Slashdot Mirror


Meteorite Destroys Warehouse In Auckland, NZ

vik writes "According to local media, multiple eye witnesses are reporting that a meteorite crashed into a warehouse in Auckland, New Zealand last night, setting it on fire. The warehouse roof was destroyed but no nearby buildings were damaged and there was only one minor casualty — a man who happened to be inside the building at the time. The fire service have not yet made an official announcement."

211 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Minor? by DerekJ212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Minor injury... sure.
    But minor casualty????

    1. Re:Minor? by boarder8925 · · Score: 5, Informative

      While casualty is most often used to mean a death, it also refers to injury.

    2. Re:Minor? by keeboo · · Score: 1

      Either the person was underage, or we also have degrees of human life importance (let's say the guy was an undegraduate illegal alien).

    3. Re:Minor? by KoD7085 · · Score: 1

      Minor injury... sure. But minor casualty????

      LOL, no kidding.

    4. Re:Minor? by pieisgood · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was thinking.

      --
      Eat sleep die
    5. Re:Minor? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It could be a causalty that is (was?) a minor. ;-) But the man actually survived.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Minor? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Yes, a casualty. Websters: 1. Military. a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined. b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.

    7. Re:Minor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps it was a politician?

    8. Re:Minor? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      An illegal alien struck on Earth by a meteorite! That's what I call a justice!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Minor? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1, Informative

      Casualty \Cas"u*al*ty\, n.; pl. Casualties. [F. casualit['e],
                LL. casualitas.]Any injury of the body from accident; hence, death, or
                      other misfortune, occasioned by an accident; as, an
                      unhappy casualty.
                      [1913 Webster]

      While it's often used in the context of war, which generally means large numbers of people completely dead, maybe this guy isn't?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:Minor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      An illegal alien struck on Earth by a meteorite! That's what I call a justice!

      That's what I call an hero!

    11. Re:Minor? by scatters · · Score: 1

      A casualty is not the same as a fatality. The source of all truth, Wikipedia, defines it as a person who is killed or injured in war or a disaster. In the UK, the equivalent to the ER department at a hospital is normally referred to as the casualty department, where they don't just deal with dead people. Also, the US military and emergency services perform CASEVACs (casualty evacuations), which is the movement of injured or dead persons from an area of danger to the first line of medical care.

      --
      A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
    12. Re:Minor? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL, Or a lawyer

    13. Re:Minor? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Informative

      My paste got cut off. Seriously.

      2. one who is injured or killed in an accident: There were no casualties in the traffic accident.
      3. any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event: Their house was a casualty of the fire.
      4. a serious accident, esp. one involving bodily injury or death.

    14. Re:Minor? by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not dead!
      'Ere. He says he's not dead.
      Yes he is.
      He isn't.
      I'm not!
      He will be soon. He's very ill.
      I'm getting better!
      You're not. You'll be stone dead in a few minutes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Minor? by keeboo · · Score: 1

      While it's often used in the context of war, which generally means large numbers of people completely dead, maybe this guy isn't?

      You mean the guy being half-dead, that caused by a meteorite?
      Sounds like a B-movie plot to me.

    16. Re:Minor? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Casualty does NOT refer to deaths. It refers to the number of military members removed from duty due to wounds. This includes fatalities AND injuries.

    17. Re:Minor? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It is always used (if used properly) to mean the number of dead AND number of injured combined.

    18. Re:Minor? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Casualties can mean injuries as well as deaths, at least in this part of the world.

    19. Re:Minor? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the UK, the equivalent to the ER department at a hospital is normally referred to as the casualty department, where they don't just deal with dead people.

      There wouldn't be any point, would there?

    20. Re:Minor? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Mostly dead.

    21. Re:Minor? by aaron+alderman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank god for the recession, there might have been more people in that warehouse!

    22. Re:Minor? by princessproton · · Score: 1

      At least that means he's slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

      --
      I'm always positive; it's my nature.
    23. Re:Minor? by Zelaron · · Score: 1

      Or a stem cell?!

    24. Re:Minor? by eyecorporations · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to see what a major casualty looks like.

    25. Re:Minor? by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Casualty: (n) person killed or injured in a war or accident. So, it's the people killed (and in American media often refers only to the dead) or injured. Not just due to war. It's inclusive of both. 'nough said?

    26. Re:Minor? by Maelwryth · · Score: 4, Funny

      "How in the hell do you have a MINOR casualty?"
      Under 18.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    27. Re:Minor? by uberjack · · Score: 3, Funny

      Usually, minor means no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops... depending on the breaks

    28. Re:Minor? by Inominate · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's NOT used to mean people who died.

      As has been said, a casualty in war refers to anyone who is hurt badly enough to have to be removed from duty. It includes both the dead and the injured. Even a broken leg is a casualty.

      Media sources like to use the word casualty because casualty counts are always much higher and more dramatic sounding than fatalities.

    29. Re:Minor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you know this wasn't due to war? My first thought when I read this story was that is was from the bugs.

    30. Re:Minor? by Panoptes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, 'casualty' can mean death or injury. The language point is that 'minor casualty' sounds wrong. In linguistic terms, these words don't usually go together (make a collocation), whereas 'minor' and 'injury' do.

    31. Re:Minor? by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

      Point being that "casualty" refers to a person, which makes a "minor casualty" a "minor (dead or wounded) person".

      The correct term should be "casualty with minor injuries".

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    32. Re:Minor? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      No it's ok, it's was just Dick Cheney.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    33. Re:Minor? by jabithew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Emergency wards on the NHS are often referred to as 'casualty'. This is not a comment on death rates in British hospitals.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    34. Re:Minor? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Media sources like to use the word casualty because casualty counts are always much higher and more dramatic sounding than fatalities.

      Really? Sounds a lot more casual to me.

    35. Re:Minor? by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      So you don't have casualty wards in US hospitals then?

    36. Re:Minor? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      So a minor casualty would be someone SLIGHTLY lost to service due to death or injury etc?

    37. Re:Minor? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the one imply the other?

    38. Re:Minor? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      If a meteorite hits the castle, Prince Humperdink suffers? I'm in!

    39. Re:Minor? by SmokeyTheBalrog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My god, I didn't even think of bringing up Starship Troopers. (Damn good book made into terrible movie that has a very nice shower scene.)

      Once again, AC, your insight has enriched my life.

    40. Re:Minor? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      You mean that a missile from an American warship went wild and destroyed the warehouse? Now that would be too good.

    41. Re:Minor? by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Like a captain casualty but with slightly fancier stuff on his shoulders.

    42. Re:Minor? by dominious · · Score: 3, Informative
      Quite funny how many posts try to explain that sentence in the summary while the answer is in TFA:

      A man was inside the building at the time. He was taken out and treated for a minor cut to his arm.

      Oh yes, this is /.

    43. Re:Minor? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      in American media often refers only to the dead

      Actually, a while back I was reading Pentagon reports from Vietnam battles, and the numbers of casualties were not making any sense, until it became clear that by "casualties" they included both dead and injured.

    44. Re:Minor? by maeka · · Score: 1

      Even today I have yet to hear a report where "casualties" = dead only.

    45. Re:Minor? by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      0. Profit
      1. ????

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    46. Re:Minor? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      No, in American usage that's the Emergency Room, or in more modern usage Emergency Department.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    47. Re:Minor? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The language point is that 'minor casualty' sounds wrong.

      Depends on who's hearing it.

      In linguistic terms, these words don't usually go together (make a collocation), whereas 'minor' and 'injury' do.

      Unless you're a medic, in which case they do go together quite a bit. Or a New Zealander, apparently.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    48. Re:Minor? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not really "light-hearted parody", it's satire. And it's hilarious and highly entertaining satire.

      And part of the fun is watching the fans of the book complain about it, and the people who take it at face value complain for almost opposite reasons.

    49. Re:Minor? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      A very good book about how democracy is horrible and corporeal punishment is awesome, indeed.

    50. Re:Minor? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And MOST of these posts are yapping about a minor difference in word usage and completely overlook the fact that New Zealanders apparently called 10 ton fire trucks 'appliances'.

      A toaster is an 'appliance'. A fire truck is, well, a truck that spits fire?

      Oh well, so much for pedantry. Off to coffee.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    51. Re:Minor? by Tikkun · · Score: 2, Informative

      A very good book about how democracy is horrible and corporeal punishment is awesome, indeed.

      Democracy *is* horrible, it's just that all of the alternatives are so much worse that it looks good by comparison.

    52. Re:Minor? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      We can't let there be a mine-shaft gap!

    53. Re:Minor? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      which is why it's somewhat disturbing when you consider that Starship Troopers is considered recommended reading within the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, and it's also the only sci-fi novel on the reading lists of four of the five U.S. military academies.

    54. Re:Minor? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      you can't translate the meaning of a sentence by blindly replacing words with the dictionary definition. if you do that with any sentence you'll end up with an incoherent awkward-sounding mess.

      for instance, "we've taken on heavy casualties" is a perfectly appropriate use of the word "casualties." but according to your interpretation, it would mean "we've taken on heavy [(dead or wounded) person]."

      "casualty" simply refers to the general concept of human injury (which can include death). a "minor" indicates a moderate degree of something. so "minor casualty" simply means moderate injuries--that makes complete sense and is a perfectly acceptable use of the word.

    55. Re:Minor? by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

      From the way it was worded, my thought was:

      Janitors just can't get no respect!

      --
      "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
    56. Re:Minor? by jpatters · · Score: 1

      In the USA, hospitals prepare for "Mass Casualty Events" with meetings and plans and drills and stuff. This wouldn't be necessary if "casualty" only meant "dead".

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    57. Re:Minor? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Just because something's on a required reading list doesn't mean its ideas are inherently endorsed. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson's Essays are on the reading list at the U.S. Naval Academy, but I doubt a midshipman would do well to espouse all of Emerson's ideas.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    58. Re:Minor? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. If true, it's actually a very interesting choice. In the UK we train our soldiers slightly differently, there's a little less gung-ho. Not much less, but a little, and outside of the basic training they're also taught to think about what they're ordered to do a little more.

      Neither of the two options necessarily makes a better soldier, it's just two different approaches, and Starship Troopers takes both to extremes. If you're a smart soldier you'll learn from it in the same way as you'd learn from Machiavelli or SunTzu. If you're not....hell, it's a good story and good propaganda.

      One of the more interesting asides on /. recently, and incidentally, meteorites rock. And metal.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    59. Re:Minor? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I gotta agree with you there man. Noncorporeal punishment just doesn't work at all. Most people aren't even scared of ghosts and their whips!

    60. Re:Minor? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Ghosts with whips are some of the scariest ones!

    61. Re:Minor? by Hydroksyde · · Score: 1

      Shut the fuck up. All of you. You're ruining a perfectly good comment page.

    62. Re:Minor? by iphayd · · Score: 1

      or in a cave. C'mon, this is slashdot. Spelling doesn't matter.

    63. Re:Minor? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A very good book about how democracy is horrible and corporeal punishment is awesome, indeed.

      Democracy *is* horrible, it's just that all of the alternatives are so much worse that it looks good by comparison

      I think you're missing the GP's point that the book is anti-democratic. People who dislike the book but love the movie (like myself) would suggest that the book reads like fascist propaganda.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:Minor? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Boy I love dictionary arguments.

      Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979)

      casualty (n):

      1. serious or fatal accident : DISASTER
      2. a) a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action; b) a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed [the ex-senator was a ~ of the last election]
    65. Re:Minor? by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      the nation-state was democratic. you could choose to be a full citizen or choose not to be.

    66. Re:Minor? by mi · · Score: 1

      People who dislike the book but love the movie (like myself) would suggest that the book reads like fascist propaganda.

      Those would not be the same people, who tell everyone, who supports Iraq War, to enlist, would they?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    67. Re:Minor? by krenshala · · Score: 1

      Actually wouldn't the "translation" read: We've taken on [large numbers of] [(dead|wounded) person(s)]? If you "expand" all of the words with the context appropriate definitions the sentence might be a bit cumbersome, but it should still be understandable.

      --

      krenshala

  2. It's these meteorites killing our economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do insurance companies cover stuff like this?

    1. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Do insurance companies cover stuff like this?

      Sure, they'll cover Bigfoot and demons too if you pay them enough. In fact, I'll cover you. Just email me $3,000.
             

    2. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by theredshoes · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it will be covered unless they have natural disaster insurance or a fire policy. It is a shame that things like this happen and people aren't insured.

      A fire policy is normal for anyone to have, I mean if you go to the trouble of buying a house or renting a building for a business and paying a substantial amount in rent or a mortgage, I would think you would have the foresight to pay the ten to twenty five dollars a month for a fire insurance policy. The odds of a meteor hitting though, that is pretty unusual.

    3. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do insurance companies cover stuff like this?

      Depends entirely on the meteorite's composition, actually. For example, if you've got a nice nickel-iron ratio, you're probably good, but you're screwed if the thing had a high iron content. Insurance companies are usually very finicky about their falling extraterrestrial object damage coverage.

    4. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They may, but in doing so could demand possession of the meteorite.

      The meteorite, depending on what's left of it and its composition, could easily be worth far more than the property damage.

      A quality meteorite is akin to money raining from the sky. If a nice big one ever hits my property, the first thing I'd do is secure it and shop the meteorite to perspective buyers.

      Ron

    5. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I would say the biggest risk to the owners fire insurance is that possibility that the sole person in the building at the time turns out to be the cause of the fire.

    6. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by theredshoes · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I guess they will have to find a shooting star collector if there is such a thing. I though these kind of disasters made people sick and caused serious unbalance if the meteor is big enough to screw with the balance of where it hits, the people of the town and the person that owned the building probably don't think of it as a blessing though at least not yet if what you are saying will happen that someone would actually pay money for it. I guess I am a cynic, I could see geologists studying it, not buying it.

    7. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by theredshoes · · Score: 1

      Arson or meteorites, either way, the owner is probably pretty miserable right now.

    8. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's interesting. I guess they will have to find a shooting star collector if there is such a thing. I though these kind of disasters made people sick and caused serious unbalance if the meteor is big enough to screw with the balance of where it hits, the people of the town and the person that owned the building probably don't think of it as a blessing though at least not yet if what you are saying will happen that someone would actually pay money for it. I guess I am a cynic, I could see geologists studying it, not buying it.

      There's a good market for them on eBay. Of course, unless it's an extremely large or rate meteorite, despite with GP said, it's unlike to be worth more than the property damage. Typical meteorites look to be going from around $10-50. The fact of the matter is, meteorites aren't very rare. OTOH, there's one current bid up to over $15 million right now. eBay search

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      Earthquake commission should cover it. Doesn't say so on the site but they will probably cover it under common bloody sense.
      I did like this page though. You would imagine you would know if there was one.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    10. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by settantta · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't really matter if they had insurance. Sure, you can insure against just about anything, but getting the insurance company to pay up is another story. Something like this, they'd probably just call it an Act of God and refuse to pay.

    11. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by settantta · · Score: 1

      I guess they will have to find a shooting star collector if there is such a thing.

      ever hear of a museum?

    12. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      The $15M meteorite is "but it now", and I seriously doubt he'll find a buyer.

      I'd hate to pay the fees on that...

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    13. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by Remusti · · Score: 1

      Hmm... the Earthquake commission only seems to cover residential dwellings. I think commercial property owners are out of luck unless it's in their policy.

    14. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by stjobe · · Score: 1

      OTOH, there's one current bid up to over $15 million right now.

      That's no bid, that's what he's asking for it.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    15. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      At least he's not charging extra for shipping.

      Really, if this were a typical eBay auction, it'd be $1.98 for the meteorite and $15M for shipping.

    16. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Funny how a society that largely doesn't believe in God will suffer an insurance company to not pay because of "act of God". But that having been said, just about any act outside of a act of human, is an act of God, and insurance still covers it. Lightning strikes, ice storms, tornado, hurricane, flood, what-have-you are all covered. Granted in some places, certain types of insurance are extra cost, but that is because the insured is in the sort of place where they are exceedingly likely to be hit by such a catastrophe.
      I would expect the insurance company to pay for this, though, sadly, it may take a legal battle which will serve to make the lawyers richer, the insurance company poorer than if they had just paid the claim, and possibly ruin the owner of the warehouse.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by FLEB · · Score: 1

      OTOH, this one is newsworthy.

      For that matter, they could surreptitiously chisel a "Virgin Mary" into the thing and sell it to that casino for a few mil.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    18. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      For sale: one meteorite. size aprox. 1 Texas.
      Can be seen at: look up and to west, aprox 1.5 million km at moment of publication. Should be less at the time of reading.
      Free transport provided to landing site. Buyer should provide further transport.

    19. Re:It's these meteorites killing our economy by dangitman · · Score: 1

      If a nice big one ever hits my property, the first thing I'd do is secure it and shop the meteorite to perspective buyers.

      Are those the same people who collect the works of Escher?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  3. Minor? by Kabuthunk · · Score: 2, Funny

    How in the hell do you have a MINOR casualty? What, was he only a little bit dead?

    --
    Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  4. Re:The real question by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any connection to Palin's church?:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/13/palin.church/index.html
         

  5. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by pieisgood · · Score: 1

    That's how the media portrays it but I haven't seen much mourning over the dead here in SD. It was really unlucky and sucks for that dude and his dead family members but it was an accident... not a serious tragedy.

    --
    Eat sleep die
  6. lucky! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    This is why I don't buy lottery tickets or insurance. Any moment now my car or building or whatever could be hit my a meteorite and I could likely sell it for a LOT of money, especially if it was a certain type. If I suddenly saw one smash my car I'd be like, "YEEEESSS!"

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:lucky! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      This is why I don't buy lottery tickets or insurance. Any moment now my car or building or whatever could be hit my a meteorite and I could likely sell it for a LOT of money, especially if it was a certain type. If I suddenly saw one smash my car I'd be like, "YEEEESSS!"

      I'll go and find a rock then.

    2. Re:lucky! by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      Would you be like yes?
      I would imagine you would say or exclaim "YEEEESSS" if a valuable meteorite hit your car regardless of what or whom you may be like.
      People like you should be held accountable for the downfall of the English language.

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    3. Re:lucky! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Scene: ILuvRamen, nearly bald, very pale, covered in tumors, some alreading in the proces of developing tentacles talking to a person in HAZMAT-suit.

      HAZMAT:Sir you really should let us take care of that highly radioactive rock of asbestos and lead...
      ILuvRamen: No! My precious!

  7. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by princessproton · · Score: 1

    Have to agree. It freaked me out a bit since it was only a couple miles from my house, but checking in for more details on signonsandiego.com the next day, the story had already been replaced with a story about "a community mourning" over a slain teenager. An obliterated house with 4 family members in it is not a huge enough story I guess. I do feel really bad for the man though.

    --
    I'm always positive; it's my nature.
  8. Riiiiight by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some people were convinced the fire was caused by what may have been a meteorite, which was seen from various parts of the upper North Island streaking across the sky just after 10 o'clock.

    [citation needed]

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Riiiiight by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Funny

      [citation needed]

      What? Do you think this site is part the Wikimeteor Foundation?

      --
      Be relentless!
    2. Re:Riiiiight by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some people were convinced the fire was caused by what may have been a meteorite, which was seen from various parts of the upper North Island streaking across the sky just after 10 o'clock.

      [citation needed]

      Some guy called Mike.

    3. Re:Riiiiight by Planky · · Score: 1

      Now we know where that toolbag got to...

    4. Re:Riiiiight by dgcaste · · Score: 1

      It's really not that unlikely, seeing as how the yearly Geminids meteor shower peaked last night, at an approximate rate of the hundreds per hour and increasing every year. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/11/geminid-meteor-shower-sparkles-on-december-13/

  9. Summary is wrong. by Pinckney · · Score: 5, Informative
    Witness are not reporting having seen a meteorite strike the warehouse. Rather:

    Some people were convinced the fire was caused by what may have been a meteorite, which was seen from various parts of the upper North Island streaking across the sky just after 10 o';clock.
    Several callers claim the light in the sky was very bright, and it was described by some as a blinding flash. Others said it was trailing smoke.
    One man, Mike, says he saw the object crash with an exploding noise in the Ponsonby area, and reckons it could have started the fire.

    To summarize, a meteorite was seen, and may have even crashed in this area. That is all.

    1. Re:Summary is wrong. by RockMFR · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Summary is wrong. by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      To summarize, a meteorite was seen, and may have even crashed in this area. That is all.

      Hiya slick, would you mind looking at the little red dot?

      POOF!

      What you saw was some swamp gas refracting the light off of Venus. Nothing more to see here.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    3. Re:Summary is wrong. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      ...no I don't think so.

    4. Re:Summary is wrong. by Quikyn · · Score: 1
      I can confirm that a meteorite was seen at least. Several people pointed it out at a BBQ I was at last night. It was visible for a enough time for several to point it out to others, and sit around wondering what it was, make jokes about aliens, etc.

      I went outside and looked up too late because I assumed it was fireworks from the Christmas in the Park show that was on at the same time. Turned out the fireworks display was on the other side of town.

    5. Re:Summary is wrong. by batquux · · Score: 1

      It's not even that good. They saw what may have been a meteorite. And to be technical, it would have been a meteor when they saw it.

    6. Re:Summary is wrong. by Haoie · · Score: 1

      Thank you for noting that.

      I'm a kiwi, and this so called 'meteor' didn't even make the Stuff website. Just an ordinary fire.

      --
      If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    7. Re:Summary is wrong. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Wow, it didn't even make Stuff? Seriously, dogs walking down the road makes news on Stuff.

      Then again, dogs walking down the road turns into a ravaging wolf pack on NZ Herald.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    8. Re:Summary is wrong. by bruceslog · · Score: 1

      Sure it was a meteorite and not a toolbag ?

      --
      If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
  10. Beagle, MPL, etc. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It's a "failed" lander from Mars. They are seeking revenge.

    1. Re:Beagle, MPL, etc. by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      I say the Martians are tried of being spied on and decided to fight back. Tim S

  11. Casualty does not always imply fatal by GroovinWithMrBloe · · Score: 1

    Casualty is a term limited to not just describing dead people but also wounded people. reference.com definitions of casualty.

    Anyway, I was among the tens of thousands of people who witnessed the 'streak of light' shortly after 10pm, from the Auckland Domain where the annual Christmas in the Park concert had just finished. The streak lasted less than what felt like 10 seconds, made no discernible noise, and looked about as bright than a nearby firework (of which there were heaps 5 minutes prior at the end of the concert).

    In fact, at the time I only half thought it was a 'shooting star' as it could've been part of the fireworks. The show had finished, and people were packing up, so I wondered if it was something for the kids (Ooh, hey kids, look, Santa has flown away). But after reading this article, it must have been the same meteorite. Very cool!

  12. How unlucky is that man? by syousef · · Score: 5, Funny

    Workers compensation officer: How exactly did you get hurt?

    Man: God smote me down

    Boss: Don't mind Bob he's still a little shellshocked. He was struck by a meteorite. Or is that meteor. Was it a meteorite once it hit the roof or was it only a meteorite once it hit Bob?

    Workers compensation officer: Well then if he can't even tell what hit him, we can't pay him can we?

    Man: God smote me down, I tell you!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:How unlucky is that man? by retech · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know what they say... "Unlucky with meteorites, lucky in love."

    2. Re:How unlucky is that man? by wrook · · Score: 1

      Man: God smote me down, I tell you!

      Does workers comp pay for acts of god?

  13. Smallville, NZ? by erica_ann · · Score: 1

    Will the town be renamed Smallville, NZ?

    1. Re:Smallville, NZ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Um, Auckland is a major city, with over 1 million people. Maybe not a global metropolis, but hardly a "town".

    2. Re:Smallville, NZ? by erica_ann · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you :)

    3. Re:Smallville, NZ? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it'd be cool to be the home of superman don't you think?

    4. Re:Smallville, NZ? by Maelwryth · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Will the town be renamed Smallville, NZ?"

      No.

      The Smallville part isn't necessary as it is in New Zealand.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    5. Re:Smallville, NZ? by gavinjolly · · Score: 1

      Someone has lost their sense of humour today. (FTR, I live in NZ and am not offended by someone on the internet not knowing how big Auckland is)

      --

      The weathers here - Wish you were beautiful

    6. Re:Smallville, NZ? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No; due to copyright issues they will name it Tinytown, where Kent Clarke will grow up to be best friends with Lax Loser until the latter one becomes insane, at which time Carke will move into nearby large city Motrepolis. Remember to also tune in next time when we learn how the radioactive photographer Pete Karper bit a spider and turned into Arachno-Fellow.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:Smallville, NZ? by erica_ann · · Score: 1

      Now, thats funny!

  14. lucky... by irving47 · · Score: 1

    He'll be lucky if he finds what's left of it... I hear meteorite hunters will pay quite a bit for them...

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  15. Sometimes the man upstairs gets upset by macinit · · Score: 1

    Are you in good hands?

  16. Re:So... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    Ni!

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  17. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Fire Service is not saying yet whether it suspects the blaze was suspicious.

    now that's some damn eloquent shit right there. give this man his Pulitzer.

  18. Casualty by Cinnaman · · Score: 1

    The way timothy worded it makes it sound like someone died but it was a person of minor importance.

    1. Re:Casualty by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to TV, three persons of minor importance work late in warehouses:

      1) Janitors: expendable, first to die in alien invasions, zombie infestations, etcetera, the "canary in the coal mine" for unusual events.

      2) Accountants: semi-expendable, often targets for bizzare assassination plots because they know too much.

      3) Henchmen guarding illegal operation/loot: highly expendable. Usually die at the hands of an action hero.

      Since the guy survived he's not a janitor, and the absent tell-tale trail of destruction confirms he's not a henchman either. So he must be an accountant, which means this wasn't simply a random meteor hit but an assassination attempt disguised as a meteor, a feat only possible my an evil mastermind with greater plans afoot.

      This could mean the end of the world as we know it! PANIC!!!

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Casualty by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making us sound interesting.

      Yours truly

      An accountant

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Casualty by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I said evil mastermind; that rules out GWB.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  19. Re:So... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    And I for one welcome our alien masters.

  20. THE BLOB... by KozmoKramer · · Score: 1

    ..When found, the lone warehouse worker has some slimy looking stuff eating away at his right arm...

    --
    My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
  21. the warehouse? by barocco · · Score: 1

    It'll take a Leonids shower to take that junk retail chain down

    1. Re:the warehouse? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      The Warehouse ... where everyone gets some cheap crap!

      (You have to know the advertising jingle for this store chain to understand the above)

    2. Re:the warehouse? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Hey, but at least that cheap crap has a money back guarantee!

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  22. I'm already skeptical by jesterzog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, I'd wait for the New Zealand Fire Service report before taking this seriously. All that the article says is that a warehouse caught fire in Auckland (not too unusual), and that people in Auckland saw a meteor and reckoned it "landed" somewhere near there. One person thinks he heard it crash with an exploding noise.

    In short, some spectators are claiming a meteorite was involved in the fire, and the media's jumped on it because it makes the story more interesting. The NZ Herald seems to be the only news agency in New Zealand which I can find that's spinning the meteorite idea (actually the NZ Herald and Slashdot now that I've checked Google News). My guess is that it's just a coincidence that the fire started at roughly the same time.

    People frequently see meteors in the sky and assume they can tell where the landed, even though most don't even land. People are nearly always wrong, and get confused by the perspective and brightness and distance which makes it look as if bright meteors are much closer than they are, and are heading much more steeply into the ground than they are.

    Until the Fire Service comes out and states outright that it was a meteorite, and perhaps finds fragments, I'm not going to give the claim much credit. For a warehous fire in Auckland, it's more likely arson or an electrical fault.

    1. Re:I'm already skeptical by talsemgeest · · Score: 1
    2. Re:I'm already skeptical by certsoft · · Score: 1
      electrical fault

      Sparky, is that you?

    3. Re:I'm already skeptical by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      The NZ Herald and great investigative journalists... hmm... try google, but I don't think you will find those two terms in the same sentence, unless maybe accompanied by 'NOT'.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    4. Re:I'm already skeptical by hachi-control · · Score: 1

      The Herald is a joke mouthpiece of rich folk, I tells yah.

  23. Poor guy by incripshin · · Score: 1

    Minor casualty? I guess he won't be missed? (Yes, I RTFA.)

    1. Re:Poor guy by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      He's probably a Republican.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Poor guy by incripshin · · Score: 1

      Really? I was going for Democrat.

  24. Was on Mt. Eden... by nix_nz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was on top of Mt Eden watching the fireworks display. Shortly after it ended was chatting with my friend when the meteor shot overhead - it was larger than anything I've ever seen in my life, the sky flashed as if a band of magnesium had been lit and the trail that it left behind remained illuminated for several minutes. We were goofing off when my friend spotted the blaze to the north, the same direction that the meteor had been going in. It was seriously the biggest fire in a city that I've ever witnessed and it was crazy seeing all of the fire engines racing out to it. We jumped in the car and headed over there. Just had to follow the huge plume of smoke, even in the dark. It was pretty much burnt out by the time we got there, although they were still dousing it with water and smoke/steam continued to pour out. While it seems unlikely it was the meteor, it was INSANE to see that big a fire, just minutes after that incredible meteor. Now I'm just waiting for the next volcano to spawn here. It's gonna happen sooner or later... (This city is SO much better than Toronto). ;)

  25. Total BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm in Auckland, saw the meteor (which was awesome, BTW), and there's no way it hit anything or caused the fire. It was going totally in the wrong direction and it burned up well before the ground. In fact, it was probably so high that its trajectory would have taken it well out to sea.

    This is just a classic case of people finding spurious links between unrelated events.

    1. Re:Total BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not joking here. Not sure of the time, but I also saw a big one off the east coast of Australia. 10pm or later. Lasted a few seconds at about 15-20 degrees with a very flat trajectory before expiring. I didn't see the origin unfortunately.

    2. Re:Total BS. by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative
      it burned up well before the ground.

      How would you know that? Meteors that are big enough to reach the ground are seldom glowing when they do; once the upper atmosphere has slowed them down, the long fall through the lower atmosphere cools them off. They hit the ground pretty hot, but almost never glowing.

      rj

    3. Re:Total BS. by Velocir · · Score: 1

      I was walking home from Christmas in the Park in a large group of people on Park Rd when I saw it, between 22:00 and 22:20. It was in line with the road. It was heading towards Ponsonby - away from the Domain. If you extend the line made by Park Rd, you arrive at the corner of Mackelvie St (which is the real spelling; poor editing in the 'article') and Ponsonby Rd. Fricken awesome!

  26. What about that bag the astronaut lost?... by ZL1022 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I haven't seen anyone commenting on whether it might have been the bag that chick astronaut lost...could the guy sue NASA for comp then?

    1. Re:What about that bag the astronaut lost?... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Nah! I saw that shoot across the sky last night from South to North almost horizontal. Lasted about 3 secs then disappeared off the east coast of Australia. There must have been a shower last night.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    2. Re:What about that bag the astronaut lost?... by krenshala · · Score: 1

      The Geminids peaked this weekend (I heard it was supposed to have been Saturday and Sunday as the predicted peak).

      --

      krenshala

  27. Meteorites are not hot... by Nulukkhizdin · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...they're often frozen on the surface when found right after the fall! It's a common myth that meteorites blazing hot. In reality, the molten surface of a meteorite has plenty of time to cool during the fall through cold atmosphere, and the interior of the meteorite remains very cold.

    1. Re:Meteorites are not hot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They're cold-soaked by being in space for millenia. Only a very, very thin layer on the outside of the meteor is heated up during reentry, which is then cooled by a heat-sink effect into the cold body of the rest of the meteorite.

      CAPTCHA was "tempered". Haha.

  28. Auckland by robvangelder · · Score: 5, Funny

    On behalf of all New Zealanders living outside of Auckland, why couldn't the meteorite have been a little bigger?

    1. Re:Auckland by lazy_nihilist · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this great movie.

  29. Re:So... by Konster · · Score: 1, Informative

    Mild humor is off topic?

    Off topic is talking about tin foil in a saran wrap thread.

    Please, mods...show me some slack. :(

  30. Hmmmmm..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Are they absolutely SURE it was a meteorite, and not another piece of Skylab? .....I smell a NASA CONSPIRACY!!!1!

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  31. I have two questions by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Was is meteorite or meteor?
    And is Tricia Tanaka dead?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  32. IF true...this is big news for lawyers by rtrifts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A meteor hits a warehouse...setting it on fire. This is the classic hypothetical example used when teaching the law of bailment in first year property class to law students.

    What kind of warehouse I wonder? Did they hold on to their own goods only - or those belonging to others?

    Every law student learns in first year property that a bailee of goods for hire is absolutely liable for them, even if the proverbial meteor falls from the sky and destroys them. That's the common law - and the over the top example literally used in the texts to make the point, too. And this happened in New Zealand - a common law country.

    Problem is, the warehouse, if it is holding goods belonging to others, probably isn't insured for this. The insurer will claim Act of God. (And if "Act of God" is to mean anything in an insurance contract, it probably means a meteor). The warehouse owner will say "these goods not destroyed by a meteor - they were destroyed by fire, and we're insured for that".

    The insurer will say "hell no; we're not paying." And off to court this will go.

    Were the goods destroyed by a fire - or by a meteor? Because either way, the bailee is on the hook.

    The resulting litigation answering that question will go down in the history books - and be subsequently learned by every law student in the common law world in their second month of law school - for the next several centuries.

    --
    .Robert
    1. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting. Similar lawsuits happened in the U.S. (not necessarily a common-law country, depends on what law we're written since the split) because of hurricane Katrina.

      People's homes would have water damage, but the insurance companies wouldn't pay because the people didn't have flood insurance. However, many of these people's homes didn't flood; the water got in because the roof had been torn off (or just windows had been broken) by the hurricane. And the people's insurance did cover wind damage.

      In other words, flooding (uninsured loss) was directly caused by wind (insured loss), so does insurance pay? After lawsuits, the answer here was yes.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by jpatters · · Score: 1

      I guess the crux of it will be if it can be proven that it was actually a meteor. From TFA we just have two facts, a warehouse burned down, and a bunch of people said they saw a meteor that night. One person said he saw the meteor crash... somewhere... but he didn't directly observe it hitting the warehouse. I guess they might find chunks of it, but if they don't, it will be hard to claim that it wasn't just an ordinary fire.

      Coincidentally, I saw a meteor last night, but that was in Burlington, VT which is on the other side of the planet ;-)

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    3. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Wow, I just realized that my sig is actually relevant to the discussion (of bailment) for once!

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    4. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      Why would it take a meteor to resolve this question? Wouldn't a lightning strike, which is far more common, be the same scenario (Act of God, resulting in a fire)?

      Unless the moderators are wrong, and you were just going for humor. In which case, I chuckled.

    5. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      You're full of shit.

      If the warehouse is holding others' goods, it's because the others wanted them to and because the warehouse is getting paid for it:

      http://contracts.lawyers.com/Bailment.html

      "If the bailment is for the benefit of both the bailee and the bailor, then the bailee owes a duty of reasonable or ordinary care."

      Reasonable care does not included protection from meteors falling from the sky. Extraordinary care, which might or might not include meteor protection, would be expected only if the bailment were for the benefit of the bailee alone, which is not the case here.

      Not only that, warehouses generally make depositors sign a contract specifying the terms of the warehouse's liability, which usually excludes damages due to "Acts of God".

      Remember, kids, DON'T TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM SLASHDOT!

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    6. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by Kotukunui · · Score: 1

      The "warehouse" was actually an industrial laundry. I was in Auckland and I saw the fire in the distance, but not the meteor (damn!) I doubt that the two are connected. Laundries of this ilk probably have heavy-duty boilers for heating water (gas or electrically powered). I think there would have been plenty of means and opportunity for an electrical fault to cause a fire. The guy inside was the owner, sleeping overnight in an upstairs accommodation flat/apartment to get an early start on the next day's work. He got a cut on his arm when the fire service forced open a locked door to let him out. Only the contemporaneosityness (word?) of the two phenomenon give them even a tenuous link. Occam's razor.

    7. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Wait, so a warehouse owner wouldn't buy insurance with coverage for an Act of God? Why not? I mean, many types of damage can be traced to someone who can be held liable, so you can sue *them* to recover damages, but you can't sue God/Fate/Nothing, so seems like you would *want* to carry insurance for those types of situations, explicitely. I imagine 'act of god' insurance should be pretty cheap, since damage because of such, is, I suspect, pretty rare?

    8. Re:IF true...this is big news for lawyers by tconnors · · Score: 1


      Problem is, the warehouse, if it is holding goods belonging to others, probably isn't insured for this. The insurer will claim Act of God. (And if "Act of God" is to mean anything in an insurance contract, it probably means a meteor). The warehouse owner will say "these goods not destroyed by a meteor - they were destroyed by fire, and we're insured for that".

      The insurer will say "hell no; we're not paying." And off to court this will go.

      Were the goods destroyed by a fire - or by a meteor? Because either way, the bailee is on the hook.

      The resulting litigation answering that question will go down in the history books - and be subsequently learned by every law student in the common law world in their second month of law school - for the next several centuries.

      What part of that involved both the lawyers and insurance companies being lined up against the wall and have meteorites pounded against them?

  33. Relevance to slashdot? by Firrenzi · · Score: 1

    How is this news on Slashdot? The mere scraping of something astronomical and it appears as a news feed. Next up... Paris Hilton's new dog..

    --
    The Tao that can be named is not the Tao
  34. Why is this modded "offtopic"? by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 1

    Not only is it true, but meteorites often land with ice on them! Yes it could break a gas line or knock over something flammable, but it's not very likely is it?

  35. Is that a meteor? by goosesensor · · Score: 1

    That's a cool meteor.

  36. Wait for the videos by mbone · · Score: 1

    If a large meteor landed in an urban area, it will be captured on multiple videos (surveillance cameras, plus the odd person filming something at the time, and even people quick enough to whip out their cell phones). Pretty much every recent meteor fall has had such documentary evidence; each video found narrows down the trajectory and frequently allows more to be found, by going to the right area and asking.

    The absence of such multiply interlocking independent streams of evidence is one reason why I find recent UFO reports unconvincing.

    1. Re:Wait for the videos by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A poster upstream says that they were on "Mt Eden watching the fireworks display."

      I bet some people were videoing that fireworks display and left their cameras on. They would be a good start to determining the meteors trajectory.

      Frequently these people won't even know that they recorded the meteor's passing (it isn't what they were intending to capture, and they may not look at the tape past the end of the fireworks). But, you can bet that someone on Mt Eden recorded its passing. The local college astronomy department or one of the NZ astronomy clubs should issue a call for people watching the fireworks to search their tapes. If there were any major sporting events at the time, that would also be a useful source.

      Remember, the camera doesn't have to be pointed at the sky. Capturing the time of the light flash, or the direction people are pointing, or the reflection of the meteor in windows or car hoods (bonnets) can be just as useful.

    2. Re:Wait for the videos by mbone · · Score: 1

      One last thing -

      Any major fall is highly likely to have an associated debris field - smaller pieces strewn along the meteor's track. If this really landed in a an urban area, it is a good bet that there are pieces of the meteor spread around, on people's cars or in their back yards.

      As a by the way, I have asked some people at the U Auckland to look into trying to collect video information on the meteor.

  37. Re:The real question by Fred_A · · Score: 1

    It depends whether the locals suspect the fire in Palin's church was suspiciously suspicious. Then maybe both events could be linked.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  38. Still waiting for... by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    The discovery of an alien in the desert, who clearly says in English, "I'm sorry, but there is bad news,"

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  39. Meteorites do NOT land hot. by MerlTurkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Meteorites cool off way before hitting the ground. They cool off during what is known as "Dark Flight". No meteorite lands hot. Period. Now maybe it struck something which then exploded but I highly doubt this story.

  40. What belt are we about to go through? by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

    Because last night in NJ my wife spotted 3 and I spotted 1 meteorites streaking in front of us on the garden state parkway at around 12:15 am ish. They where big for meteorites, since usually with the little stuff I am COMPLETELY blind and miss them, but these lasted a good 2-3 seconds and where big enough to see over the lights of Newark/NYC/Hoboken.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  41. Lost Toolbox: Reward! by tunapez · · Score: 1

    I loaned it to a chick on the ISS, haven't seen it since.

    Warning: May be warm to the touch after reentry!

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  42. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    You're sure they're not just locked in a fallout shelter for 35 years?

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  43. Re:The real question by johnny0099 · · Score: 1

    Is that a church or a warehouse? Woe is that ugly. Is that aluminium siding? I think it needed a wrecking ball rather than a fire. They must have made a mistake. The article says Wasilla Bible Church, but it must be the Wasilla Bible Repository.

    --
    Get your dogma outta my yard!
  44. Casualty = Dead or Injured removed from Action by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    Having served in the military I can 100% assure you that this is the definition of Casualty. From an "Accomplish the Mission" stand-point, there is absolutely no difference between a dead soldier and a soldier injured to the point of being out of action - except that a horribly injured 9i.e. crippled for life) soldier is worse for morale.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  45. Re:hahahahahah by Kagura · · Score: 5, Funny

    Warning: To those looking to read the comments on this story below, don't bother. 75% of the comments below this line are about their use of the word "casualty" and whether it refers to "deaths" or "deaths and wounded". After a huge discussion on it, we finally get a couple comments, but then a new thread picks right on up and people start talking about it again!

    There are very few interesting comments on this story. :(

  46. Happens every now and then... by Lazarian · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Back in the 90's, a meteorite nailed a parked car in New York. It flew between two closely spaced apartment buildings and hit the trunk of a lady's car.

    http://uregina.ca/~astro/mb_5.html

    Haven't a clue as to what an insurance company would make of something like that...

  47. Re:The real question by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    No connection. Palin is such a media whore that she set the fire herself to try to keep her name in the news.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  48. Man had used 4 8 15 16 23 42 in lottery... by wfolta · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... and won millions of dollars, with which he bought the warehouse where he used to work. He got these numbers from a friend he met in a "local institution".

    He's going to fly to Los Angeles tomorrow. ;-)

  49. Re:hahahahahah by Kagura · · Score: 1

    I don't know why this got modded, but I'm serious. If you find yourself exasperated by the end of reading the comments, come back and mod me up (or down, if the opposite is true).

  50. Re:hahahahahah by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Oddly, your warning is the last post on my page.

  51. I saw a meteor last night by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Although it was here in California, it was rather large, made a nice bright streak across the sky. I wonder if it happened to be part of some freak storm and the meteorite that hit that warehouse might've been part of it.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  52. Re:hahahahahah by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    "Casualty" should only be used for minor injuries. There's nothing casual about being killed.

    --
    This space available.
  53. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was on the news this morning a mother in AR, who had kill her three kids. They are taking the three babby back to New York too a lady to rest. My pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  54. This reminds me of something I heard as a kid... by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

    In a science book I had as a kid, back in those all so distant mid-nineties, tried to reassure the reader that there was no need to wear helmets 24/7 because no human had ever been recorded to have been hit by a meteorite.

    Keep in mind, this was after a doom, gloom and near "look at all the ways the world could end from an impact alone!" chapter, and even then I hoped the helmet part was bad attempt at a joke.

    Of course, if this alleged meteorite fire is real this guy did technically die from the fire, not being hit by a meteorite.

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
  55. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by DontPanic6x9 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously, lamest first post ever. Some warehouse in New Zealand was just smitten SimCity style by a meteorite. Appreciate the epic-ness of the event.

  56. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by mustafap · · Score: 1

    A suspicious meteorite? Did they think terrorists on the Moon are lobbing rocks at us? Me thinks someone's been reading a little too much Heinlein.

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  57. Re:This reminds me of something I heard as a kid.. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    What? This guy didn't die AT ALL.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  58. One rule to rule them all, eh? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    I've heard variations of that as well. Under certain conditions and depending on the composition of the object, I'm sure it is true. A lump of ice isn't going to be very hot. A lump of Iron probably will be. --When the space shuttle comes down, it has to cool on the tarmac for a good long while. I suspect that there is no one black & white rule to measure these events by.

    Also, keeping in mind that a rock falling from space could carry enough potential energy in terms of basic kinetics to create heat on impact. Again, with so many different possibilities and variations, all manner of results are likely to be observed.

    -FL

    1. Re:One rule to rule them all, eh? by mbone · · Score: 1

      I have heard reports that some falls are hot when found, although many are cold. If they are big enough to still be supersonic near the ground, they are likely to land hot.

      If I found a fresh fall, I would try and put it in a sterile container with tongs or something so I didn't touch it with my bare skin. The Tahish lake fall in my opinion was handled just about perfectly - never touched by hand, and placed immediately in a freezer.

    2. Re:One rule to rule them all, eh? by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

      No, MerlTurkin has it right. Meteors are cold while they're out in space. When they hit the atmostphere, the surface heats up quickly, and the heated parts chip off because of temperature shear and create an ablative barrier to further heating. The surface of a meteor is warm, but not hot when it hits the ground, and the inside is still frozen.

      Of course, Mrs. O'Leary's cow wasn't very hot when it hit the lantern and it still burned down Chicago. No telling what was in that warehouse from the posted story.

      The speed of most meteorites is almost always based on the speed of the earth flying through meteor clouds, not the speed of the meteor clouds, so it's fairly consistent.

      --
      Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  59. we're laughing at you, media by Eil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I'd expect an article of this calibre out of an 9th-grade journalism class, not a newspaper that calls itself The Herald. For entertainment purposes, let's take a closer look at this story, shall we?

    A spectacular fire stopped traffic and drew crowds of onlookers in Auckland last night.

    Fair enough. Big fires are kinda neat.

    The blaze broke out in a warehouse on the intersection of Ponsonby Road and McKelvie Street and eight appliances and two aerial appliances were used to quell it.

    Wait, what? Appliances? Were they throwing dishwashers and blenders at it?

    Firefighters were dampening down hotspots but by 11.30 the fire was out.

    It's unclear from this sentence just when the firefighters were dampening down hotspots. Before the fire? After? A week later?

    A man was inside the building at the time. He was taken out and treated for a minor cut to his arm.

    Here's where the real questions start. What what he doing in the building? Was he supposed to be there? How did he get the cut? Did he see/hear how the fire broke out? Isn't the whole point of journalism to answer questions? I would love to see an article that talks about why the author was unable to obtain the most basic facts about the story. Was the writer prevented from talking to the firefighters and police? Okay, that's a good reason but since it's not in the article I have to assume that the writer was just being lazy.

    And by the way, what happened to the good old days when every article came with a by-line so you know who wrote it? You never see those any more unless the writer is gunning for a Pulitzer in some long, drawn-out investigative piece.

    No nearby buildings were damaged, but the warehouse roof collapsed in the centre. The Fire Service is not saying yet whether it suspects the blaze was suspicious.

    "...suspects the blaze was suspicious"? Oh now he/she isn't even trying.

    Some people were convinced the fire was caused by what may have been a meteorite, which was seen from various parts of the upper North Island streaking across the sky just after 10 o';clock.

    Several callers claim the light in the sky was very bright, and it was described by some as a blinding flash. Others said it was trailing smoke.

    One man, Mike, says he saw the object crash with an exploding noise in the Ponsonby area, and reckons it could have started the fire.

    And now we veer headlong into the bizarre. As others have pointed out, meteors are not nearly hot enough to start a fire by the time they reach the ground so unless the place was storing flammable materials, a meteor did not start this fire regardless of whatever random passers-by thought they witnessed. (It should be noted that their stories are contradictory, so it's impossible to tell which, if any of them, actually saw or heard the meteor. People routinely make up stories and observations to make their own lives seem more interesting or important, especially in relation to some semi-major happening nearby.)

    1. Re:we're laughing at you, media by BlackSmithNZ · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I'd expect an article of this calibre out of an 9th-grade journalism class, not a newspaper that calls itself The Herald. For entertainment purposes, let's take a closer look at this story, shall we?

      Ok, but the Herald is pretty reasonable most of the time. Like all newspaper they overly simplify, get things wrong, sensationalize but generally they are pretty good at getting basic facts & balance in stories; we are not taking about the "National Enquirer" here

      The blaze broke out in a warehouse on the intersection of Ponsonby Road and McKelvie Street and eight appliances and two aerial appliances were used to quell it.

      Wait, what? Appliances? Were they throwing dishwashers and blenders at it?

      It is a New Zealand story, for New Zealand readers. As a Kiwi, the usage of 'appliances' to refer to 'fire engines' or 'fire trucks' (which may not actually be trucks as such), is pretty standard. A little old-fashioned & formal, but newspapers like the Herald have style guides, which in the Heralds case is a bit granny like.

      Firefighters were dampening down hotspots but by 11.30 the fire was out.

      It's unclear from this sentence just when the firefighters were dampening down hotspots. Before the fire? After? A week later?

      Maybe, but it is short, and conveys the meaning that the fire had died down by 11:30. Bad writing? No so much.

      Here's where the real questions start. What what he doing in the building? Was he supposed to be there? How did he get the cut? Did he see/hear how the fire broke out? Isn't the whole point of journalism to answer questions? I would love to see an article that talks about why the author was unable to obtain the most basic facts about the story. Was the writer prevented from talking to the firefighters and police? Okay, that's a good reason but since it's not in the article I have to assume that the writer was just being lazy.

      Ok, I know NZ has the reputation that a lost kitten should make the lead news, but a fire at a warehouse that resulted in one guy needing a sticking plaster, won't actually fill the cover page of this, a relatively major (in NZ terms) newspaper. Basically they kept it short & to the point. Now, if the All Blacks had been hit by a meteorite, thus explaining the loosing the world cup, we might have a story...

      And by the way, what happened to the good old days when every article came with a by-line so you know who wrote it? You never see those any more unless the writer is gunning for a Pulitzer in some long, drawn-out investigative piece.

      Standard suburban story, handled by a junior, and released via NZPA or other wires. Doesn't need a byline unless there was opinion expressed.

      And now we veer headlong into the bizarre. As others have pointed out, meteors are not nearly hot enough to start a fire by the time they reach the ground so unless the place was storing flammable materials, a meteor did not start this fire regardless of whatever random passers-by thought they witnessed. (It should be noted that their stories are contradictory, so it's impossible to tell which, if any of them, actually saw or heard the meteor. People routinely make up stories and observations to make their own lives seem more interesting or important, especially in relation to some semi-major happening nearby

      Yes, but unlike Slashdot & other news reports, the Herald played this one straight; they reported on what people claimed, but kept to the facts; that the cause had not been determined. Some local idiot thought it was a UFO or whatever, it adds character to say that they the local, thought X, but that is only an opinion.

  60. Recession? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Dood, when there's been a recession for 7 years plus (examine latest census data for America particular and demographics globally) it's called a depression.

    On a more serious note, I bet it is just one of those sphere like in that Keanu Reeves' movie, The Day The Earth Stood Still.....

  61. Appliances? by splorp! · · Score: 1

    The blaze broke out in a warehouse on the intersection of Ponsonby Road and McKelvie Street and eight appliances and two aerial appliances were used to quell it.

    Were these blenders or electric can-openers? Or were they referring to larger appliances, like a refrigerator or a dishwasher? If so, what would an aerial appliance be? And how do these appliances manage to put out a fire?

    New Zealand has the coolest appliances.

    --
    Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
  62. Remember... by CBob · · Score: 1

    The guy behind the "affordable" cruise missle is also in NZ. Anyone know if he's working on mass drivers yet?

  63. Probabiltiy by nomad-9 · · Score: 1

    What were the odds of being hit by a meteorite?

  64. lucky? by PeDRoRist · · Score: 1

    What if you're driving the car?

    --

    Anything you do can get you slashdotted, including nothing.
  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. Fire was *not* caused by a meteor by audiovideodisco · · Score: 1

    According to the Bad Astronomy blog, the fire could not have been caused by a meteorite. Basically, if meteor was so big that it didn't burn up in the sky, it would've been giant enough to flatten the warehouse -- and everything else in the area.

  67. Finally, my plan is complete by Basildane · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Collect underpants

    Step 2: Drop a meteor on NZ

    Step 3: Profit!

  68. !meteorite by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    This was not destroyed by a meteorite, it was destroyed by a meteor. A meteor becomes a meteorite only once it hits Earth.

    I can't believe no one has been pedantic enough to point that out yet.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  69. Re:Dang, at least it was better than... by krenshala · · Score: 1

    Damn, we're below average here in the US. Someone needs to bring us up to the 8.78/1000 ... oh, wait.

    --

    krenshala