker... Also, the force of impact will be higher with Iron or similar (less is burnt up on reentry) so it's more of a threat...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    16. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      It all depends on the motivation.

      The contest with the Soviet Union was vital for propaganda reasons.

      If the asteroid were going to hit somewhere like the south pacific or Africa, it's doubtful any meaningful action would be taken. If it were going to hit somewhere like NY, with a value (vague guess) in the tens of trillions of of dollars, it would be cheaper to simply ramp the space program up to spending levels similar to Apollo days.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    17. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have it backwards. By 2037 we should have a bomb large to blow up the earth just in time to save the oncoming asteroid.

    18. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      note the heading, it references 'us space program', not 'space programs in general'.

    19. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      Well the Moon landings cost about $100 Billion+.

      What does NASA get now, a pultry $15 Bill a year if that, thats almost a 7th of the amount, not including inflatation. and the military gets almost $400 billion IIRC. Now wat u do is, u put that money into NASA. If there is a will, and the money. There is most diffinantly a way.

    20. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by iabervon · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of advancement in that curve, and a lot of retreat. It's not like we're worse off now than in '61. The trend is rapid improvement when people care, and falling back to lower levels when people don't. With 6 years of people caring, that gives substantial progress. Remember also that there has been steady improvement in unmanned techniques, which is likely to be more important if we're sending something to an incoming asteroid and want to accelerate with more force than passengers would survive.

      As for money, the financial situations of governments aren't really that simple. The government can just offer bonds, and, if people care, they'll buy them, funding the government's projects (and the government then pays the people to work on the project, allowing them to buy more bonds...). That's why popular wars are generally a boon to the economy; the people are willing to enlarge the shared fiction of the total amount of money in the system.

    21. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      Actually, Project Apollo cost 25.4 billion, spread over 9 years, roughly 2.8 billion a year, in 1969 dollars. That translates into 135 billion in 2005 dollars, so about 15 billion dollars per year (2005 dollars).

      Explain to me again, how today's budget is so much smaller than it was back then...

    22. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're talking about trying to save the world, I would think the current state of the U.S. space program doesn't amount to a hill of beans. In such a crisis, we'd use whatever we could get our hands on, damned the source of the technology (OK, Lockheed-Martin or Boeing or something like that might make a fuss and pull some strings in Congress and KILL US ALL, but I'm assuming wiser heads will ultimately prevail).

    23. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "I have no way of knowing, but at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel by 2035. Or at least something that we can knock it out of the way with."

      Sure as long Moore's law continues as it has, then intel's processor should be able to generate enough heat by 2035 to melt the damn thing.

    24. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by craXORjack · · Score: 1
      at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel by 2035. Or at least something that we can knock it out of the way with.

      Or failing that, guide it gently into Bagdad. Or Texas. Either one. Or better yet, break it into two parts and guide it into both.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    25. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I have no way of knowing, but at the rate technology is going right now, we'll probably have something capable of blowing the thing into gravel by 2035.
      Which is exactly the last thing you want to do. Blowing it into gravel merely converts a rifle bullet into a cloud of shotgun pellets; there's still going to be a buttload of mass and energy deposited into the atmosphere.

      You want to divert it, not break it up.

    26. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      5 may, 1961 - Freedom 7, first manned sub-orbital flight
      20 feb, 1962 - Friendship 7, first manned orbital flight
      21 Dec, 1968 - launch Apollo 8, first manned lunar orbit
      21 July, 1969 - First manned lunar landing
      12 April, 1981 - First launch of space shuttle
      1 feb, 2003 - shuttle fleet grounded


      You left out the entire non-manned aspect of space flight. Blowing up an asteroid is a far different cry than sending man into space. We already know how to put cargo in space, the trick would be intercepting the target and eliminating the threat. Therefore to plot that ability you should plot the advance in the ability to blow stuff to ashes and sand.

      Your "detail" about what is happening is not representative of the technological advancement and is thus not insightful, and even off base. You conspicously left out the hundreds of non-manned cargo launches, the Martian orbiter and landings, and so on that have taken place in short periods of time.

      That said, a rock this big isn't that much to destroy -- it could be done with today's tech. A series of nuclear blasts should reduce most of it to rubble and down even further. IIRC, this thing is only about a third of a kilometer in diameter.

      Indeed the most difficult part would be dealing with the differing trajectories of the chunks as they get blown into successively smaller rocks.

      But even then, a well coordinated spread pattern timed properly would effectively clear the earth of any serious danger. The largest danger we'd face would be the "shrapnel", if any, taking out a few satellites.

      On the other hand, it's all for naught. All we need to do is track it to keep it from hitting the Earth:

      "In all likelihood, the possibility of impact will eventually be eliminated as the asteroid continues to be tracked by astronomers around the world."

      See, just track it better and the problem goes away. ;)

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    27. Re:Not enough time for counter-measures by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      well i guess this is wat sucks about history channels. They say costs blah amount, but never now or then. so sorry, my bad. So how about my other opinion of NASA, that it is old, warn out, complacent and needs shutting down, scrapped and a new agency formed.

  20. Practice makes perfect by matth1jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So this asteroid may not hit the Earth but one will probably slam into us eventually. So why not use this one as a practice run?

    From TFA:

    "This is most likely not the object with our number on it, but one day we will have to address this question and we'll need the technology."

    So let's develop the technology now, when a screw up won't mean utter devastation of part of the planet.

    1. Re:Practice makes perfect by timtwobuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only problem is what if we fail, and it becomes bird-shot instead of a bullet.

      Then it
      1. Becomes even harder to prevent from hitting us 2.It does even more damage if it does

    2. Re:Practice makes perfect by gregoryb · · Score: 1
      What if we screw up the practice run?

      Oops... uh, now it's definately going to hit the earth. Sorry about that guys...

    3. Re:Practice makes perfect by sac13 · · Score: 1

      So let's develop the technology now, when a screw up won't mean utter devastation of part of the planet.

      Unless that screw-up knocks it into the planet...

    4. Re:Practice makes perfect by ghukov · · Score: 1

      gravel/ bird shot would burn up in the atmosphere before it hit the ground, at most we'd get a nice dusting of ash I think.

      --
      ...because Plutonians are teh suck
    5. Re:Practice makes perfect by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Trouble is, the most likely gravelizer would be nuclear... so we get a nice dusting of radioactive fallout :(

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    6. Re:Practice makes perfect by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, some of it would. The rest would likely get captured into various earth orbits, rendering the lower realms of space totally inaccessible to humanity for a few hundred years. The orbiting gravel storm would destroy everything we currently have in orbit, and make any missions in the near future, sure suicide.

    7. Re:Practice makes perfect by Clith · · Score: 1
      It does even more damage if it does
      Um, no.

      If you increase the surface-area-to-volume ration by orders of magnitude like that, most of it will burn up in the atmosphere and a significantly smaller mass will actually hit the ground.

      Now, the stuff that burns up might still cause a lot of smoke and dust -- that would be interesting to check out -- but it would be nothing compared to a giga-ton explosion at ground level.

      --
      [ReidNews]
    8. Re:Practice makes perfect by timtwobuck · · Score: 1

      I agree about an increased about of burn up in the atmosphere, but I saw it on Discovery channel that it would in fact do more damage. I don't recall why though.

      Maybe an increased number of landing sites? Now I'm talking instead of one city sized object, we have several town sized rocks.

  21. start stocking up by aclysma · · Score: 1

    Start stocking up... no tinfoil hat will save you from this one :)

    1. Re:start stocking up by myukew · · Score: 1

      *replaces tinfoil with Adamantium*

  22. Not a huge amount of energy. by Eunuch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Asian earthquake was some magnitudes greater than that. Of course it's all in how the energy is dissipated.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Not a huge amount of energy. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Since the Earth is three quarters water, I think a large conversion of impact energy into tsusami energy is likely. If it hits in the sea near a populated coast, this would be the worst case I think.

  23. Before we get our hopes up... by suitepotato · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...let's get one thing straight: an impact will not lead to a Cowboy BeBop future, I don't care how cute you think Ed and Ein are or how sexy Faye is. Wishful thinking.

    With the fanboy wave-off out of the way, I would like to say that the mere threat of this should get our notice. We're not in danger right now of running out of oil but sooner or later we will be, and without energy on hand, getting access to nuclear fissile materials will be next to impossible never mind refining them and we still won't magically overnight be any closer to getting fusion or mass-energy conversion working.

    Add to news of the Yellowstone mega-caldera and the possibility that we're headed towards a cooling phase planet wide, and this rock being in the neighborhood ready to drop in and we're looking at a pretty good picture of a species with less security than a corporation firewall administered by your neighbor's five year old and much more serious ramifications.

    Of course we need to spread out and make sure the species can sustain itself past such an event. Problem is, will anyone really grasp it when so much more pressing stuff is on the plate, like who's still in the running on Amazing Race?

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:Before we get our hopes up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't the destruction of Earth caused by an explosion on the Moon? I didn't think asteriods had anything to do with it.

      As an aside, does anyone know if there are any further Cowboy Bebop projects planned?

    2. Re:Before we get our hopes up... by Dest · · Score: 0

      Wasn't the explosion of the moon during a space shuttle propulsion run the reason that the earth was relatively uninhaibted in cowboy bebop?

    3. Re:Before we get our hopes up... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      If I've got my bebop history correct, some sort of hyperspace gate malfunction in the very early days of hyperspace caused a huge chunk of the moon to get blown off. This created an asteroid belt around the earth, with asteroids raining down on a daily basis. Dunno about further Bebop projects. They kinda killed Spike and it really wouldn't be the same without him. Why don't we just intercept the asteroid now and plant a big-ass solar sail on it? It could be deployed right after the asteroid slingshots around the sun and with any luck we'd simply never see it again.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  24. I feel a disturbance in the force.... by TsukasaZero · · Score: 1

    As if a million shareholders cried out in torment and were silenced at once.

  25. Re: 6 Years!! by yamcha666 · · Score: 1
    Bull. 2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare.
    6 Years!?! That's plenty! Bruce Willis only had what, like 18 days to prepare?
  26. Mixed signals by nakly · · Score: 1

    So first it's gonna kill us, then it's not going to kill us, now it's going to kill us again? When will the /. gods make up their minds?

    1. Re:Mixed signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to be in sync with Dell deciding to use AMD or deciding to stick with Intel... coincidence?

    2. Re:Mixed signals by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know it's only going to kill bill... :D (ok, very bad joke)

  27. Thanks a lot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to have to go listen to Toys in the Attic at least 5 times through to get rid of the pain you just caused me.

  28. Coincidence by ectotherm · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmmmm, just happens to be a "change of course" call around the same time NASA budgets are up for review... ;)

    --
    "Nature bats last..."
  29. My Complaint About Splinter Cell: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dear Slashdot: Please report some real news instead of copying other sites' postings. Thanks for nothing.

    BTW, Here's my complaint about the newest of BushCo's war criminals: John Bolton.

    I just want a little editorial balance here. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on John Bolton's objectives. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, Bolton's desire to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases is incontrovertible evidence that Bolton harbors some insidious grudges. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart his ill-bred, odious little schemes -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Bolton is doing everything in his power to make me cry. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance.

    Although Bolton obviously hates my guts (and probably yours, as well), if Bolton had done his homework, he'd know that if he can one day infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating atrabilious information, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Although he has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as traitors and so-called experts, we are neither. Yes, we should give Bolton a taste of his own medicine, but his shell games are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Even though he presents a public face that avoids overt tribalism, it seems clear that the issue of what to do about obdurate politicos is a hopelessly tangled and complicated issue, impossible to discuss due to the intensity with which each side holds its beliefs. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Bolton contends that his animadversions are not worth getting outraged about. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?

    Here's an idea: Instead of giving him the ability to move sick revanchism from the moonstruck fringe into a realm of respectability, why don't we lead him out of a dream world and back to hard reality? If we do, we'll then be able to expose the connections between the pudibund problems that face us and the key issues of extremism and credentialism. In the end, we have to ask, "Why can't Bolton live among us in peace?" A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, unless Bolton provides unequivocal evidence to the contrary, I will continue to insist that his machinations appeal to people who are fearful about the world's political and economic situation and long for simple solutions to complex problems. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: To what depths of depravity does he need to descend before the rest of us realize we must stop the Huns at the gate? A clue might be that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Stuck-up lunkheads like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in the most brusque bohemians you'll ever see in order to convince them to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. I suspect that another piece of supporting evidence is that investigators who have spent many years attempting to penetrate the dark recesses of his lawless underworld frequently conclude that it is incumbent upon all of us to confront his demands head-on. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that if we let him poke and pry into every facet of our lives, all we'll have to

  30. Every dark cloud has it's silver lining... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    So be sure to purchase lots of stock in insurance companies today! Either way - you're a winner.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Every dark cloud has it's silver lining... by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Unless it hits Hartford CT. :-( Then the damage TO the insurance companies may be to great.

    2. Re:Every dark cloud has it's silver lining... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      The answer then is obvious - sue the insurance company! After all, they're in the insurance business. Of all people, they should know that it's important to have coverage. Right?

      This is America, man! If anyone could make money of off an asteroid strike, it's us! ;^)

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    3. Re:Every dark cloud has it's silver lining... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Meteor Hits Hartford, Insurance Industry Destroyed

      [sigh]

      Well . . . we can dream . . .

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  31. hubble by sfcat · · Score: 1

    I guess NASA's budget is more important after all. It would be nice to know this type of stuff before we have to que Bruce Willis. Does Hubble or Chandra provide some of this orbital data necessary to calculate the orbit of this rock. I would think so (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but it would be nice to send a probe with a nuke on it to blast it before it has a chance to hit us (or the pieces after the blast). It is much easier to deal with before it in headed straight for us.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    1. Re:hubble by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Hubble won't help -it can't see it. Its too close and moving too fast.

      It would be like standing on the pitcher's mound and trying to watch a baseball being thrown from home to 1st base through a telescope with a minimal focal length of 100 meter. You can't move it fast enough to track the ball, and even if you could it would be so out of focus you'd be lucky to see a blur.

      There are many land-based scopes much better fit for the job. Hubble is focused on things galaxies away, not within our own galaxy.

  32. Asteroids 2k4 by Reignking · · Score: 0

    Asteroids 2004! Its about time they've updated that classic video game! I hope it is in 3d and color, now, and you can play against other people online...

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    1. Re:Asteroids 2k4 by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny


      That game was actually written by NASA, in order to train the nation's children for just such an eventuality.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Asteroids 2k4 by dlZ · · Score: 1

      So we're living in a variation of the Ender's Game universe? Or the Last Starfighter?

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    3. Re:Asteroids 2k4 by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      I think "Toys" is most accurate for today's times.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:Asteroids 2k4 by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      I'd like to go with Ender's Game....I'm still trying to repress The Last Starfighter.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  33. Just in case ... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    I formally welcome the inhabitants of Asteroid 2004 MN4 as the new overlords of earth.

    (Hey, do you know if it's inhabited or not?)

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    1. Re:Just in case ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its probably inhabited by Crystaline Gods that are just doing a driveby to get a better look at earth. It happens all of the time, and they hire aliens to ship us to a different part of the UNiverse all of the time.

      Either that or just made that up, I report you decide.

  34. Lets solve this problem the American Way! by Daravon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets have Microsoft patent asteriod collisons and then we'll send all the lawyers after the asteriod to deliver a cease and desist order. Worst case scenario is that we're out a few lawyers.

    --
    I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    1. Re:Lets solve this problem the American Way! by LordNor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Worst case scenario is that we're out a few lawyers.

      Wouldn't that be the best case?

    2. Re:Lets solve this problem the American Way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the best case senario is that we are out ALL the lawyers.

    3. Re:Lets solve this problem the American Way! by arose · · Score: 1

      What if they decide to use the patent in production?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:Lets solve this problem the American Way! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      We should send nukes along behind the lawyers...
      and just to be safe, use both options.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  35. Interestingly enough... by stuffduff · · Score: 1

    April 13, 2029 looks like it will be a Friday making it Friday the 13th. Guess it will be ok not to pay your taxes until Monday the 16th, if ever!

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    1. Re:Interestingly enough... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      even if you did pay your taxes, it might not matter afterwards.

  36. Curious about gravitational pull claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Benny Peiser, from Liverpool John Moores University, who is an expert on asteroid hazards, said: "We don't know what that asteroid is made of and that might influence the way it's affected by the Earth's gravitational pull. [...]"

    Where does the object's composition enter the equation F=G*m1*m2/r^2 ?

    1. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Probably the mass? I.e. different material => different density => different mass. We can pretty simply observe the size, but without seeing interactions with other objects figuring out the mass requires some guesswork.

    2. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by stuffduff · · Score: 2, Funny
      Let's see, if it were made of Swiss cheese and landed on Switzerland it may result in an open faced toasted swiss sandwich. However this situation could be prevented if we deliver massive quantities of ham, milk and eggs to the area before and erected a gigantic dam made of flaky pastry. Emperor George Herbert Dubah Bush the III may respond to their request for aid bay saying...

      Let Them Eat Quiche!

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    3. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful



      I have no idea....I'm no physicist, but it seems that if they know the object's mass and the object's size, they can figure the object's density, and infer its composition from that. What more do they really have to know?

      (Mabye he's afraid it's composed of antimatter or admantium or neutronium or naquada, or has a quantum black hole at its center, or some other bullshit concern...)

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    4. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Mass. (I'm presuming one of those m's is mass.)

      Everything is made of of elements, elements have different atomic masses. With out being able to determine the composition of the asteriod, and thus its mass, we can't figure out how much force is going to be generated by the earth's gravitation on the asteroid, and thus its eventual trajectory. That is of course even assumes the formula you have provided is correct, and applicable to a correct answer.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    5. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      They have the data on the object's orbit around the Sun...with this information, it's high school physics to calculate the mass of the object.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    6. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Nope, not even really applicable as a formula. Sure you'll find out what the force is, but you'll have to apply calculus in order to figure out what the trajectories will be, and then a slightly different formula (or computer simulation) to figure out if both bodies will intersect at a point and time.

      Thank goodness I don't have to be a physicist to make a living. Its really bugging me that you knew a formula, and yet couldn't realize the problem with not knowing the asteriod's composition.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    7. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Everything is made of of elements, elements have different atomic masses. With out being able to determine the composition of the asteriod, and thus its mass, we can't figure out how much force is going to be generated by the earth's gravitation on the asteroid, and thus its eventual trajectory. That is of course even assumes the formula you have provided is correct, and applicable to a correct answer.

      It's the correct formula, but the mass of the asteroid is completely negligible compared to the mass of the Earth. Also, since F = ma, you should be able to divide both sides by the mass of the asteroid and end up with a = G * Me / r^2. r isn't well known either though... However, I agree with the GP poster, I don't see what difference the composition makes unless it's passes within the Roche limit for its makeup and gets broken into smaller rocks.

      That would be convenient. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    8. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's high school physics to calculate the mass of the SUN. As long as the object is much less masive than the sun, it's orbit will not differentiate between the mass of a marble and the mass of the earth.

    9. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by RayBender · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have no idea....I'm no physicist, but it seems that if they know the object's mass and the object's size, they can figure the object's density, and infer its composition from that. What more do they really have to know?

      Most likely the strength of the material. This determines how much energy is dissipated by tidal forces during the close Earth flyby of 2029. That in turn affects the orbital parameters and hence the possibility of a later impact. The strength of the material (is it solid rock, or a big gravel pile) is very hard to determine remotely.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    10. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by metlin · · Score: 1

      > or neutronium or naquada, or has a quantum black hole

      Dude, I must tell you that this is Real Life (TM) and not Stargate. I know, I have trouble too.

      =)

    11. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing, but tidal forces (same mechanism that caused the moon to eventually synchronize its rotation to its orbit) as it goes around the earth could cause it to lose energy and move to a lower orbit. This would be more important if the asteriod could change shape, say if it was made up of a bunch of smaller rocks held together rather than a single object.

      Also, tidal forces could cause it to rotate, also affecting its orbit as orbital angular momentum is transferred into rotational angular momentum (or vice versa).

    12. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, if it were made of Swiss cheese and landed on Switzerland it may result in an open faced toasted swiss sandwich.

      Good, I'm hungry.

    13. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Nice catch on the reduction.

      As I pointed out afterwards its not the formula that's going to tell you if it will collide with the Earth. But it occurred to me that there still is no need to determine composition. It should be possible to plot the course of the asteroid using another planet to triagulate the vector, and then derive its velocity. As long as it doesn't come within gravitational influence of another heavenly body in the next 30 years, it just may be able to figure out its likely course. Wonder why the astronomer didn't catch that? :/ (Perhaps the asteroid won't be visible long enough to compare its trajectory with another celestial body.)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    14. Re:Curious about gravitational pull claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, the effect of the Earth on it would depend *only* on the mass of the Earth. According to general relativity, low-mass particles follow geodesics through spacetime, and are unaffected by their own mass. Mass only affects the local curvature of spacetime, which can influence *other* objects.

      The uncertainty in the calculations comes from the uncertainty in how far from the Earth is will travel. Because it will be close, relatively small effects will have a relatively large effect on the resulting path.

  37. Bring It On! by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
    Whether we get hit or not, what is it about me that wants this to be really-really-really close and require an intercept mission? It isn't just the anticipation of a revived space program, though that would be nice. Big, big disasters, tragic as they are still offer some fascination, some distraction from the drivel that usually is news.

    Perhaps it is just boredom and curiosity about how we would live in a post-apocalyptic world. You don't really want to see anyone hurt, but the uniqueness of it all, the change of pace.

    I say: Bring It On 2004-MN4!

    1. Re:Bring It On! by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you want to follow a potential big disaster just go over to google news and search for Marburg. The current outbreak is on the verge of exploding in Angola and it's running with a 100% fatality rate this time. Read about the health care system there, the customs, the possible mis-reporting of the number of cases, the blog someone is doing... It may come under control soon. Let's hope so, because this asteroid thing sounds like a much better way to die.

    2. Re:Bring It On! by ender- · · Score: 1

      Probably the same part of me that wishes for it too...

      Cuz I'm praying for rain
      And I'm praying for tidal waves
      I wanna see the ground give way.
      I wanna watch it all go down.
      Mom please flush it all away.
      I wanna watch it go right in and down.
      I wanna watch it go right in.
      Watch you flush it all away.


      Sick of this world's bullshit. I want it to head straight for us. If we can't get our heads out of our asses long enough to figure out a solution, we don't deserve to inhabit this planet.

      That's my take anyway.

      Ender-

  38. Why take chances? by McBainLives · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't be a good idea to try adjusting the thing's orbit in advance of the 2029 encounter just to prove that we *can*? We've spent a lot of taxpayer dollars in the past just to prove a concept- why not do it again? There'll probably be plenty of applications for how-to-land-on/move-an-asteroid technoloogy in future decades...

    --
    I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
    1. Re:Why take chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh, yeah. Let's see if we can change the orbit to hit earlier. Maybe we can boost the impact velocity and really do some real damage.

    2. Re:Why take chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this was Saddams WMD?

  39. Lets put them by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets put them on the same ship as the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.

    1. Re:Lets put them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You da man.

    2. Re:Lets put them by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Hey, we'll need to invent a giant space goat to pull that off. I suggest we call it "the giant space goat."

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    3. Re:Lets put them by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I'll start stocking up on antibiotics right away.

  40. Bunkers? by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The exact effects of any impact would have varied based on the asteroid's composition, and the location and angle of impact. Any impact would have been extremely detrimental to an area of thousands of square kilometers, but would have been unlikely to have long-lasting global effects, such as the precipitation of an impact winter.

    I wonder if people will build more bunkers. I know a person who owns a house, and there is a bunker in the back yard, from the days of a USSR nuclear strike threat (Back in the 70's and early 80's the drill for a nuclear strike was to climb under the desk in the school). It looks kinda flimsy to me, I am guessing the salesperson was real good. It looks more like a shed that is half way in the ground.

    But, if someone wanted to make a good bunker, not just to ease the mind, but something to survive in, how deep would it need to be? I live on flat land, so I can not tunnle into a mountain, which I would assume to be the best choice. What is needed for a good oxygen supply, can you generate your own, or do you need an exhaust? How long would you need to stay underground, and where would you store the water and food? And would you have more than one exit out of the bunker, in case one side suffers damage and is burried under?

    I think it would be cool to have a series of bunkers, with some pre-picked neighbors, people you trust. Have 7 or 8 bunkers, maybe a mile apart, each one acting as a node. The chances for survival would increase, and the time would pass quicker.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Bunkers? by myukew · · Score: 1

      depends on where the things lands I guess. If it chooses your house, I'm afraid a bunker can't be deep enough.
      Howerver a few kilometers away and a half buried shed may be enough to save your life.

    2. Re:Bunkers? by NightWulf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This reminds me of that episode of the Twilight Zone, where this block is having a block party, and then they believe the world is going to end with an attack from Russia. The entire episode revolves around the fact that one family has a bunker, and the other neighbors on the block start fighting to get in. Eventually comparing how they should survive over anyone else. The key to having a bunker is to not tell a soul, keep it from the family too if it's at all possible, so no risk of your kids blabbing it.

    3. Re:Bunkers? by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Instead of bottled oxygen, you would be better of with elaborate air filtering technology. I wonder if any HVAC filters (say 3m's top of the line furnace filter) would suffice?

    4. Re:Bunkers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      17 ft. Need exhaust. 3 months. In ammunition cases. Yes.

    5. Re:Bunkers? by brewer13210 · · Score: 1, Funny

      "(Back in the 70's and early 80's the drill for a nuclear strike was to climb under the desk in the school).

      Actually, that was the "Duck and Cover" campaign with Bert the Turtle, from the federal government, and it was run in the '50s, not the 70s and 80s. By then we pretty much knew that if a nuke went off in a nearby local, jumping under a desk wasn't going to do much for you besides skin you knees before you were vaporized.

    6. Re:Bunkers? by darth_silliarse · · Score: 1

      Like the bunker the guy in Tremors has full of automatic weapons and pipe bombs? That would be awesome! You'd be fucked if the asteroid brought along 20 foot carnivorous worms though....

      --
      I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
    7. Re:Bunkers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be cool to have a series of bunkers, with some pre-picked neighbors, people you trust.

      Oh yeah, right. It's all card games and singalongs until one of those 'trusty' neighbors goes crazy, takes a shine to your wife or that last can of peaches, knifes you, proclaims himself surpreme ruler and has his wicked way with your children and your pets.

      No sir. I won't be taking any 'trusty' neighbors in the bunker with me. They want a bunker, they can build their own damned bunker!

    8. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Bunker wouldn't work -- only zion could protect us. The hole this thing would make would be 1.5 freaken mile deep. However if your at least 1000Km from impact you should walk away from the event. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ Your Inputs: Distance from Impact: 1000.00 km = 621.00 miles Projectile Diameter: 400.00 m = 1312.00 ft = 0.25 miles Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3 Impact Velocity: 17.00 km/s = 10.56 miles/s Impact Angle: 45 degrees Target Density: 2750 kg/m3 Target Type: Crystalline Rock Energy: Energy before atmospheric entry: 3.87 x 1019 Joules = 9.25 x 103 MegaTons TNT The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 1.2 x 105years Atmospheric Entry: The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 14200 meters = 46500 ft The projectile reaches the ground in a broken condition. The mass of projectile strikes the surface at velocity 16.9 km/s = 10.5 miles/s The impact energy is 3.83 x 1019 Joules = 9.15 x 103MegaTons. The broken projectile fragments strike the ground in an ellipse of dimension 0.639 km by 0.452 km Major Global Changes: The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass. The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis. The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably. Crater Dimensions: What does this mean? Crater shape is normal in spite of atmospheric crushing; fragments are not significantly dispersed. Transient Crater Diameter: 6.94 km = 4.31 miles Transient Crater Depth: 2.45 km = 1.52 miles Final Crater Diameter: 8.98 km = 5.57 miles Final Crater Depth: 0.573 km = 0.356 miles The crater formed is a complex crater. The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 0.241 km3 = 0.0578 miles3 Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average thickness is 6.38 meters = 20.9 feet Thermal Radiation: What does this mean? The fireball is below the horizon. There is no direct thermal radiation. Seismic Effects: What does this mean? The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 200 seconds. Richter Scale Magnitude: 7.3 Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 1000 km: I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Ejecta: What does this mean? The ejecta will arrive approximately 494 seconds after the impact. At your position there is a fine dusting of ejecta with occasional larger fragments Average Ejecta Thickness: 20.7 micrometers = 0.814 1/1000 of an inch Mean Fragment Diameter: 126 micrometers = 4.98 1/1000 of an inch Air Blast: What does this mean? The air blast will arrive at approximately 3030 seconds. Peak Overpressure: 1230 Pa = 0.0123 bars = 0.174 psi Max wind velocity: 2.88 m/s = 6.43 mph Sound Intensity: 62 dB (Loud as heavy traffic)

    9. Re:Bunkers? by baggins2002 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sounds good to me as long as Natalie Portman is in my bunker.

    10. Re:Bunkers? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't know, man...those 50's desks were...like...solid wood, man...

      Seriously, though, the Duck and Cover campaign served its purpose...making you think you actually had a shot at surviving the attack...and giving you a concrete thing to do, instead of the usual milling aboout in panic. A lot like the duct-tape and plastic sheeting recommendation from the Dept. of Homeland Security. Only one problem: people today are a lot more informed and a lot less trusting then they were in the 50s...

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    11. Re:Bunkers? by tomjen · · Score: 1

      Download here

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    12. Re:Bunkers? by dmarcoot · · Score: 2, Funny

      No Flander's alowed!

    13. Re:Bunkers? by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Mod down. This is just a bunch of numbers, you'll note that the energy and mass numbers don't even match up with those of the asteroid.

    14. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      I assumed it was made of Iron and hit with max speed at a typical angle. If you don't like what you see, then take it up with the Department of Planetary Sciences at the University of Arizona. go here http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ and run your own numbers if you like.

    15. Re:Bunkers? by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      So explain that. Also, try line breaks. What you posted was essentially gibberish with no frame of reference and no grammar.

    16. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      Copy/Paste could stand improvement. It was good going in -- bad coming out. I can't help it if returns are ignored or not handled.

    17. Re:Bunkers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why God invented the "Preview" button.

    18. Re:Bunkers? by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can. It's in the FAQ, and you have a preview button.

    19. Re:Bunkers? by drachton · · Score: 1
      ...we pretty much knew that if a nuke went off in a nearby local, jumping under a desk wasn't going to do much for you besides skin you knees before you were vaporized.

      Depends on what you mean by nearby locale. This post gives a link to the D&C movie, and if you read the reviews, you get the feeling a lot of people who mock the previous generation for believing government advice for surviving an atomic blast suscribe to an equally erroneous belief, i.e. that atomic bombs are the equivalent of a super death ray which any attempt to survive is pointless.

      I suggest anyone who thinks along these lines to take a look at this report on the subject. True, virtually everyone close to the blast will die, but if, as Duck and Cover presupposes, someone saw the flash and *weren't* incinerated, it means they're some distance away from ground zero and thus stand a chance of survival. Since the main cause of death at longer range is the wind blast (as opposed to the heat wave), ducking and covering makes sense.

      Like the movie says, you'll be safER, not safe, but it's better than just waiting to be blown into a brick wall.

    20. Re:Bunkers? by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Your simulation was a bit flawed. For the actual numbers given, and 45 deg. angle of impact (considered most likely), effects look fairly severe at 30 km. range, not so bad at 75 (this was for impact into sedimentary rock). If it were to hit in the ocean, I'd say there's potential for a fairly bad tsunami, especially if it were to hit close to shore. Here was my run:

      Your Inputs:
      Distance from Impact: 30.00 km = 18.63 miles
      Projectile Diameter: 320.00 m = 1049.60 ft = 0.20 miles
      Projectile Density: 2681 kg/m3
      Impact Velocity: 12.59 km/s = 7.82 miles/s
      Impact Angle: 45 degrees
      Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
      Target Type: Sedimentary Rock
      Energy:
      Energy before atmospheric entry: 3.65 x 1018 Joules = 8.71 x 1e2 MegaTons TNT
      The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 2.0 x 1e4years

      Relevant figures for a 75 km. distant sedimentary rock hit:

      Ejecta:
      The ejecta will arrive approximately 125 seconds after the impact.
      At your position the ejecta arrives in scattered fragments
      Average Ejecta Thickness: 3.5 mm = 0.138 inches
      Mean Fragment Diameter: 5.62 cm = 2.21 inches

      Air Blast:
      The air blast will arrive at approximately 227 seconds.
      Peak Overpressure: 11900 Pa = 0.119 bars = 1.69 psi
      Max wind velocity: 26.8 m/s = 59.9 mph
      Sound Intensity: 82 dB (Loud as heavy traffic)
      Damage Description:

      Glass windows will shatter.

      For 30 km. range:

      Ejecta:
      The ejecta will arrive approximately 78.5 seconds after the impact.
      Average Ejecta Thickness: 5.47 cm = 2.15 inches
      Mean Fragment Diameter: 63.7 cm = 25.1 inches

      Air Blast:
      The air blast will arrive at approximately 90.9 seconds.
      Peak Overpressure: 59800 Pa = 0.598 bars = 8.5 psi
      Max wind velocity: 115 m/s = 257 mph
      Sound Intensity: 96 dB (May cause ear pain)
      Damage Description:

      Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
      Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
      Glass windows will shatter.
      Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches and leaves.

      Doesn't sound like too much fun at 30 km.!

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    21. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      Is your point that I'm retarded? If so, I don't care -- clearly that would not be my doing -- no one chooses to be stupid. My screen name is my response, ask someone who speaks Mandarin and knows Tiawan slang.

    22. Re:Bunkers? by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 3, Funny

      I personally love the idea of building a sock-rolid bunker that is so perfect that I am 100% certain to survive the impact.

      Then, when all my friends and relatives in my section of the hemisphere are dead, I'll enjoy struggling for my own survival without clean, readily available running water and food. And then when I get sick after running low on my own hefty (let's be generous and say it's a 12 week supply) of water, I'll be proud of how I struggle to survive with complications from even the most minor of ailments after my modern drug supply is exhausted or proves ineffective.

      When I use my most awsome shortwave radio, I'll be pleased to see how my important politicains (those who lived, that is) are the ones who are rescued first, and will shrug my shoulders as I look at the wreckage of my antennea array from the blast, hoping my small antennea doesnt eat up my power supply before someone can here me.

      I'll be happy to have fully productive days, too, fending off what might be left of others who managed to survive but were less planful as I, as I count my ammunation running lower every day. I'll be thankful my hungry neighbor (the one living in a bunker right next to me) doesn't have a bigger gun than me, either.

      I for one agree that life after a massive asteroid blast would be well on the high odds of survival and most likely fully worth living. After all: With God, all things are possible 8-D.

      --
      uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    23. Re:Bunkers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire episode revolves around the fact that one family has a bunker, and the other neighbors on the block start fighting to get in.

      Uh, this is SlashDot. We don't need summaries of any Twilight Zone episodes. We all watch the Simpsons, thank you.

    24. Re:Bunkers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Back in the 70's and early 80's the drill for a nuclear strike was to climb under the desk in the school).

      I was born in 1956. I never had such a drill. They were 1960's only so far as I know.

      I remember hearing about the JFK murder when I was on a playground in second grade in Fort Worth Texas. A girl next to me cried. She said "Now we can't see him like my parents promiced."

    25. Re:Bunkers? by uioreanu · · Score: 1

      bunkers are the ultimate pitiful excuse to think globally and constructive. In case of a global threat, they only guarantee a false sense of personal security. a good marketing as well, taking advantage of our human selfishness, and giving no protection whatsoever.

      --
      cut this signatures madness. stop reading them now!
    26. Re:Bunkers? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Hmm, slashcode doesn't handle unicode Chinese very well. Or at all. Well pinyin then, do you mean: ta1 ma1 de

      Someone who speaks Mandarin would be confused without tones to go by.

      I assume that you are actually transcripting a Chinese quote of Mal's from the episode "Serenity" from the excellent series Firefly?

    27. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      ta1 ma1 de5. no transcription. Tiawan street slang.

    28. Re:Bunkers? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where your from, but if from the US, the 'hide-under-desk' drills were from the 50's. They were really just a means to convince people that a nuclear war was survivalbe.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    29. Re:Bunkers? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      So ... exactly what I posted? Curious that you write out the fifth tone. There is only one other place I have ever seen it written that way.

      Since you have typed it twice I have to assume it isn't a typo and must ask, where is Tiawan? If it's actually Taiwan, what kind of romanization is that? Even the evil wade-giles system writes T'ai-wan.

    30. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      I thought we agreed I was retarded. diu lei lou mou.

    31. Re:Bunkers? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      ? Sorry, I wasn't part of that discussion. I jumped in when I recognized some Chinese input :-)

    32. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      LOL -- Well if you speak mandarin or cantonese you should be offended by now. -- still LOL. at least I didn't say diu lei puk gai lou mou tsau hai ham ga tsan. For those that don't know any cantonese slang that is loosely "Fuck your mothers ass smelly cunt and curse your whole family."

    33. Re:Bunkers? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Well you know Cantonese and Mandarin are extremely different, the only thing they really share is the writing system. But at any rate, I don't offend easily in person much less from text. :-D

    34. Re:Bunkers? by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    35. Re:Bunkers? by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      I know more Mandarin, except for slang. I know much more cantonese slang.

  41. Hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ben Affleck will learn to act by then.

  42. This reminds me of Revelation 8... by bladx · · Score: 0

    8The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water- 11the name of the star is Wormwood.[a] A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter. 12The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night. (Thanks to biblegateway.org)

  43. Not enough time... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    ...for super volcano to erupt! D'oh!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  44. time.h is a prophecy. by more · · Score: 1

    In 2029 we learn that the world will end 2038-01-19.

    --

    -- Imperial units must die --

  45. Why not do something now by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They know it will be close in the other years, so why not start planning NOW so that if we know it by 2029 for sure we can either use whatever we worked out or use it for something else.

    The reason it will not happen is because it will still not be eminent and it will be something only those earth saving tree huggers could work with.

    Others have more importand things to do, like making money and the plan of the company only looks ahead 5 years, not 50.

    Well, it was nice knowing y'all.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  46. Visual aid by mr_majestyk · · Score: 1

    A snapshot always help me put these predictions into perspective...

  47. In other news... by SQLz · · Score: 1

    The U.S. announces its "war on large rocks".

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mision Accomplished"

    2. Re:In other news... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Another Irock war?

      or is that iRock?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2004 MN4 will be inducted into the axis-of-evil as soon as we can discover its orbital "axis".

  48. NASA's impact risk summary by Aspasia13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The following NASA page contains an impact risk summary of several near-earth object:

    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

    Note that this one is in the top three, but with due respect to Douglas Adams, "Don't Panic" appears to be in order.

    1. Re:NASA's impact risk summary by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      There's a distinction between don't panic and don't care.

      Don't panic doesn't mean you're not in danger, it means that if you do panic, you're lost. You have to keep your wits in order when you're in danger. You have to be aware of the danger, even if it is small, and you have to have your towel ready to deal with it.

      Let's say you're driving down the road, and see two children playing in a yard up ahead. "Don't panic" means you should remember that it's unlikely they'll dart out into the road ahead of you, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't care. Even if it's a million to one shot that one of those kids will run out into the road, you still need care enough to watch them in case they do.

  49. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other half?

  50. ah what difference does it make? by Bananatree3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am probably more apt to be hit by an African Swallow then be killed by this asteroid.

    1. Re:ah what difference does it make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but african swallows are non-migratory...

    2. Re:ah what difference does it make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laden or unladen?

    3. Re:ah what difference does it make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laden. Osama bin Laden.

  51. Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Superman flies up and punches it out of the way! Duh!

  52. Typical... by Sunnan · · Score: 1

    The very day I finish a project on time for the first time in my life, I find out that the world is probably ending soon.

  53. Simpsons obligatory quote.. by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Funny

    Homer: It's times like this I wish I were a religious man.
    Reverend Lovejoy: Run for your lives people We don't have a prayer!

  54. Like A Sick Fetish by LegendOfLink · · Score: 1

    What is with us humans? Always hanging about and waiting for the end of the world?

  55. My House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as it doesn't hit my house im cool with it.

  56. Stop f*cking with my homeowner's insurance! by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 3, Funny

    For Christ's sake, scientists -- MAKE UP YOUR FRIGGIN' MIND ABOUT THESE GLOBAL KILLER ASTEROIDS!

    I just went through paperwork HELL getting the "Asteroids, Meteorites, and Other Heaven-to-Earth Bodies" coverage removed from my AllState homeowners insurance. This after I put it on there when you FIRST told us it was going to hit us!

    Then I had to call Jean, my agent, and f*cking tell her to shred that whole contract and contact my mortage lender when you f*cking scientists said, "Whoa -- wait -- it might NOT hit after all. Our bad." But, of course, the fax machine at my office was on the fritz that week (screw all-in-one concepts, HP!), so I had to take a 2 hour ride through traffic BACK to my house to get the paperwork and OVER TO Jean's office.

    Now, after FINALLY getting the signature pages right, 'cause Jean's assistant can't friggin' spell "interplanetary" for sh*t, I gotta do the whole g'damn thing again.

    Christ -- I'm going to just leave it on there this time and pay the extra 20% on my homeowners insurance premiums this year. It's not friggin' worth going through all that hassle, having to take time off, explaining to my boss what why I'm having to factor "global extinction" into my homeowner savings plan, etc. Dammit.

    I guess, now, that those f*ckers from Homeland Security are going to change the f*cking color of the alert this week too. Then I'll have to go back and talk with Jean about that "Dirty Bombs, Biological/Chemical Agents, and Other WMDs" clause. Dammit.

    IronChefMorimoto

    1. Re:Stop f*cking with my homeowner's insurance! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I can just picture you turning up at the charred remains of your broker's office and insisting they pay out on your policy...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Stop f*cking with my homeowner's insurance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaat 20%. Rooks. If 2029 thats 25 years. Taking into account present and future value, compound interest etc, an extra 2% would be an absolute windfall for a 1/100+ chance, assumiming they can pay out. Now the debate is it a single event...

  57. no need to worry by Arctic+Dragon · · Score: 1

    As Homer Simpsons said, "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."

    Oh wait, that's a comet he's talking about, not an asteroid. WE'RE DOOMED!!!
    *hides in bomb shelter*

  58. I always wondered... by hackstraw · · Score: 1


    how the dinosaurs' felt when they became extinct.

    This will be the greatest form of extinct species empathy ever!

    1. Re:I always wondered... by Retric · · Score: 1

      But apes are already reasonably intelegent I don't know how intelegent most lisards are but when comparing a lizard to say a rat I think the rat wins.

    2. Re:I always wondered... by Angstroem · · Score: 1
      But apes are already reasonably intelegent I don't know how intelegent most lisards are but when comparing a lizard to say a rat I think the rat wins.

      What you refer to as "lizards" today is only a shade of what "lizard" meant 65 million years ago. Just like "mammals" certainly were somewhat inferior species back then.

    3. Re:I always wondered... by Retric · · Score: 1

      I was trying to compare things of similar body mass to get the point across that mamals tend spend a lot more of there energy per body mass in brains than lizards do. But let's compare a smare "lizard" back then to an ape. Ok first off let's say there about as intelegent as each other (probably not true) what would there path be to tool users? Now an Ape to tool users seems strait forward they can eat either plants or meat so anything that lets them eat more meat = good which would get selected for. Now picking up a club and bashing things with it is about as far a they need to go before club use = better hunting. But a raptor can hunt vary well and has week arms that would give him little advantage so it would not be selected for. Now club to spear is a small jump as is spear to thoughing spear at which point learning how to make spears with good point's would have value as they would be rare to find just siting around but you could find one or two to get the basic idea. Now from spear it's little ways to and aul(SP?), a complex spear where a small spear sits in a sling and can be shot about twice as far. Add to this the advantge of hunting party's and get the the pack advante to adding language. Now this is a compex tool so going from there to a bow or a sling is not that far at which point you have packs of smart tool users wandering around that can kill just about anything that has walked the earth. 20 - 30 humans could easly take down a T-Rex using aul's.

      Now that's all based around hunting as ominevors we can learn to plant food and afer a few plant mutations siting around tending crops can becomes insanly productive leting humans learn how to build city's and develope compex trade routs thus spreading new idea and ending up with the PC. (Hunter gathers might have had trade as would hearders but you get the idea.)

      Basied on this it seems clear that it's much easer to go from an omnivore living in trees to a PS user than say a pack hunter like a dog. Reading though this a while ago I had some similar thoughts as to what types of alians we might meet up with some day and if it would realy take 3 billion years of evolution to reach us: http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html

  59. 2029? by Reignking · · Score: 1

    Darn...can't it just wait until 2030? I think that Duke Nuke'em Forever is due out in 2029...

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  60. The Spam is here in Hawaii by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1

    Hawaii eats 75% of the all the Spam made by Hormel.
    They even have gourmet cooking shows featuring Spam.

    If you guys start buying and storing Spam in your Y2K shelters we are going to send some Moke's to have beef wid you...

    --ken

    --
    Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
  61. N. Korean nukes to teh rescue! by bchernicoff · · Score: 1

    I knew they would come in handy for something!!

  62. Just imagine... by rgremill · · Score: 1

    The number of people trying to hitch a ride on a spaceship.

  63. What about ineffective preparations? by cbiffle · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we don't have time for effective preparations, where do I donate toward the ineffective preparations?

    I, for one, want a massive Wile E. Coyote-style flag to pop out of the Earth immediately before the asteroid hits. Preferably reading "Yipe!"

    1. Re:What about ineffective preparations? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      I think a large umbrella would be more ineffective

    2. Re:What about ineffective preparations? by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Maybe Marvin the Martian will blow it up for us, using the Illudium Q-32 Space Modulator!

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    3. Re:What about ineffective preparations? by Spudds · · Score: 1


      Omfg you owe me a new coffee for that one! lol! ... And some new jeans!

      Damn it I gotta clean off my monitor now... stupid mental images ...

    4. Re:What about ineffective preparations? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

      Correction: a tiny umbrella

    5. Re:What about ineffective preparations? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      You think you have a problem? One of my cats was sitting in my lap.

    6. Re:What about ineffective preparations? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      well, compared to the size of the rock, any umbrella we can manufacture on Earth is going to be tiny

  64. Switching around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also hear Dell is going to start shipping AMD.

  65. Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they attach GPS transponders to potentially threatening asteroids? Surely that would be more accurate than tracking them by telescope, as is done now.

  66. it's chaos time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    give it 20 years and soon governments could begin to crumble...

  67. Uhhh.... by p_trekkie · · Score: 1

    ...the article itself says that the asteroid will most likely not be put on to a collision course.

    All it's saying is that it is possible (I would say probable, I have some experience in similar research) that the model might not accurately account for the close approach with the Earth. The solar system is somewhat of a chaotic system when it comes to small bodies flying around through it. A very small change or error in calculation of the orbit of the asteroid can lead to wildly different orbits. One of them might be Earth smacking. Most of them won't.

    As with all of these recently discovered "hazards," it's bloody unlikely to happen, but the media likes the headline. Don't panic anytime soon.

  68. Blame Slashdot! by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 1

    Asteroid 2004 MN4 was introduced earlier on Slashdot..

    Great. This is just what nerds need to boost their image in the world.

    "Oh.. that giant killer asteroid? I heard it was introduced by a nerd-news site."

    1. Re:Blame Slashdot! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Nobody introduced me! They told me about it, but nobody told me, "Sconeu, this is 2004 MN4. 2004 MN4, this is sconeu." I never had a chance to tell it I was damn glad to meet it! :(

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Blame Slashdot! by Asteroid+2004+MN4 · · Score: 1

      Glad to meet you, sconeu. I look forward to vaporizing you and your loved ones.

    3. Re:Blame Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll never hit me, you're just Newtons toy!

  69. 1/2-off-1/2-on(topic). by hellomynameisclinton · · Score: 1

    Anyone else ever type in /.'s URL instead of using it as home or a bookmark?

    Ever type "slasdhdot.org"? Made me laugh.

    Anyway...

    I'm not too afraid of the asteroid, Bruce Willis and his raw-around-the-edges friends have handled much larger.

    1. Re:1/2-off-1/2-on(topic). by cloudmaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      They misspelled "paternity"!

    2. Re:1/2-off-1/2-on(topic). by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      I'm so lazy that I can't visit this site because it'll be in my history and mess up my URL autocomplete. =(

  70. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by dlZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Way to make my 59th birthday seem grim!

    --
    rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
  71. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, there's no way it will hit Earth, otherwise John Titor would have mentioned it...

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  72. Just my luck by geekoid · · Score: 1

    to finally hitch a ride on an astroid only to have crash right back on earth.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  73. Actual energy yields: by product+byproduct · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Actual energy yields: by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Difference:
      The energy of the MN4 impact would be delivered into the athmosphere, a VASTLY less stable enviroment than the earth mantle.
      Not to mention dust|chemical alteration problems...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Actual energy yields: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, no.

      - Most of the energy of the MN4 impact would be delivered on impact with the *ground*, not the atmosphere.
      - Earthquakes occur in the *crust*, not mantle.

      Only on slashdot can such bullshit be modded all the way to score 5.

    3. Re:Actual energy yields: by Hinhule · · Score: 0

      Of course there is a pretty big chance it will hit an ocean. Sure there'll be a big wave but the scientist will have calculated the exact point of impact years before. The deaths from that impact will be very few.

      Still if it hits ground. There will not be any people near that area either.

  74. Sweet! Don't have to worry about Y2.038K! by allanc · · Score: 1

    I recently had to write some date-validity checking code which brought to mind the fact that Unix dates will break in 2038. If this pans out, we won't have to worry about that, so that'll be nice.

    (Also, my date-validity code, even if the 2038 issue weren't there, breaks in February of 2100. So that's two problems I won't have to worry about)

  75. What's gonna to suck is..... by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1


    Listening to all that "End Times" bullshit again.
    I had enough of it during Y2K. I getting too much of it now.. Imagine what it's going to be like in 2037?

    Jesus, save me from your followers....

    "I hope I die before I get old."

    Yes, I am talking 'bout my generation...

    --ken

    --
    Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
  76. What a show by loqi · · Score: 1

    The asteroid is now expected to miss but come close enough to be below the altitude of TV satellites. It should be visible as a rapidly moving point of light.

    Well, I know where I'll be come April 13th, 2029... whereever I need to be to see this rock hurtle past us. I wonder how likely it is that the effects of a collision with a satellite would be visible (with binoculars or a small telescope)?

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  77. Or, it might not by anomaly · · Score: 1

    But we'd better start worrying now.

    Really, this is little more than sensationalized rank speculation. Volcanoes could destroy the environment before 2029, too.

    Space is REALLY BIG, people. No matter how big the asteroid, the chances of hitting earth are VERY small.

    We have lots of things to worry about that are more urgent, and more LIKELY than an asteroid impact 30 years from now.

    Has slashdot turned into the Weekly World News of science reporting?

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
  78. I had a 2004 MN4... by elhaf · · Score: 1

    but I upgraded to the '05 Maxima. The gas mileage on that thing sucked.

    --
    Six score characters.
    Brevity being wit's soul
    I have enough space.
  79. Unless by Patrick+Mannion · · Score: 0

    John Titor's prediction come true. Then we wont have worry about that either, or maybe we will. But hey, most of will have died in the nuclear war from it, so it shouldn't make much of diffrence.

    --
    In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
  80. Maybe housing will finally be affordable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YIPEE!!!!

  81. Maybe they already have... by stuffduff · · Score: 1

    And taken over key positions in government and industry, which would explain why we are being lead be dinosaurs!

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
  82. Times of London must be having a slow news day... by dtolman · · Score: 1
    How is this a story? Nothing has changed and the same is true of any Earth/Moon grazing asteroid.

    Suppose it makes good business sense for them... whenever their sales drop they could repeat this story and throw in the name of any decent sized asteroid that gets within lunar orbit...

  83. Orbital base? by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    Why not try to make a space station out of it?
    Push it to a lagrange point. Mine the sucker, pressurize the caves and viola!

    You've got a space station with raw materials.
    It would seem to be cheaper than trucking the stuff up from earth's gravity well....

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  84. I wonder what Bob has to say about this... by jhesse · · Score: 1
    --

    --
    "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
  85. Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April 13th, 2029 is a Friday... spooky...

  86. Dogma Line by PhatboySlim · · Score: 1
    JAY
    I'd say we've got about five minutes left to live; the whole world's going to end. You said you'd fuck me.

    BETHANY
    Are you a complete lunatic?! Everyone's out there battling that thing and you want to cower back here and jump my bones?! We have to go down fighting!

    JAY
    No - no time for that foreplay stuff, just sex.

    BETHANY
    You pig...!

    JAY
    What?! It's all over; nobody's gonna beat that thing! Now we can either lay here all comatose like that John Doe Jersey bastard behind us, or we can make with the love.

    --
    Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
  87. Our leader is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got paged by our cult leader... they're calling an emergency meeting... see ya'll laters

  88. Deep Impact by theendlessnow · · Score: 1
    ... the impact probabilities in 2035, 2036 of 2037 will not be known until the exact modification to its orbit is known; ...

    1. This would certainly lessen the workload of converting all of those Unix boxes to handle their end of time problem.

    2. The U.S. gov't won't believe this until a movie comes out about it... oh... wait a minute!

  89. Calling all robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I volunteer for a suicide mission, SIR!

    1. Re:Calling all robots by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Professor Farnsworth: Well...that's bound to be a suicide mission. Fry, Bender, Leela...

      Bender: DAMN YOU OLD MAN!

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  90. Well there goes my retirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it could hit somewhere where it wouldn't hurt anything, like Antartica. I just know something like this would ruin southern Florida.

  91. Is it irony or just unfortunate? by shrapnull · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be ironic if we had the technology to blast this sucker away from our orbit, but lacked the quantity of fossil fuels necessary to accomplish the task with present technology?

    Aren't we supposed to be out of oil by then?

    Better start working on nuclear propulsion with leaving the earth's orbit.

    Or we'll be trying to shoot it down with compressed-air rockets like these.

    --
    If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
    1. Re:Is it irony or just unfortunate? by SammyTheSnake · · Score: 1

      The lunk-to page says this: "There's a clever anti-tilt device in the launcher, so you can't fire the rocket anywhere but up"

      That sounds like a challenge to me! ;)

      Cheers & God bless
      Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

  92. It'd make a nice Counterweight... by Luxifer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, lets take that one step further.. Lets capture it in a very high orbit and use it as the counterweight for our Space Elevator. We should just be getting out technology down pat by that time and, hell, this thing is big enough we could actually use it as a base for all sorts of stuff.. kinda a mini-moon.. with elevator access. heh, it'd even make the ISS obsolete. You could use it to capture/send spaceships from/to other sites (Mars...)

    1. Re:It'd make a nice Counterweight... by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Does somebody want to bother calculating how much energy it would take to catch this thing? I think it's safe to assume that such a feat would be impossible.

      How about making a composite "mini moon" from quarried moon rock? I think that would be fairly realistic.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    2. Re:It'd make a nice Counterweight... by Luxifer · · Score: 1

      send and assemble a mass driver on the surface, use its own mass to push it in one direction (sending the debris in the opposite direction) And the mass would come from your tunneling equipment as you hollow it out for habitation. By the time it's in orbit, it'd be all set up to be habitable.

  93. No More Social Security! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    Guess I won't be needing that social security afterall! Can I stop paying into it then?

    Sounds like a solution to our police-state woes.

    Who wants to buy front-row seats? Front-row seats here!

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  94. Re: Off-Planet Colony by AliasMoze · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if we had an off-planet colony, how would we populate it? We can't even get a hundred people into space let alone a thousand, let alone a million, let alone a billion.

  95. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by dkone · · Score: 2, Funny

    The half of us who are still living would. Sheesh, for some people, it is all about me, me, me.

  96. Hit, miss, hit, miss, ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... wake me up if/when it enters the atmosphere.

  97. Tag it on the way by? by voudras · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking that It might be a good idea to tag it with a high end warhead after it passes us on a tangent - dispersing it away from us.

  98. Re:Our Eulogy by geekoid · · Score: 1

    INsightfull?

    sheesh, it's funny people, Funny!

    "Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty apes!"

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  99. April 13, 2029 (FRIDAY!) by ImaFraud · · Score: 1

    Did anybody else notice that April 13th, 2029 falls on a Friday... Friday the 13th. Be afraid... be very afraid.

    1. Re:April 13, 2029 (FRIDAY!) by Citizen+Gold · · Score: 1

      I noticed this too. I'm amazed no one else had commented on it either. I was expecting that to be the first post.

  100. Re:Orion Project over kill? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Why not just use a variation of the Shuttle system? Use ET with a cluster of RS-68s to boost a Delta 4 common core based second stage.
    Put a big honking nuke on it and try to nudge it into a safer orbit. Yes it may take a lot more than one shot to do it but if we could get a launch rate of one shot every month we could loft several hundred big honking nukes between now and then. You do not have to provide a big enough hit to stop 46 gigatonnes but just enough to move it.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  101. Mine the sucker by soupdevil · · Score: 1

    What great luck! Any idea of its composition? Because by then we'll be running low on quite a few of our essential minerals. Shouldn't be impossible to nudge it into orbit and mine it. This might be just what we need to bootstrap ourselves into space.

  102. Good opportunity by armed+ahmed · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So 2035 would be a good time for a scientific instrument to hitch a ride on an asteroid, then?

    Would be a good chance to put a digger on an asteroid, maybe even park a HST-like observatory on it...

    ...almost as good as a lunar base...

    1. Re:Good opportunity by macmastery · · Score: 0
  103. I'll take 2 by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    A big one, and a small one.

    Gotta procreate after the impact.

  104. /. 2031... by Eyeball97 · · Score: 1
    In other news, seti@home decyphers it's first verifiable signal...

    "Greetings, people of earth. We are.....

    Hold on...

    Where the fuck did that asteroid come from it wasn't on any of our....&^%&^%(...no carrier"

  105. Funniest single panel cartoon I ever saw... by refactored · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...had a huge dinosaur stepping out of a flying saucer looking out unseeingly over the heads of tiny scurrying humans. The caption was, "Hello! Hello Everybody! Hullooo! We're home!"

    I can't remember who the artist was. Sad.

    1. Re:Funniest single panel cartoon I ever saw... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Gary Larson, The Far Side cartoon to me.

    2. Re:Funniest single panel cartoon I ever saw... by refactored · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, I don't think it was Larsen. It is very Larsen in character, but I don't think it was him.

    3. Re:Funniest single panel cartoon I ever saw... by eexlebots · · Score: 1

      I think I saw that panel too, but it may just be the power of suggestion telling me that the gag was from a "The Parking Lot is Full" strip...?

      --
      ***
    4. Re:Funniest single panel cartoon I ever saw... by refactored · · Score: 1
      Taking a quick look through the archives, http://plif.andkon.com/, he has a lot of single panel cartoons, but not that one.

      It may well predate web comics, it was a ye old print media thing.

    5. Re:Funniest single panel cartoon I ever saw... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Could also be "Off the Mark", as that artist tends to do some very odd one-panel cartoons.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  106. if it hits earth by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    if it hits earth it wont have to kill us all on impact, it just has to throw enough crap in to the atmosphere to cause a nuclear winter scenero which will finish civilisation off for good...

    RE: [An impact would cause an energy release equivalent to about 1 Gigaton of TNT]

    thats pretty big

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  107. They might not know if it will hit or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but they should have an idea what side of the earth will be aiming in that direction. If it's the middle of Siberia it's not as bad (for me at least) as if it were aimed at the center of the U.S.

  108. Re: 6 Years!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, be serious.

    In 2029 Willis will be a decrepit 74 years old. It's gonna be real irritating watching the Shuttle's left blinker flash all-the-way to the asteroid.

  109. If it hits, 92,000 dead probable average by redelm · · Score: 1
    Humans populate this globe on average 12/km^2. A 1000 Mt groundpounder will produce a 50% lethal diameter around 100 km.

    The problem is population distribution. Some areas are empty, and others are 300x average. But even these are peaky. I don't even think a central hit on Tokyo would kill more than 40M.

    1. Re:If it hits, 92,000 dead probable average by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      Most likely it splashes into the ocean. Then we'll see an interesting tidal wave.
      Prepare your surfboards.

    2. Re:If it hits, 92,000 dead probable average by redelm · · Score: 1
      An ocean strike would be most probable, and the effects much less than the recent tsunami for two reasons: First, much less energy. (1/3rd?) Second, energy transfer to water much less efficient -- collision will produce much more local heating while a fault thrust purely moves water.

  110. Asteriod hit versus UNIX Y2.038K by Theovon · · Score: 1

    So, what you're saying is that the asteriod will hit just about at the same time that 32-bit UNIX machines reach the end of time?

  111. I Bet a case of BEER... by Drexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I look at this and know that, like many people, this is a cash vehicle and a licence for the US government to do what always wanted to do. With a big scare like this, the US government can get all the funding it wants to put a nuclear spacecraft into orbit. This will allow them to pour trillions of dollars into the "greater good". While they are at it, they will have a nuclear missile platform in space to control any government it so chooses.... with the "permission" of any partnered countries! "Either you with us, or your terrorists".

    Now NASA gets a blank check to research and develop anything it wants. .. It will be convenient for the US government to use this new "planet saver" platform for other "very important" military moves against "terrorist" organizations.

    Kinda like someone fending off "killer minnows" in a bucket of water using a shotgun and a paint mixer.

    I bet a case of Beer that the US government will make an announcement to develop a space vehicle that has the ability to blast something. Not really thinking that all you need to do is give the big rock a shove, so that it never comes near the earth.

    1. Re:I Bet a case of BEER... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I bet a case of beer that you are an idiot.

    2. Re:I Bet a case of BEER... by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      I'm in for this one. I want a written document by someone qualified in the field that states he's an idiot. I can taste that beer already!

    3. Re:I Bet a case of BEER... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Bet a case of Canadian Beer your an American.

  112. we just have to ask ourselves... by jmrobinson · · Score: 1

    ...What would Bruce Willis do?

  113. Clue to moderators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a quote from Planet of the Apes (the original). HA HA.

  114. Bush planning astronomy cuts by drewzhrodague · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bush is planning cuts in astronomy budgets.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    1. Re:Bush planning astronomy cuts by Numtek · · Score: 1

      Bush says to scientists: 'develop a more managerial approach to the business of doing science.'
      Tsk. It' all about r&d in that sector, what is he thinking? Nerds in labs doing it according to the 3P's and the 4M's? *sigh* We're more likely do die because we can't even manage a simple society, than the chance of us getting hit by an asteroid.

    2. Re:Bush planning astronomy cuts by Eminence · · Score: 1
      • Bush is planning cuts in astronomy budgets.

      You didn't read the f**king article, did you? You just saw the trigger word "Bush" and switched into "bush-bashing mode" immediately.

      There is no mention of cuts. There is only lack of promise that they will grow. And there is an appeal for greater scrutiny in managing funding, and I don't see nothing wrong with that. Scientists should also think carefully about the ways they spend public money and at least consider less costly approaches where possible. Why should they be above this?

      And there is lots of criticism of ISS program and the way it is managed - and you can hardly argue with that.

  115. No problem, easy solution! by Sebby · · Score: 1
    All we need to do is change the gavitational constant of the universe; what the hell are all you folks worried about!

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  116. Whew!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need to worry about UNIX time rollover problem.

  117. I really hope not by hellfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This may be the spur humanity needs to get us up off our collective keisters and establish a viable off-planet colony before it's too late. It would be an unprecedented catastrophe, but still survivable, and it seems like this is the only way we're going to learn.

    If the sole reason you want a space program is paranoid fear that we might be hit by a rock, that's a pretty sad reason.

    I'd like to visit the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. I'd like to see other star systems. I'd like to advance our knowledge of the galaxy and universe and try to find other life forms.

    I mean, if people were dying left and right by micrometeorites hitting the earth and blowing out people's skulls but no one in power cared, I'd be concerned. That's not the case here.

    Let's keep the fearmongering to a dull roar here. How sick does our society have to be when someone start's talking like a bad sci-fi thriller about the end of the world?

    The sole purpose of any space program should be like any other science program, to make the unknown known and to expand the horizons of human understanding.

    Frankly, if the meteor is coming in 2035, my opinion is that it's pretty much too late now. Get out your sandbags and automatic rifles and prepare for the armageddon (not the movie!).

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:I really hope not by Enigma_Man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's obviously not the sole reason someone of intelligence would want off this rock, but sometimes to get the unwashed masses moving on something, you've got to light a fire under them (or drop a gigantic rock on them at a few thousand miles per hour).

      Joe sixpack doesn't care about science, or exploration unless it directly affects him. The only reason a lot of the "space race" happened is because people were afraid of the commies. Now that there isn't such a fear, things like NASA get their budget slashed, and creativity suffers. Sometimes you need the fear of imminent death to drive science and technology (like in war).

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    2. Re:I really hope not by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting


      If the sole reason you want a space program is paranoid fear that we might be hit by a rock, that's a pretty sad reason.

      I never charaterized the fear of our species being obliterated by a global catastrophe (what you so quaintly refer to as being 'hit by a rock') as my sole reason to colonize space...it is merely the most important.

      Let's keep the fearmongering to a dull roar here. How sick does our society have to be when someone start's talking like a bad sci-fi thriller about the end of the world?

      No, let's not. Let's let the fearmongering rise to a fever pitch. You might not want to admit it, but fear is much more motivating than any of the high and mighty ideals you're going on about. I would much rather humanity takes to the stars because we want to...because we're curious...because we can...but our window of opportunity is closing. Between the next world-extinction event (which most scientists agree is overdue) and our rapid squandering of this world's limited resourses, if we don't get into space soon, it's likely we won't be able to when we have to. If we hve to be whipped into leaving Earth, so be it.

      The sole purpose of any space program should be like any other science program, to make the unknown known and to expand the horizons of human understanding.

      Wrong. The primary purpose of a space-colonization program is enhanced survival of the species. Expanding the horizons of human understanding is a fine and noble goal, but it comes in a distant second to insuring that humans are still around to understand stuff.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:I really hope not by hellfire · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So you are saying that in order to light a fire under people about terrorism, you would, say, start a war with some random country that has nothing to do with terrorism just to get people to care?

      There are too many scary parallels between the Iraq war, Vietnam, pornography and this solution to fix our lagging space program.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    4. Re:I really hope not by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If the sole reason you want a space program is paranoid fear that we might be hit by a rock, that's a pretty sad reason.

      This isn't the sole reason many people on here want a better space program. However, while you might like the idea of visiting the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, most people don't care, or don't think it's possible. What are you going to say to some idiot, errr, typical citizen, who'd rather have a little more money to spend on a big SUV rather than give it, in the form of taxes, to a space program which probably won't progress fast enough to allow him to visit Saturn's moons in his lifetime?

      But if there's a credible threat from space, that's a much easier way to convince the average taxpayer to provide additional space funding. However, as the first poster said, it'll probably require a large, direct asteroid strike before people finally wake up and decide to focus more attention off the planet.

    5. Re:I really hope not by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      The really scary thing is that it worked. Bush got reelected, and some 60% of all average joes still think that Saddam had WMDs, despite the conclusive proof that they never existed.

      There are too many scary parallels between the Iraq war, Vietnam, pornography and this solution to fix our lagging space program.

      Too many? I'd say just enough. After all, the strategy is proven effective.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    6. Re:I really hope not by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Get out your sandbags and automatic rifles and prepare for the armageddon (not the movie!).
      Which is not to say the movie doesn't need them, too...
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:I really hope not by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      The reality is, we dont have the technology to 'get off this rock' in any significant way, and its not likely to be here for 2035. If survival of the species is truely the goal, we better learn how to use what we have, and create an environment that can survive.

      Surprisingly enough, if you look carefully, we have both the technology, and the location to do the job, it's just not as 'sexy' as space travel. Undersea colonies are well within reach of todays technology, fully self contained ecosystems. Marine life did a decent job surviving the last 'extinction event', and a thousand feet under the sea will hardly notice the next one either (unless it's right at the point of impact).

    8. Re:I really hope not by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If you are so contemptuous of typical citizens, what right do you have to their tax dollars?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:I really hope not by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      prepare for the armageddon (not the movie!).

      How about the game

    10. Re:I really hope not by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      If the sole reason you want a space program is paranoid fear that we might be hit by a rock, that's a pretty sad reason.

      I'd like to visit the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.


      Hello, reality check. 99.9% of people don't give a flying fuck about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and wouldn't donate five cents to the project even if donuts were 1c each.

      The point of the original comment is that most people WOULD care if they were about to be annihilated by an asteroid.

      Getting off this planet requires a lot of money, and raising a lot of money requires public support. (Just look at the media campaign waged by the US Government to drum up support for invading Iraq, so that they could allocate funds and not get voted out).

    11. Re:I really hope not by Shihar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is just paranoid. The only things that would make earth a worse place to live in the mars as it is now are the same things that make everything within a few light years to live in. Lets say DinoKiller 2 was to strike earth, where would you rather be? If you say Mars (or any other place in the solar system), you need to rethink things a little.

      I would much rather rather be deep underground or undersea then on some wasteland like Mars. The simple fact of the matter is that there is NOTHING short of the all out destruction of this planet that could possibly remove the massive quanties of water, carbon, and all those wonderful organics that we love. Even if the entire surface of earth was turned into ash by a massive strike, earth would still have more water and carbon then we know what to do with. Mars on the other hand will always be a cold dead wasteland without an atmosphere.

      If preservation of the species really is your concern, I would suggest a deep sea colony. All the water you could possibly want, and if anything goes wrong, you are just never far from help. Further, if the world is wiped out, a deepl see colony is roughly the safest place you could be.

  118. Run for the Border! by macmurph · · Score: 1

    Taco Bell has just announced that they will be placing a large bulls-eye target in the pacific ocean. If the asteroid hits the target, free tacos for the whole world that day!

    1. Re:Run for the Border! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny
      An ocean hit would be worse. Ok, here's a scientific demonstration. Go into your bathroom and fill the bathtub up. Now put a bunch of little plastic guys on the bathroom floor. Go on, I'll wait for you to set it up...

      All done? Ok, now take a big freaking cinder block, stand on your toilet and drop it on the little plastic guys. Ok now that's a bit of a bloodbath, sure. Set 'em up again and then lob the cinder block into the bath tub. See what the problem could be here?

      So if the asteroid hits the ocean, not only will lots of people be killed, but you'll also get in trouble with your wife/parents/room mate for making a huge mess. Go figure.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Run for the Border! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'm OK with my wife, but my downstairs neighbors didn't appreciate the cinder block going through the floor. The plastic guys are still standing. What are the chances of the asteroid going through to China? Did you intend the tub to be metal and not fiberglass?

  119. Impact or not,prepare as if it was coming your way by D4C5CE · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Earth's geologic history is pretty clear: It says, quite frankly, that single-planet species don't last. Right now we're a single-planet species. We need to fix that.

    John Young
    Astronaut

    Houston Chronicle
    2004-12-17

    Okay, the Extinction Level Event may never happen in our lifetimes (except on the silver screen)... but why don't we just prepare as if an asteroid was to hit us in the near future anyway? History has shown how the innovation spurred by space programs pays off in unexpected ways over decades (the U.S. kept its technological edge for the rest of the century), and this time, ironically, this might even encourage improvements in the more controversial (e.g. nuclear and defense) technologies with a focus strongly on "saving the planet". The investment it triggers should also help economies around the globe - threshold countries want to go to space for a reason even today, as they have realised the beneficial side effects of such programs. Even if all we ever get out of it is only the "usual, boring stuff" like affordable spaceflight, a boost to astronomy and advances in all fields of technology, clean power on earth and a holiday resort on the moon etc., in preparing for an impactor that never comes... it still sounds like "A Good Thing (TM)".
  120. I'm sure that the risk of the earth being hit by.. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...an asteroid has increased since we started looking for potential collisions. I suggest we stop looking. That strategy seems to have worked well for the human race for the last few tens of thousands of years.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  121. ah just nuke the f**ker by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    for the love, quit jabbering about asteroids that may hit us. What the hell is the space program for if they can't figure out how to blow up a threatening space rock. My god, we can send probes to Mars and dig up dirt, we can fly into a tail of comet, we can submerge a probe on Jovian moon, among other useless shit but blowing up piece of space rock is mystery. I guess it just to practical for them.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    1. Re:ah just nuke the f**ker by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      Big asteroids are too large to effectively blow up. You'd need like a Death Star or something.

  122. So living in space.... by wyldwyrm · · Score: 1

    Which was mentioned the other day, would be an advantage. We could look out the windows and watch the rest of the world get hit... Or, as I said before, NASA could screw up their calculations and put us directly in the path of the stoopid thing....

  123. Typical childish /. response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why would we spend trillions of dollars combating a threat that seems to be important mainly to obscure scientists looking for a name, and 15 year old /. space fanbois?

    Seriously, if we had a trillion dollars to spend, fight hunger or AIDS or *actual proven problems*, not some theoretical "an asteroid could hit earth".

    You do understand that those movies were, er, fiction, right?

    1. Re:Typical childish /. response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF we had a trilion dollars?

      I have a better idea.

      Spend it all on developing better Nuclear weapons so we can just blow ourselves to hell before 2004MN4 even gets here.

      What? Some country is already doing that? I was only joking! You'd have thought the tax paying "citizens" of that country would put a stop to it...

  124. QUICK!!!! by dtk13 · · Score: 0

    Quick every one stock up on Moutain Dew and software patches...
    This is one instance where microsoft might come in handy because then we could down load a software patch that would prevent the astroid from hitting!
    Relese date for patch: April 14 2029...

  125. What about 2046? Distance r(earth)=0.05 by chopper749 · · Score: 3, Informative

    4x more likely to hit then in 2035. Impact risk

  126. Re: Off-Planet Colony by Ageless · · Score: 1

    How about two? :)

    Bow wow... chikka chikka bow wow...

  127. I always wondered... by Angstroem · · Score: 1
    Wouldn't it be funny if they did have a space program and just haven't bothered coming back?
    Actually, I wouldn't be too impressed if this were true.

    How long did it take Homo Sapiens to evolve from its earliest ancestors -- like 1.5 million years.

    Dinosaurs were around for a much longer period of time... Plenty of time to evolve, develop civilization and technology.

    But maybe I just read too much Harry Harrison...

  128. They did! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be funny if they [dinosaurs] did have a space program and just haven't bothered coming back?

    They did have a space program. They even CAME BACK.

    Here's the proof!

  129. I think I'll get a second cheeseburger by BigGerman · · Score: 1

    2029 was pushing it, 2037 just not realistic for me. You the young ones can handle that. ANd do NOT raise my taxes mind you.

  130. 03:14:07 GMT, Tuesday, January 19, 2038 by slashusrslashbin · · Score: 1

    Excellent! Now I won't have to fix all those Y2038 bugs in my UNIX code! Go asteroid!!!

    1. Re:03:14:07 GMT, Tuesday, January 19, 2038 by amrust · · Score: 1

      I was upset by the worldwide banking/financial implications of this. Until I realized most of my retirement funds will have been dwindled away long before 2038 comes to pass. But still, I'd probably have trouble getting my bingo money out of my debit card, if the bank's UNIX server goes crap-up.

      --
      VOTE!
  131. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by slashrogue · · Score: 1

    "Titor claimed to be a serving soldier who was recruited to a governmental time travel project. He was supposedly sent from 2036 back to 1975 to retrieve an IBM 5100 computer which he claimed was needed to overcome a Unix bug--Unix-based machines would no longer function after 2038, a known bug related to the 32-bit nature of the Unix clock."
    for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor/

    I think I lost an hour or 2 of my life reading up on the archives of his posts.

  132. Revelation 8, v10-11...Already happened! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russian word for "wormwood" is "chernobyl"

  133. Re:Our Eulogy by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sheesh, it's funny people, Funny!

    I think the reason some Funny posts get modded Insightful, Informative, Whatever is because starting sometime ago Funny mods no longer improve your karma. Thus to counteract, if a post already has a few Funny mods, a moderator might mod it Informative to boost the poster's karma a bit.

    Makes some sense to me. After all, Funny comments in /. stories are most of the reason I read comments. A real knee-slapper deservers a bit of karma methinks :)

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  134. Them's fightin words! by uberjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Watch what you say, or you'll end up in Gitmo for threating the president with all the other freedom haters, you freedom hating hater of freedom.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  135. Re: Off-Planet Colony by Psmylie · · Score: 1

    We don't need hundreds or thousands of people... just a racially diverse mix of a couple dozen or so fairly young women, and a wide variety of frozen semen. You let the colony grow from there. After all, if all we're interested in is ensuring the survival of humanity, then we don't need to move our current population off planet, we just need a small "seed" population somewhere else.

    --

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

  136. Monkeys? by lilmouse · · Score: 1

    Don't monkeys already rule the earth?

    --LWM

  137. huh? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Are you advocating murdering the president by
    (a) attempting to direct an asteroid into his house
    (b) shooting at the president's house with tons and tons of rounds
    (c) lead poisoning, resulting in a new president who will.. also get lead poisoning...
    or indicating somehow that the president is related to the asteroid?

    Mr. hun, you have issues.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  138. Shitty day by smcavoy · · Score: 1

    for my birthday... Either I'll be dead, or I'll have to deal with the fact the following year I'll be 50 :)

  139. Social Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that the Social Security crisis is irrelevent?

  140. Re: Off-Planet Colony by ghukov · · Score: 1

    DNA samples stored as a backup plan. Stem cell research and cloning wouldn't sound so atrocious to many if they were awaiting an ELE.

    --
    ...because Plutonians are teh suck
  141. 2039... by slapout · · Score: 1

    ..hmmm...what year was that Unix bug thing suppose to hit?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  142. What if a Small Rock say 1000Kg by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

    So if this thing happens to bump a small rock, say 1000Kg, over the next couple of years that collosion could be sufficient to put this thing in my back yard. I think we should use the Iraq oil for food program to send Ben Afleck to take care of this. I saw him do it in some movie and since he is an actor, he is qualified by definition.

  143. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by jellomizer · · Score: 1


    Probability is that they will be Windows Users. So assume 90% users and 9 % Unix/Unix Like and 1/2 of them get whiped out so we will end up 100% windows users or 18% Unix other and 80% Windows.
    </Tongue in Cheek>

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  144. April 13, 2029 is... guess what day of the week? by atomm1024 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    % cal 04 2029
    Friday. Damn.

    I'm not much of a paraskavedekatriaphobe, but if the probability of it missing doesn't improve, I'm becoming superstitious.

    --
    Signature.
  145. world peace by unk1911 · · Score: 1

    this asteroid could be a good thing as it may unite the world in a common cause against a danger that can wipe all of us out indiscriminately. yey for world peace.

    --
    http://unk1911.blogspot.com

    1. Re:world peace by udowish · · Score: 1

      or it may hit the US and the results will be the same!! YEY!

      --
      when in doubt press enter and we'll figure it out later..
  146. Re: Off-Planet Colony by AliasMoze · · Score: 1

    Yeah, like me and Jessica Alba. We'll have the human race up in running in no time.

  147. Hmmm...2039... by slapout · · Score: 1

    ...will Bruce Willis still be alive then?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  148. Re: Off-Planet Colony by baadger · · Score: 1

    Massive inbreeding.

  149. What if it were to hit the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were to hit the moon, Im sure the damage would be much greater. Possibly even changing the moons orbit. Or breaking off a large chunk? The moons atmosphere is virtually non-existant which i am sure would effect how much damage is done as well.

    The moon is VERY important to the earth. Has anyone studied the possibility the moon being hit?

    The tide changes alone from a changing orbit could be very damaging to our ecosystem.

    I looked at the orbit model they have, but it does not include the moons orbit, so i am unsure if it would be possible. Just that if it is getting close enough to get into a lower orbit then satallites, then you would think it would also cross our moons orbit.

    Any thoughts/info?

    -Zach Younker

  150. On the positive side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We won't have to worry about Social Security Reform now...looks like there'll be plenty to go around for those of us left after the collision.

  151. There's hope... by Sahib! · · Score: 1
    --

    I prayed about it, and God said, "Don't do it!" But I thought, "I know better."

  152. Re:..it causes widespread devastation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your aim is to get the nigs, you should probably desire it to hit Africa...

  153. Dinosaurs CHOSE to... by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    Any follower of the Perry Bible Fellowship would know that the dinosaurs chose to go extinct!

    http://cheston.com/pbf/PBF025BCDinosaurMeteors.h tm l

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    1. Re:Dinosaurs CHOSE to... by Kenshin · · Score: 1
      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  154. Gravitational wake aside... by francisew · · Score: 1

    How about the amount of debris that it could leave in the upper atmosphere as a result of collisions with small orbital junk?

    Aside from taking out satellites, its trajectory would most likely be affected by small impacts of earth-bound debris. The solar wind would most likely be disrupted around this massive object. Piles of dust would probably be ejected into a variety of orbits around earth.

    Certainly not doomsday material, but probably a serious hindrance to spaceflight and other orbital technologies. Just the possible debris could pose significant risk to a space elevator, assuming we will have built one.

  155. They'd find the toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Forget where I first heard this, but ceramic toilets are both ubiquitous (thus the probability of at least one being found is quite high) and long-lived in the extreme. Even millions of years down the road, they'll be able to find our toilets. Won't they be impressed?

    1. Re:They'd find the toilets by rhesuspieces00 · · Score: 1

      i just hope they dont find one of those damn dutch toilets with the weird fecal shelf thing. god, that would be an embarassing legacy.

  156. Re:Our Eulogy by LiNKz · · Score: 1

    Actually, you should mod them Underrated.. that is what I do for posts I find funny.

    --
    Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
  157. Good ol' knowledge... by cluening · · Score: 1

    I like how now, on the order of 100,000 years after human-like things started wandering the earth, we suddenly have the technology needed to track chunks of rock out in space. And now, with our several 100,000+ year track record, we suddenly say "Look out! Something's gonna hit us! Oh no, here comes another! Oh, the humanity!"

    We didn't worry about it before we knew about it, and thus I don't feel the need to get all worked up about things now.

    --
    Posted from the wireless couch.
    1. Re:Good ol' knowledge... by Typing+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      60.000 years ago something like this hits somewhere on the American continent, killing lots of people. Humanity wouldn't be wiped out. The people living far away from the impact wouldn't even know.
      This thing hits New York or Tokyo today, you think you wouldn't care ? Even if you aren't directly affected or anyone you care about is, think about the economy. We aren't self sustained hunters living far away in small groups anymore. Sure, humanity would survive, but would suck loosing your job because the economy took a hit now wouldn't it ?

  158. Thank God.. by Flaming+Death · · Score: 0, Troll

    I didnt think there would be a way to stop this mindless slashpot website.. here it is.. although by then.. I suspect slashpot would have self imploded... I, for one, welcome our new asteroid masters..

  159. Everything I really needed to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...about apocalypse I learned from 80's music.

    From Peter Schilling's "The Noah Plan":

    the time has come
    to leave again
    activate
    the Noah plan
    returning to
    the universe
    give out the word
    abandon Earth

  160. Duck And Cover. by jrivar59 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This stuff is way over hyped. All you need to know to deal with such an event I learned in elementry school.

    Just watch the vid.

    Duck and Cover

  161. I already have my human bumpers picked out by skitz0 · · Score: 0

    Now I just need to get a metal spiked speedo and a hockey mask and a little gay guy with a mohawk to announce my arrival and i'll be all set for the upcoming apocolypse!

  162. I wonder what Rome thinks... by chud67 · · Score: 1
    I always thought it was interesting that the Vatican owns a very good telescope...I think they know something.

  163. Riiiight... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    Congress will just dissolve NASA and pretend that they've solved the problem.

    Then, after the asteroid hits, any surviving Republicans will blame the Democrats and any surviving Democrats will blame the Republicans and surviving followers of both parties will eat it up.

    1. Re:Riiiight... by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Then, after the asteroid hits, any surviving Republicans will blame the Democrats and any surviving Democrats will blame the Republicans and surviving followers of both parties will eat it up.

      Well yes, but exactly who gets to eat who?

    2. Re:Riiiight... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      The slimier ones with super-natural powers of double-speak will get to eat the others up. So basically this will be a world of lawyers and politicians.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  164. I hope its a near miss by mnmn · · Score: 1

    That would get the world on their feet, and focused on the asteroid than the wars and political squabbling. The Human race will finally have a purpose... to save Earth.... unless its aimed at Africa in which case the powers to be will make a point of ignoring it.

    But even a near miss will almost certainly alter the Earth's orbit, possibly fixing global warming.

    Heck we could use nukes to make sure it readjusts global warming, maybe CAUSE the impending ice age and end of the neocene.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  165. Excellent! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Hit it, oh hit it baby. Life forms suck.

    1. Re:Excellent! by ElyseMyers · · Score: 1

      Haven't we gotten this announcement at least two times in the past?? Someone needs to tell NASA to STOP watching independence day.

  166. Re:Our Eulogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Our Eulogy: "Good Riddance"

  167. Bush's space program will save all of us. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    I can already see cold war style nucular* shelter companies going around and installing shelters underneath folks' houses.

    But what the U.S. government is already doing may be the very same safety measure that is needed: The renewed interest in a moon base, missions to Mars, etc. This exact same space program, I believe, is being put into effect to install a gigantic weapons system in orbit, very similar to the Death Star in Star Wars. This type of weapons system will be sufficient to blow up this silly little asteroid.

    There are about twenty years left to prepare. NASA, you can rest assured, will come up with all kinds of devices to blow this thing out of the sky. And I'd bet you that the government, with all its supercomputers and whatnot, knows exactly when and where this thing is going to strike, and they're not just sitting around waiting for it to happen.

    In the meantime, I know I'll be stocking up on canned foods and bottled water, and I need to buy more ammo for my handguns. If this thing starts coming down in my back yard, I'll shoot at it myself. Or I'll shoot at any looters that come around looking for trouble.

    * I spelled "nucular" correctly. It's spelled according to the pronunciation of the guy I elected.

    1. Re:Bush's space program will save all of us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Willis will lead a mission to destroy the asteroid in space...soundtrack by Aerosmith...

  168. The Dig by demmer · · Score: 0

    they ll send a shuttle or something up to blow it apart, but then it suddenly stops and flys off into deep space...

    ahh the ol' days of entertaining lucasarts games...

  169. Re:Our Eulogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, underrated is far more better than informative or insightful for funny posts. But does underrated also boosts the karma of the poster?

  170. Who cares, l'll be dead by then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2035, 2036 of 2037 ? I was born in 1952, any lifetable shows that it is very likely that I'll be dead by then. I have no children, why should I care?

  171. Re:Our Eulogy by back_pages · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If I mod something funny as Insightful or Informative, it is because I love irony. I couldn't give a rat's ass about karma. I will post this with the karma bonus for no reason whatsoever.

  172. Re: Off-Planet Colony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, assuming we launch up a man and a woman, and these two people love each other very much, a very special thing happens....

    Wait, I'll tell you the rest when you're older.

  173. Nah... No worries... by emtboy9 · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is plenty of time now. NASA has all the time in the world now to develop a new super secret shuttle, and train a small flight crew. Then they will have plenty of time to hire a rag tag bunch of wise cracking oil drillers to send on said super secret shuttle, while first stopping off on Mir to visit with a crazy cosmonaut and refuel. Once they approach the asteroid, despite all their natural personality classes, they will come together and drill the required distance to the center of the asteroid, deposit a nuke or two, detonate said nukes, thus splitting the asteroid in half and getting each half to go its own seperate ways... and then Morgan Freeman will make a public speech glorifying the heroics of this intrepid band, and we will get to see hollywood make movies about their journy and adventure... oh wait... that already happened. Damn... guess we are fucked then.

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
  174. Overblown.... by cmsavage · · Score: 1
    Yes, the energy of impact would be equivalent to about 1 billion tons of TNT. But the largest nuclear bomb ever tested was equivalent to about 50 million tons- about 1/20 the size. IF this were to hit Earth, anyone at 100 miles from impact would be exposed to only a moderate (~6.5 magnitude) earthquake and a small amount of ejecta (might want to be indoors). At 50 miles, most people will survive. At 25 miles, there will be significant destruction, but people will likely survive if they are in a solid structure.

    So we could avoid nearly all deaths by evacuating a 100 mile region around the impact site. Odds are, the impact site will be either water (any tsunami will be smaller than the one last December) or a rural area and the damage will not be huge. Furthermore, even in the worst case, we will be able to determine the rough impact area weeks ahead of time and can reasonably evacuate the area.

    A billion people are not going to die. The impact on the Earth might be equivalent to a large volcano and it might depress the temperature by a couple degrees for a few years (we survived Pinatubo); certainly not much larger than recent disasters. And spending 100's of billions of dollars on trying to deflect this right now is certainly a waste of money, given that it is exceedingly unlikely this asteroid will cause that amount of damage even if it hits Earth.

    1. Re:Overblown.... by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      Spending that kind of money to 'deflect' is probably not going to be considered 'well spent'. OTOH, if that kind of expenditure gave a group the power to 'aim', i'm sure the US military would jump at the chance to be the one. I'm sure there's a few organizations around the world (some recognized governments, others informal organizations) that would jump at the possibility of aiming this to land in the vicinity of 1600 Pensylvania Avenue.

    2. Re:Overblown.... by cmsavage · · Score: 1
      I'm sure there's a few organizations around the world (some recognized governments, others informal organizations) that would jump at the possibility of aiming this to land in the vicinity of 1600 Pensylvania Avenue.

      But the asteroid will surely be deflected by the copious amounts of hot air emanating from the Capitol...

  175. Re:Not enough mass by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    It would have little to no measurable effect on the moon. It is literally about 1/100000 the mass of the moon. It would make for an EXCELLENT fireworks show.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  176. Wormwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water; and the name of the star is Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood; and many men died from the water because it was made bitter. Revelation 8 : 10-11

  177. Re:Our Eulogy by bobgoatcheese · · Score: 2, Funny

    Parent post is currently at +5, Funny.
    Where's the "Ironic" meta-moderation option?

    --
    How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
  178. Another thing by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    Anyone know what's the method used in order to identify asteroids and track their positions. What I mean is - how sure are we that we're tracking every potential threat?

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    1. Re:Another thing by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Well, I found something related to this - http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  179. Mortal Kombat! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Komodo Dragon vs. Sewer Rat.

    Round 1. Fight!

    Crunch

    Komodo Dragon wins.

    Fatality

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  180. Conservation of Energy by Detritus · · Score: 1

    Assume the rock has 2E24 Joules of kinetic energy. You shoot it with your astro-blaster pistol, breaking it up into a billion pieces. The pieces still have 2E24 Joules of kinetic energy. What happens when they hit the Earth's atmosphere? Almost all of that kinetic energy is converted to heat. That's about 2 billion megatons of thermal energy in a big pulse.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  181. Re:Our Eulogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, after few lame attempts at humour, some flame I posted and a couple of 'offtopics' my karma went from excellent to good. Then I had one post moded +5, Funny and that put the karma back to excellent.

    I know that 'funny' moderation is not supposed to increase karma levels but in my case it obviously did. Since I am sure it's nothing else but slashcode bug and I'm saying this in public (which is going to be moded flamebait automatically), posting this anonymously.

  182. Re:Our Eulogy by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

    Ha! Ha ha!

    After my little spiel about how Funny mods don't help karma, blah blah, my previously "Informative" post gets modded Funny.

    That is the Funniest thing I've seen on Slashdot today :)

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  183. Now please! by xv4n · · Score: 0
    Asteroid 2004 MN4 was introduced earlier on Slashdot, and although scientists are now fairly certain that it will miss earth on April 13th 2029...

    Stop this silliness right now. IS IT GOING TO CRASH YES OR NO?

  184. They're coming back in 2029. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't you noticed that MN4 is in an ideal orbital injection path? They'll decelerate just 3 minutes before nearest flypast point.

    You didn't think all that reptilian muscle was for no purpose whatsoever, did you?

  185. Heterogeneity by fbform · · Score: 1

    The density provides a good guess to the *average* composition, but not the heterogeneity of the projectile. This determines whether the particle is likely to burn up in the air (good) or melt and tumble (unpredictable trajectory - a simple orbital mechanics problem just became a hairy fluid mechanics problem) or hit the surface and if so, whether as one piece or a few large pieces or lots of small pieces.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  186. Friday the 13th!!!!! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    April 13, 2029 is on a Friday.
    That would be the penultimate Friday the 13th. I wonder if that was a cultural premonition.

    1. Re:Friday the 13th!!!!! by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 1

      If that's the penultimate, then what's the ultimate?

    2. Re:Friday the 13th!!!!! by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      There's ALWAYS another sequel to Friday 13th, although given the state of the planet it might go straight to DVD.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  187. i can beat it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The end of my statistically expected lifespan is in 2026. Up yours, asteroid 2004 MN4!

  188. Re:Our Eulogy by joe_bruin · · Score: 5, Funny

    NOT EARTH, that's where I keep all my stuff!!!

  189. It will be 2037 by NatteringNabob · · Score: 1

    Because that is when the Unix time value rolls over. Were Thompson and Ritchie psychic or what?

  190. Boeing Project by Lord+Floppy · · Score: 1

    I believe I read a few articles detailing the development of a 747 based green laser that could be used to knock out missiles and asteroids

    --
    Abandon all hope ye who enter here...
  191. Ha Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you think "Global Warming" is. Just look at all the groups who want to do nothing. Duh, blowing up dat rock would be expensive! Duh, Michael Krichton says that the rock is gonna miss us anyways and its a conspiracy of those damm scientists - again!

  192. We already know how this ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will wipe out 1/3rd of humanity and poison 1/3rd of our water. We'll end up calling it "wormwood".

  193. 2000th anniversary of the crucifiction? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Y2K was correct, but from the wrong end of Christ's life. Perhaps April 13th is the 2000th anniversary of Christ's death.

    (Actually astronmers calulated Passover occurred on a Thursday in A.D. 26, 30, 33, and 36. April 6, 30 A.D. matches best with other Bible chronology.)

  194. Why blow it up or deflect it??? by MufasaZX · · Score: 1

    If you're going to invest the huge amount of time & money to nudge the thing off into space, why not instead nudge it into a stable earth orbit so we can study/mine it? Of course, don't fubar up some metric conversion or some such in your guidance software along the way...doh!

    1. Re:Why blow it up or deflect it??? by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      ... why not instead nudge it into a stable earth orbit...

      I suspect it would take way too much energy to put it in Earth orbit. Apparently it's questionable whether we will have the technology to divert it enough to guarantee missing Earth. I can hear the battle cry of management, "Keep it under budget."

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  195. Moon by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Well, it could hit the moon and then cause moon to hit the earth in a galactic game of billiards. Anyway, all we need to do is turn the earth so that the asteroid falls into the pacific ocean...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  196. Re:Our Eulogy by javaxman · · Score: 1
    I will post this with the karma bonus for no reason whatsoever

    What's the reason for posting without the karma bonus ?

    I guess it's in case you care about your karma and know you don't have anything interesting to say ? Or you know you'll be modded down? That's what I gather from reading the FAQ... which makes your claim to not giving a rat's ass about karma suspect, since I had to go look up what it means to check the "No Karma Bonus" box. I'm implying you care enough about karma to know details about how it's accumulated and 'spent'.

    I don't think I've ever used that "No Karma Bonus" checkbox. I didn't even realize I could "filter down" my own posts that way. Maybe this post will be modded down and I'll see how it works. Now that I mention it, this is one of those posts I've read where it doesn't really say anything interesting and isn't on-topic. I'll probably be modded down. Uh-oh. Maybe I'll see how this works after all.

  197. But think of the trails, dude. The trails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trippy!

  198. Roughnecks! by Excen · · Score: 1

    we can just sent a couple construction workers

    They were texas oilmen, dammit! Just think, Halliburton, by way of Kellogg Brown and Root, might actually be responsible for saving the earth in 30 years. And if that happens, I'm officially joining the Republican party.

    --
    "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
  199. For all the chicken littles ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you check the nasa site, you'll see this "world killer" rates a "1" on the Torino Scale ...

    1 - Normal (Green Zone) - A routine discovery in which a pass near the Earth is predicted that poses no unusual level of danger. Current calculations show the chance of collision is extremely unlikely with no cause for public attention or public concern. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to re-assignment to Level 0.

    *phish* Time to go pop-in Armageddon

  200. Praying for Disaster by Gogela · · Score: 1

    ...* ...as if to say that a ball of rock running in to another is going to teach us something about gravitational mechanics. I think these lottery disasters are so well covered and revisited simply because there's a small part of everyone that wants to see Earth get shaken up. This is likely a symptom of sheer boredom rather than pure scientific curiosity.

    --
    A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie.
  201. Can I ask a religious question here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a Christian, but wasn't a lot of the millenium fear all about the end of the world occurring in the year 2000?

    I've never understood why that date was chosen. According to the Bible, Christ died when he was 33 years old, right?

    If so, then if the Bible says, "Hey, he's coming back in 2000 years, so look out and duck" doesn't that mean all of the doom and gloom that is forecast will hit not in the year 2000, but around 2033 AD?

    Sounds like this asteroid is right on target, right?

    1. Re:Can I ask a religious question here? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I cant recollect where in the bible it says the Christ is coming back in 2000 years.

      I dont think it says that, the only thing I can bring to mind is the scripture that says that "only the father knows" the times and days of the end times.

      Perhaps you could reread, and point out the section where it says that for me?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  202. That's just logic, please try harder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In general terms, having your collective dna stuck at the bottom of a gravity well relying on the "stability" of a single biosphere is not a a good long term policy.

    Bah. Only someone from a totally sentient species could speak as you do with logic. How uncouth.

    You're on planet Earth matey, adapt to our methods while you're here!

  203. Got any hard problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with those designs is legal

    Shoot the politicians and lawyers.

    Next problem.

    1. Re:Got any hard problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. If we kill ALL the lawyers, we couldn't be found guilty because we had inadequate legal representation at the trial.

  204. Devastation, but not widespread by Decaff · · Score: 1

    According to
    http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

    (The impact effect calculator). It wouldn't cause widespread devastation, at least not on a global scale. There would be a lot of damage within 100 km of the impact, but not much vapourised rock or ejecta, so there would not be much effect beyond that. Very bad for those close to the impact, but no significant effect globally.

  205. Point of impact by Repton · · Score: 1

    Y'know, my initial reaction, on reading the summary, was --- "Oh, it'll hit America, so I don't have to worry too much."

    Hooray for Holywood...

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    1. Re:Point of impact by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what if it hits in the ocean?

      Lot more water out their covering much more of the earth than land.

      Two thirds of the earth is water so a water impact is more likely than a land impact. In such a case it would suck to be living on an island or any of the coasts in the body of water it hits in because of the resultant Tsunami.

      Just a thought.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  206. Not so by rk · · Score: 3, Informative

    While you're right that Hubble wouldn't be too useful for tracking this asteroid, Hubble is perfectly good for looking at things in our solar system.

  207. Whew...no 32bit Unix time problem! by aschlemm · · Score: 1

    If that thing hits anytime before 2038 we don't have to worry about upgrading any of those 32 bit Unix systems right?

  208. Wikipedia with ads? by klossner · · Score: 1

    Why link to the article copy-with-ads at answers.com instead of the original at wikipedia.org?

  209. No Space Program required for survival of Impact by DoninIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no need for humanity to have Mars colonies, or an extensive off planet presence for civilization to survive even a dinosaur killing scale impact. Think Cold War era undeground shelters, long term survival planning for large numbers of people, caches of tools, technological implements etc, could be stored away in dispersed caches. Carefully storing up large quantities of survival foods, seeds etc could assure that civilization survives. I'm a big booster for space exploration and colonization, but I've always thought this to be a bit of a BS. train of reasoning. Now using this space program to divert an asteroid is clearly better than hunkering down and digging in. However I really think we could dig in and survive even a big one with 1950 technology.

  210. Molecular nanotech should be widespread by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can use MNT to solve all these problems, we will almost certainly have it by then.

  211. um, hello?? by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
    It worked for Cobra-La. kthnxbye.

    -truth

    --

    I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

  212. Re: Off-Planet Colony by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    Wait, I'll tell you the rest when you're older.

    I already know how it ends, they get married, live together for 20 years, then they get divorced and she gets everything.

    Me, bitter? No way.

  213. just hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the dinosaurs (e.g. Bob, Dawn & Rex) are not extinct; they are just hiding.

  214. Actual Effects depend on where it lands by N3Bruce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For a frame of reference, I Gigaton of TNT explosive yield is about the size of 20 Tsar Bomba class nuclear explosions . If the asteroid was kind enough to hit us somewhere on land and thinly populated, such as the Sahara Desert or Siberia, the main effect would be a volcanic winter, such as what happened after the explosion of Santorini, in about 1650 BC or Mount Tambora in 1815 . Not a lot of fun, but civilization would probably go on as usual for most places.

    If it hit in the middle of the ocean, a Tsunami could conceivably wipe out many of the major cities on the Pacific Rim or Atlantic and European seacoasts. Tens of millions could die, and many of the developed world's major cities would be laid waste. Whole countries would be crippled, and the ensuing chaos would disrupt world trade, and potentially destabilize entire regions.

    A direct hit on a major population center, such as Southern California, the area around Bejing, China, or Bombay, India would cause millions of casualties and huge suffering, but the effects would be local enough that the rest of civilization would find a way to get by, even if important industries were wiped out. Such a hit would be a relative longshot, but could happen.

    1. Re:Actual Effects depend on where it lands by Leebert · · Score: 1

      For a frame of reference, I Gigaton of TNT explosive yield is about the size of 20 Tsar Bomba class nuclear explosions.

      Oh.

      Well, then, thanks for clearing that up. :)

  215. Re:Our Eulogy by jafomatic · · Score: 1
    But does underrated also boosts the karma of the poster?

    I sure hope so! That's what I use on good posts that are already classified (imho) properly. Likewise, the trolls/flamebait get overrated from me.

    Back to the asteroid topic (oh. Yeah, that thing), is there any indication that the various space programs are looking at deterrant options? Something along the lines of blowing it up, or bonking it towards old Sol?

    --
    ::jafomatic
  216. Hey Beavis! by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 0


    Huh huh... huh huh huh... he said "ASS-DESTROID."

    Seriously, a scary near miss or non-fatal hit would do this world good.. get people working together on the right problems instead of all this whiney handwringing about homeland security and terrorism.

  217. Earth Impact Effects Calculator Link by Baldrson · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Earth Impact Effects Calculator lets you calculate the destructive effect of various asteroid impacts.

  218. Re:Our Eulogy by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

    If I'm posting something very specific in response to a single poster, that adds absolutely nothing to the overall discussion, I might post without the bonus. Or if I knowingly write something that is, as you said, uninteresting and off topic (or trolling- because sometimes it has to be done), I'll uncheck the box.

    I guess I figure it's less likely to be seen by mods, and I'll lose less Karma when they invariably mod it down.

    --
    Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  219. No need to fix that 2038 bug by WarmBoota · · Score: 2, Funny

    It looks like we won't have to put in overtime on that 2038 Bug w00t!

    --
    90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
  220. Don't Bump It! by mdmoery · · Score: 1

    From the article: As a safety precaution, some experts are calling for 2004 MN4 to be "tagged" with a transponder that would constantly radio its position.
    ------------------

    OK, but please proceed carefully. We wouldn't want to accidentally crash the transponder mission on the rock and effect the trajectory in an unpleasant way. :-)

    Of course, if you can pull off a transponder rendevous, why not send a rocket motor instead and solve the problem? How much delta vee do you need to nudge a 1000ft rock into a safe trajectory?

  221. My standard asteroid comment. by glyph42 · · Score: 1

    Whenever dangerous asteroids come up, I make the same statement, and I still stand by it. Quoth my journal: Cost-cutting idiots will kill us all

    --
    Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
  222. WAIT! I'm an American.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't WWII only last 3 years?

  223. George Bush Says ... by KJSwartz · · Score: 1

    Eight ball into L-5 Orbit. Level of difficulty: .75 degree of arc in 27.322 days. Miss, and scratch one Earth.

    Kinda puts Global Warming into perspective, huh?

  224. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by sootman · · Score: 1

    And those of us who survive will reset the Epoch to midnight the day after the asteroid hits. :-)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  225. Re: Off-Planet Colony by wattersa · · Score: 1

    [Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]
    General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
    Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
    Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
    [from Dr. Strangelove (1964)]

  226. Propulsion? by mrpolyrhythm · · Score: 1

    All these comments about propulsion systems, has everyone forgotten about the Nerva project, TESTED SUCCESSFULLY in the 60's??? Do a google search, you'll see what I mean...

  227. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what bothers me more that a series of asteroids are between 50-80% to destroy us, the fact that I'm not to worried, or that it could take neer extinction to top doing the kinds of stupid we insist on. I don't meen tolkien esk stupid where a god decides to whipe out a island for the greater god, nor the chaos trilogy where on a whim someone recreats the univers. But William Gibson, irovacable johny nomonic, or Neromancer levels of stupidity.

  228. woohoo! no 2038! by corrosiv · · Score: 1


    UNIX advocates can now be smugly confident in saying "UNIX systems won't have a Y2K meldown in 2038"

  229. Re:Our Eulogy by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There will be no eulogy. Humanity will die quickly.

    Denial will reign, as no preparations are done to evacuate the planet. Some will say there is no way to evacuate everyone. Others will say there's nowhere else to go. The real thinkers will know, if we had started years ago, we would have had a chance.

    Most will die from the intial impact.

    The impact will crack the planet's crust, resulting in volcanos, earthquakes, and tsunamis, which continue for years.

    Many will die due to the dependance on transportation systems, or more specifically the failure of them.

    A very few will survive in the cold dust and ash filled atmosphere, through the shaking ground, and giant destroying the costal areas. They will survive for many months on their preserved food reserves, and filtered air. Alone, they will consider themselves the lucky ones.

    In the end, none will survive.

    Many millennia later, other civilizations will have grown in far outlying areas of the universe. They will look at the dry and barren planet, covered by rocks and dirt, and say "nothing could have ever lived here. It's always been a dead planet"

    Eventually, despite taunts, archeologists will find disputed traces of life on the planet. Some artifacts will be found. They will be found frozen in the ice of the polar ice caps, or burried in the sands of the vast deserts. Still others will be below hundreds of feet of dirt, on the iced tops of frozen oceans.

    The artifacts will be carefully examined for many years. There will be many theories to what they are, and what the markings may mean. Could there have been life on this far distant planet? Could a civilization have thrived in this desolate place? Maybe these creatures could be a clue to our ancestory?

    In the end, their markings will be considered random discolorations. The artifacts will be labeled as "common rocks", and thoughtfully put into storage well away from public sight.

    No, as egotistical as we are, there will ne eulogy. There will be no memory of anything we've accomplished. We will be part of the dust on a barren planet, spinning slowly around a dying star.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  230. WAY COOL! by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

    bring on the impact! knock us back a few centuries again.

    1. Re:WAY COOL! by http101 · · Score: 1

      Earth, just another bug on the galaxy's windshield...

      I'm guessing the Pacific Ocean, probably dead-smack on Hawaii.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  231. Longyear was better. by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Barry Longyear did a much better job with the concept in his 1979 novelette "The Homecoming," included in his magnificient collection It Came From Schenectady and later expanded to a full stand-alone novel. Mind you, I think "The House of If" and the haunting "Collector's Item" are better examples of his work, but he executed the dinosaur idea competently enough.

    Star Trek's main strength is its willingness to unabashedly steal the best material in science fiction and adapt it. It's main weakness is that it the writers (or perhaps their editors) are often such incompetent thieves.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  232. Re:Our Eulogy by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

    underrated is what you use on posts that are already classified properly... good to see the normal slashdot mentality, or lack thereof, remains!

  233. odds makers by giasen · · Score: 1

    Any takers on where it will hit?

  234. Here's my take, by bariumLanthanide · · Score: 1

    The 2029 near-collision is a warning shot regarding American's immigration problem.
    Take a look at this projected immigration graph: http://numbersusa.com/overpopulation/posters.html
    In 2029 the "domestic" Americans will be just crossing their maximum point, and if we cannot figure the situation out after that, god will swing back around in 2036 or so when everything is out of control, and completely annilate his pathetic creation and start over.

  235. Is it heading for France? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is, what's the problem?

  236. Re:Can't deploy the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably also infringes on a whole host of patents. I'm sure the lawyers would try to extract a royalty for every human life saved.

  237. It's a conspiracy ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    It's the thing what starts the Man in Black-syndrome; it's their answer for the airwaves they saw for the X-files, roswell stuff, men-in-black, ET, Aliens, and all those crap movies...

    They just cannot take it anymore, and they have sent this asteroid with a bumper sticker "married with earth in 2040" ...

    I wouldn't be suprised it would introduce some weird disease which turns all male into female and all female into male ...

    You'd never know, it's running out of hand and shit has hit the fan ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  238. Re:Impact or not,prepare as if it was coming your by Eminence · · Score: 1
    • prepare as if an asteroid was to hit us in the near future anyway

    I totally agree with you.

    Isn't it nice that this news comes just after we again discussed here another anniversary of Apollos? And some argued viciously that, for example, we should postpone human space travel until it is completely safe.

    Don't you see we are already all engaging in space travel that is not safe in the long run? Time to wake up, the clock is ticking.

  239. Oh,really,evolution+survival can be dangerous? ;-) by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    some argued viciously that, for example, we should postpone human space travel until it is completely safe
    Erm, like we did for planes, automobiles, trains, riding horses/elephants/camels/whatever, canoes and rafts - and even fire for that matter... which is why we still live in caves? (Or wait a minute, hunting and gathering isn't completely safe either, so the Cro-Magnons should have been starving in the first place... "But this could be dangerous, Grog - so let's rather become extinct, end of evolution, period.")
  240. Re:Our Eulogy by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Overrateed/Underrated mods are a little interesting.

    If you read the Mod FAQ about them (last bullet) you'll see that you can get some odd (but unlikely I guess) combos like +5 Flamebait (that would be cool though :).

    Also, and I don't know this for fact but I've seen others discuss it, if you mod using Under/Overrated too much, you may eventually be given fewer/no mod points. The reason being is that Under/Overrated mods cannot be metamoderated so you get trolls with mod points using them to mod people down without valid reason (political, whatever). There's some big discussions about users getting hit by tons of Overrated mods because they have enough Foes with mod points. Basically there's no way to "balance out" Under/Overrated mods.

    Anyone know more about this?

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  241. Re:so we can forget about the 32bit Unixtime thing by Justin205 · · Score: 1

    That happened to me a while back too.

    Then I realized, while the guy had some good points about the present, it was most likely complete bullshit.

    But, indeed, insightful bullshit.

    --
    "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  242. Don't Panic by Kineel · · Score: 1

    Ok, I hate to tell you all this, but that date was not 2029, it was supposed to be the 29th of THIS MONTH! That's right, it is gonna hit us on the same day that 'Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy' comes out. Coincidence? I think not!

    Now that you kow, "Don't Panic!"

    --
    -- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
  243. Last Post! by Bros · · Score: 0

    Or at least the first of the last posts.

  244. Re:Our Eulogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to wonder about a Karma system that rewards boring posts but not the funny ones...

  245. Life imitates art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The MIRACL Mid infrared Advanced Chemical Laser was indeed being used to not space debris out of orbit.
    Mid Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL). This is the most powerful continuous wave laser in the Western Hemisphere. It is located at the U.S. Army's High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility near White Sands, New Mexico, a facility that is also used extensively in support of the Air Force's Airborne Laser and the BMDO's Space-Based Laser pro-grams. The MIRACL is a prototype system that is being worked to over-come obstacles to laser weaponization.

    However, until such time as the technology matures to the point that will allow powerful lasers to be miniaturized and maintain a focused beam over great distances, systems such as MIRACL will remain too large to be put into orbit (see Figure 5-11).

    As a related note, NASA has proposed a test that would use MIRACL to try to destroy space debris in low earth orbit below 300 kms altitude. If successful, this proposed FY98 test would open the prospects for using this system to clear space junk without the need of launching a system into orbit. Of course, the military potential for such a capability is also apparent.

    Since then, serious proposals have been made to put bigger versions of this on the Big Island in Hawaii, because its big almost pyramid-like shape gives almost every day a nice clear sky to shoot at things in space.

  246. Expect news well before 2029 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A popular misconception is that we won't know about impacts after 2029 until we get data from the 2029 encounter. This ignores the many opportunites to collect data between now and then. More data means more accurate orbits, so impact probabilities we have today are going to be revised many times as this data comes in.

    In fact, this object is currently visible (even with the equipment of many amateur astronomers) and will remain visible for the next couple of months. Particularly in June, new data will help to make the predictions a little more accurate.

    To see this effect, you might save a copy of that JPL page referenced in the original post, then check back in July and see how things have changed. Don't expect dramatic change, but some.

    It will be visible to telescopes again in October of this year and stay visible through April 2006. It will be visible again in the winter of 2006. Just to make things easy to remember, you might check the JPL site on July 1 of 2005, 2006, and 2007.

    More data is unlikely then before 2011. The problem isn't that it's too far away or too faint, but that it spends those years roughly on the opposite side of the sun from us and we don't currently have have telescopes stationed over there. (Spitzer, maybe...seems like an outside chance.) Anyway, 2011 starts a new period of a few years when it will be visible from Earth with telescopes and likely with radar as well. For that period, expect dramatic changes in the impact probabilites, 1) whenever it is first recovered after not being seen for a few years, 2) following the close approach in early 2013, and 3) if it is observed again with radar at that time.

    This is also the time of the proposed mission to tag it with a transponder. This is a great idea and one that would have many benefits, but just considering the subject of the orbit and impact probabilites, a transponder could provide year round radar-like ranging and so could provide a very accurate orbit long before 2029.

    A third period of opportunities for Earth-based telescopes is 2019-2023, then a fourth period is 2027 through the 2029 encounter that we're so interested in.

  247. Piles of Armageddon? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    It's distinctly possible the combined repulsive force would repel the asteroid completely.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    1. Re:Piles of Armageddon? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      But then the movies wouldn't be destroyed! Would you condemn humanity to live in a world where the movie Armageddon still exists? Being hit by an asteroid would be a small price to pay to finally be rid of that film forever.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    2. Re:Piles of Armageddon? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that meteors are a bit more choosy about what they hit.

      Either way, we still have to live with the film for a while longer...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  248. Re:Our Eulogy by loraksus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that I disagree, but damn...
    Perhaps someone should read a little less Nietzsche.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  249. Silver lining by n54 · · Score: 1
    Instead of running to the hills or relying on some sort of governmental or international response perhaps this is a golden business opportunity?

    As far as I know the latest data is that it has a lenght of 320m and a mass of 4.6E^10kg. These numbers are already assuming it's spherical so we get:
    (4/3)pi160^3 = 17157284.679m^3
    and
    4.6E^10kg/17157284.679m^3 = 2681.077kg/m^3

    2681kg/m^3 is below most refined metals: a cubiq metre of solid gold weighs 19320kg, refined aluminum about 2600kg, but it would be likely that there's at least some heavy elements like metal, i.e. money.

    One of the links talk about tagging the asteroid with a transponder on its first pass, this sounds like a perfect business opportunity for (the few) companies working towards space mining. Instead of going to the mountain the mountain is coming to them. First company to tag the asteroid claims ownership of mining rights (as well as sharing scientific and security information with the world of course). They also get ample opprtunity to test their technology, lots of free publicity, something to show present and potential shareholders etc.

    2029 is the date of the first pass, if the solar sail launch of The Planetary Society proves to have merit this summer they should have ample time to prepare more than just a transponder: if it's possible to attach a solar sail to the asteroid they can gently slow it down both to avoid any danger of collisions as well as manouvering it and eventually stopping it at a suitable "harvesting spot". Even without solar sail technology 14 years is ample time to prepare a small fleet of vessels with ion drives as an alternative: either way a slow and controlled decceleration and orbital changes should be within reach (six years of ion thrusters should have some effect even if they're small - it's probably all that's needed), and then they have all the time the competition allows them to get the mining underway...

    This could be big if only the opportunity is realized, who has the guts, the money, and the attitude?
    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  250. Killer Asteroid Solution www.newpath4.com by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

    http://tinyurl.com/45q26 Multiple attack missiles, radio-connected, one goes off the rest lose the link and go off as well. Asteroids don't have to get a direct hit. The military paid me $10 billion for it. Okay, all of it's true except that last sentence.

  251. Ha! by Omni-Cognate · · Score: 1

    +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Funny

    --

    "The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."

  252. Impact on January 19th 2038? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm impressed. Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie & Brian Kernighan thought of absolutely everything.

  253. Re:No Space Program required for survival of Impac by RoLi · · Score: 1
    we could dig in and survive even a big one

    That only depends on what the definition of "big" is.

    For example our moon was formed during a collision with a Mars-sized object.

  254. Hitting the moon. by Dryheat · · Score: 1

    What would happen if this asteroid hits the moon.

  255. Oh goody! by http101 · · Score: 1

    Pop rocks! I like how they fizzle and pop in my mouth! :-D If you want some real fun, put them in your cat's/cats' litter box and watch the fun erupt. The next time your cat goes to bleed the lizard, watch his/her expressions... lol

    Anyway, does anyone know where this thing is gonna hit yet? Yes, I RTFA, but still, is there a real, projected area where this thing is almost certain to land? I'd like to be as faaaaaar away from the splattering bodies as possible and even farther from the mushroom cloud and tsunami. Ha... and India thought they had it bad this year! Let's see how fast the world reacts when that sucker lands on Kansas. Relief Fund, my ass.

    Why do I feel like Wyle E. Coyote holding an umbrella up over my head???

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  256. TV Special by Emdarion · · Score: 1

    I say we make a TV special, about this. Yeah for SciFi, and then we could build a spaceship, you know to intercept the asteroid with thermo nuclear gigaton laser guided missiles, and then at the same time in the event we miss, or break the asteroid in to large chunks, we build an Space Ark which will house all of the genetic codes of all life on earth, in the event we can start over again. Yeah,...yeah...that sounds good.

  257. Re:Our Eulogy by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The real thinkers will know, if we had started years ago, we would have had a chance.

    Speculation here, but likely what ever condition we have on earth after an asteroid impact would still be better than the current conditions on the moon or on mars. If we can design a self sustaining mars colony, we can probably design a self sustaining post apocalype earth society as well.

  258. Re:Our Eulogy by danila · · Score: 1

    Doesn't make sense. If you want Funny comments, define a +2 modifier for Funny posts in your user preferences. There is no need to abuse the moderation system.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  259. Re:Our Eulogy by Urkki · · Score: 1
    • In the end, none will survive.

      Many millennia later, other civilizations will have grown in far outlying areas of the universe. They will look at the dry and barren planet, covered by rocks and dirt, and say "nothing could have ever lived here. It's always been a dead planet"

    Nah. You underestimate the ability of the bacteria, plants, insects and rats to survive. And crocodiles, never underestimate the crocodiles... Just a few millenia after such a disaster the Earth would again be covered in life.
  260. Re: Off-Planet Colony by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

    sounds like We'll need an army of super virile men scoring 'round the clock!

  261. Take 1 second to use Google by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    before you shoot your mouth off. Oh, I guess that is why you are AC.

    http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/violatingi nt ernationaltreaties.htm

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  262. That would suck. by cartermb · · Score: 1

    "widespread devastation" That would suck.

  263. Re: Off-Planet Colony by AliasMoze · · Score: 1

    Clear my schedule!

  264. Re:Business opp.. by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

    Well, mining may be a bit expensive, apart from concentrations of some iron-paritioning elements (i.e. Iridium). It will be mainly silicate rock, and we have plenty of that on earth.

    However.. if we could steer this thing into a stable Earth orbit (Geosynchrinous would be ideal), then we have suddenly created a very big space station indeed; just tunnel in.. Given enough voltiles, there would be enough volume and mass to create a more or less self sustaining system. The real value is the fact that you now have a source of mass in space - you could harvest a million tonnes of iron, for instance, for building further craft or satellites, without having to pay to get the stuff into orbit.

  265. tiberian by Yurithedragon · · Score: 1

    is it me or dose everything seem to be going along the lines of C&C thses dyas?

  266. Re:Business opp.. by n54 · · Score: 1

    I haven't found any information about composition nor if it's solid or granular, what I have found is that it has not been given any taxonomy yet (C/S/M-type etc.) except that it belongs to the Aten group/class (which says nothing about its composition), so where did you find that "It will be mainly silicate rock" or how did you deduce it? (links appreciated).

    Regardless it should be a nice target for something like Spacedevs NEAP which should be easy to use as a transponder as well.

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  267. Re:Our Eulogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um, you seriousely need some sex because anyone that talks like that hasnt gotten laid in a very very very long time

  268. Re:Our Eulogy by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1
    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  269. Re:Our Eulogy by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


    There's a fault in that logic. Just because they've survived before, doesn't mean that they'll survive in the future.

    200 million years ago, you could have argued that the dinosaurs had survived several extinction events, so they'd survive. 65 million years ago, you would have lost that bet.

    If the planet became very volcanic again, and the atmosphere was filled with ash and poisonous gasses, it could be possible nothing survives.

    It's ok, people make that fault in logic all the time. For example, every time a hurricane blows through Florida, you always hear about someone who had told his friends "I've lived here all my life, and I've survived every hurricane, I'm not afraid of these storms", and after that storm passes, they find his body.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  270. Re:Our Eulogy by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


    Well, they can terraform mars. They could terraform the earth, after a major disaster. The question would be, how many people would survive in the time it would take to do it?

    Anyone reading this site should understand how important redundancy is. Why do we prefer RAID5 over single hard drives? Why do we put up server clusters, rather than single servers. Why are backups suppose to be kept off-site? Because there can always be a single point of failure.

    As humans, we have several single points of failure. The largest is that we're all on the same planet.

    We speculate "what if", about asteroids crashing into the earth; about black holes; about the life cycle of a star. We understand that the time we can spend on this planet is finite.

    If we were to expand beyond this planet, not necessarly in our solar system, but beyond, the fate of this single planet wouldn't mean life or death for humanity.

    Sure, we can plan for 25 years for that particular asteriod to hit. But it takes substantially less time for a solar discharge to reach earth. A huge solar flare could have already started. There would be no reason to report it, because if it was large enough in magnitude, there would be absolutely nothing we could do about it. Think, life on this planet wiped out in a matter of seconds.

    Why did humanity disappear? It still has the single point of failure. It's our own fault. We've reached the stage of advancement to be able to do something about it. We *CAN* build spacecraft. But, we focus our energies on war and profit. How much more can I have rather than my neighbor, and how will I take his away from him.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  271. That's nothing, you are forgetting 2012 polar hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see, brother, the last asteroid to hit this planet is the same that caused the black death. Now that time it was a huge black rock, and it fell right ontop of quick sand. The people then were not afraid and they carved it up well and decorated it with a little hand-drawn shrubbery of fine cloth. Every year, many people are willing to walk thousands of miles to it, throw some rock at the fake satans, and then trample eachother just so they can mock the aliens that sent the black stone as a cast of judgment. Perhaps Great Satan should learn from Rome on the threat of endorsing judgment "without recourse" and binding as-salt with battery, to wit;

    But back to the black rock that fell from the heavens, IIRC. The people carved it down to a square before it sank in the quicksand. Well, it just about gone clear under the sand when another one fell from the sky. The people all celebrated, their stone masons made quick fine work in reducing it to a square or somthing near a remnant of one, then that rock sank again. Another, and another, and another; all this happened perhaps eight times. But that last black rock, I believe the aliens are done deflecting asteroids from their planet to ours, which proves extra-terrestrial life plays secret ping-pong with its fellow not-yet extra-terrestrial (in the long-traveled orbit way) life.

    And that rock, ma'boy, that's what you's gett'n.

    This time, however after this long delay of casting stones upon mere husbandmen, I believe the opposite side of this planet is Orange County, California Repubic of North America. I believe this threat we see will be cast there, right under the chair I'm sitting upon. Our Father loves us so much. I'll be sure he doesn't see or hear me move to Orange County, Floria Republic. To my recollection, Bermuda Triangle and South China Sea held the previous North & South Poles, thus I should be a good penetant stones-throw from being redeemed less a bloody peasant.

    Jesus told me what to do, and I'm sniffing-out the truffles as we speak!

    Please read my previous post on why I am more-willing than most to see what's written on that fast-approaching asteroid that so-threatens us all.

  272. Send your wormy lawyer to catch the beast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You learn from the master well; to cast out Satan with Satan. Send a lawyer to receive a lawyer's reward. :-)

    And consider the previous rock that fell from the sky; they call it mecha now and walk around it as though it is the south pole and they are the ones turning the world like a hampster wheel. Purpose they own all the gold in the earth, does not that make the world go round?

    Here, I AM again

  273. Of a truth, a monkey holds the key to happiness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did not Jesus say for you to agree with your adversaries, the Church of Scientology? Does not the modern man say He is a monkey? Jesus agrees; Jesus decended from the Tree of Life to give Simon-Peter the key to happiness; in China, the people there know the power to bring such as a monkey; in Japan Hokemon lingo, it is known as a Mankey.

    What are You willing to wager, for the truth doesn't come with a gamble; for truth removes the gamble; ask Morpheus and He will say "I know it!"

    I am NRAdude You can never kill my Father, for He is in Heaven. If you dare read my previous post, prepare to die laughing of your drunkedness.

  274. Re:Our Eulogy by Urkki · · Score: 1
    • There's a fault in that logic. Just because they've survived before, doesn't mean that they'll survive in the future.

    Earth is so impregnated with (bacterial) life, that to kill it all, you'd need to raise the temperature of entire surface to +100C for extended perioid of time.

    Sure it could happen, but it's very unlikely it'll happen any sooner than the Sun is about to go red giant.

    Because the bacteria haven't survived just "a few" extinction events, they've survived *every* extinction event in last 4000+ million years. They've survived time when large asteroid impacts probably still were rather a common phenomenon. They must have survived multiple close-by supernovas. They've survived the appearance of more advanced life forms, actually feasted on them.

    I have great confidence that at least the bacteria will carry on the legacy of life on Earth, even if all Eukaryotes fail.
  275. Re:Our Eulogy by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    There are three type of people..

    1) Optimistic. Those that are hopeful for a good outcome
    2) Pessimistic. Those that are doubtful anything but bad can happen.
    3) Realistic. Those that recognize that the optimist and pessimist are wrong some of the time.

    The optimist will say "Something will survive"
    The pessimist will say "nothing will survive"
    The realist will say "In these circumstances, some will survive, in other circumstances, none will survive. What these circumstances are need need to be fully evaluated."

    There was a guy who was hit by lightning seven times.

    An optimist would conclude he was immortal.
    A pessimist would say he was close to death.
    A realist would research it, and find he killed himself over lost love.

    Just because he survived 7 deadly events, he wasn't invincible.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.