Slashdot Mirror


Fifty Meter Asteroid Might Hit Earth In 2098

eldavojohn writes "The Bad Astronomer brings word of an asteroid discovered with a tiny chance of hitting Earth. While it's only 50 meters wide, it could have the impact of a 20 megaton bomb. It's still twenty million miles away so if it hits us, it won't happen until 2098. The real story here is how a remarkable telescope, dubbed Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System, that went operational in May found its first potential target in our growing impact alert system for Earth."

295 comments

  1. i'll be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    don't care.. sorry..

    1. Re:i'll be dead by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


      Fuck you. I'll be 133 years old hooked up to machines and tubes.
      I CARE

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:i'll be dead by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Too bad - you are boned.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:i'll be dead by srk2040 · · Score: 0

      Stem cell baby stem cell or you'll get a whole new cloned guts that will replace ur existing gut.

    4. Re:i'll be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here or frozen.....

    5. Re:i'll be dead by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In that case you'll appreciate the meteorite putting you out of your misery.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:i'll be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Get that asteroid off my lawn!"

    7. Re:i'll be dead by soloport · · Score: 5, Funny

      I CARE TOO This asteroid has been poised for millions of years, ready to strike Earth in 2098, and the story has made it to /. just now? Come on editors!

    8. Re:i'll be dead by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      The tubes didn't save Ted, they won't save you either.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:i'll be dead by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Get off my synthilawn you Dawkindarned thirtynagers!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:i'll be dead by blair1q · · Score: 1

      When the man gives you the option, take the red pill, not the blue one, and you'll avoid that.

    11. Re:i'll be dead by blair1q · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid we got forced into retirement at 65 and we liked it.

    12. Re:i'll be dead by mcneely.mike · · Score: 1

      I'll be 135 years old and tubed up with hookers... and machines.

      I REALLY care.

      (Sorry... trying to fit machines in there just didn't quite work... sorry.)

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    13. Re:i'll be dead by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And now you'll be forced in front of death panels, which decide when and how you will die, in the name of universal health care coverage.

      Oh wait, I'm channeling the Republican party again.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    14. Re:i'll be dead by mangu · · Score: 1

      Fuck you. I'll be 133 years old hooked up to machines and tubes.
        I CARE

      I bet those machines will run Linux. But I won't bet on the control console desktop running Linux.

    15. Re:i'll be dead by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      2098 = The Year of Desktop Linux!

    16. Re:i'll be dead by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Lucky. If you were born as lilo you wouldn't care either.

    17. Re:i'll be dead by abednegoyulo · · Score: 1

      But we will be all dead in 2012!

    18. Re:i'll be dead by keith_nt4 · · Score: 1

      Well you'll be dead in 2098, sure but technological advances such as they are we could have an exact date/time/place in 20 or 30. Maybe we'll start seeing government policy written with the impending impact as the rationalization. Even if you don't survive that long it could very well have an effect on your life.

      --
      "UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
    19. Re:i'll be dead by quenda · · Score: 1

      Dammit! 2098 was finally going to be the year of Linux On The Desktop.

    20. Re:i'll be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. I'll be 133 years old hooked up to machines and tubes.
        I CARE

      You care NOW.

      But in the future, you (and I) will either be dead or completely senile and blissfully unaware.

    21. Re:i'll be dead by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who wants to be hooked up to machines a tubes with the idea of eternal life. Eventually leading up to the Brain in a vat paradigm. Imagine the productivity that could be reached!

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
  2. No problem, send in a driller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can always send Bruce Willis

    1. Re:No problem, send in a driller by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, Bruce Willis' head in a jar at least.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:No problem, send in a driller by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Who knows, we might actually have half of the space technologies in that movie available in 2098 if NASA keeps up it's stellar pace of innovation.

    3. Re:No problem, send in a driller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the ones where the craft somehow emit their own atmosphere and can bank and roll in it like an airplane with ailerons? With no need to use attitude jets to cause the roll and stop it with another jet? I thought that was pretty special. Then again, they did sing "Leavin' on a jet plane"...

    4. Re:No problem, send in a driller by butalearner · · Score: 1

      Well, Bruce Willis' head in a jar at least.

      To get to the asteroid well ahead of impact, we have to send Bruce Willis' head in a jar right now.

    5. Re:No problem, send in a driller by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      The asteroid was partially ferrous in the movie... maybe some innovative use of magnetization and such? ;)

    6. Re:No problem, send in a driller by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

      we have to send Bruce Willis' head in a jar right now.

      I for one am really quite OK with that, I don't think it is being used for much of anything right now. Somebody go grab the head and we'll find a rocket to juice up someplace. I'm pretty sure one of the pickle jars from a restaurant will work, I'll see if I can find one.

  3. Key Words: by Rip+Dick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...might... ...tiny chance... ...could... ...if..."

    1. Re:Key Words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      But if it does hit, it is nearly certain that most of the people alive now won't be alive after the impact. Oh the humanity!

    2. Re:Key Words: by timlyg · · Score: 0

      constipation

    3. Re:Key Words: by curtix7 · · Score: 1

      OMG, here, have all of this funding!

    4. Re:Key Words: by need4mospd · · Score: 1
      Key phrase for the media: "20 megaton bomb..."

      Really doesn't matter what the context is, it's a 20 megaton bomb!

    5. Re:Key Words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH Noes!!

    6. Re:Key Words: by knight24k · · Score: 0

      But if it does hit, it is nearly certain that most of the people alive now won't be alive after the impact. Oh the humanity!

      It would also be accurate to say that most of the people alive today will be dead before the impact.

    7. Re:Key Words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think us not being capable of shooting down anything any more is a more likely scenario than that of the asteroid hitting us.

    8. Re:Key Words: by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      eh, semantics.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    9. Re:Key Words: by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Just not as funny.

      --
  4. How can it destroy the Earth? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    When my Mayan calendar runs out in just a few short months?

    "Bomb the rubble", Mr. Asteroid!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's see,

      Take the year 2098... subtract the left wing anti-Christ(43)... subtract the right wing anti-Christ(44)... carry the asteroid(1)...

      2012!!! THE MAYANS WERE RIGHT!!!!

    2. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Much the same way the Mayans cant be right because my Far Side calendar ends mid Jan 2011.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm eligible for retirement in 2012, so the world as I know it will surely end. Don't know about the rest of you guys, though. More importantley...

      Our calendar ends on Dec 31st of THIS YEAR! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

    4. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the Mayan Y2K, man. All my Mayan software will stop working. I don't see how this is a laughing matter.

    5. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mayan calendar doesn't run out---it just rolls around to the next age. Long Count

    6. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by lavacano201014 · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember the Mayan calendar being behind, or something like that. Like our 2012 is their 1955.

      --
      A wise man once said, "Where is my other quotation mark?
    7. Re:How can it destroy the Earth? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I thought it wouldn't matter to true slashnerds, but then I remembered what their system requirements page said:

      "Maya 2011 is also capable of running on other configurations such as boutique distributions of Linux. "

      http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=13577897

      Oh Noes! The end of Maya isn't just for Windows!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  5. You gotta love this guy. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    I mean, optimism at it's finest.

    The good news here... let me correct myself: the great news here is that Pan-STARRS found this thing at all! From that distance, an object this small is really hard to see, and no other asteroid survey could've found it. That means that as time goes on, Pan-STARRS will find lots and lots of threatening objects.

    (emphasis mine)

    He's going to be a lot of fun at parties towards the end of 2012 ...

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:You gotta love this guy. by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How you measure the unknown? It IS optimist, saying that we now finally have tools to start discovering this kind of threats. Anyway, that we are getting aware that things could get close don't mean that anything will hit us (in last century nothing similar to that size, so odds should be pretty low).

  6. Well... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Thankfully most of us will be dead by then.

    1. Re:Well... by Chowderbags · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Steamboat Willie will still be copyrighted.

    2. Re:Well... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Which would be a good reason to nuke it from orbit. Only way of making sure this copyright disease doesn't spread.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Well... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Steamboat Willie will still be copyrighted.

      I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Well... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this could damage the giant pyramid I've commanded my wife to build in my honor upon my death. Therefore it must be stopped at all costs.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Well... by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Cry - Steamboat Willie is completely unimportant, but if it is still copyrighted, more important things like Calvin and Hobbes will still be copyrighted too... unless we convince the government to let Disney have a special clause protecting Mickey and let the rest of the world live in peace with reasonable copyright laws. I am not holding my breath, though.

    6. Re:Well... by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      See if you'd have gone with the burning pyre either on the water or a Viking Stoneboat you'd beat this Johnny come lately to the punch you'd have reduced your body to ashes before it had the chance...

      Take THAT 50 meter asteroid with a tiny chance of hitting the earth in 2098!

    7. Re:Well... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I am not holding my breath, though.

      Kids who trade whole BluRay rips online today will be wearing BluBlockers by then - there maybe hope yet.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Well... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      unless Kurzweil is right and nanobots cure aging in the 30's

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    9. Re:Well... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's only 20 years away. I doubt nanotech will advance that quickly, although I wish it would; I'll be 80 in 2032.

  7. Take action Now! by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Funny

    First, let's figure out what this "Nature" is and what it wants. Then, let's stop it in its tracks!

    1. Re:Take action Now! by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      Screw that, enough talk, nuke nature now. For our children. Think of the children.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    2. Re:Take action Now! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Screw that, enough talk, nuke nature now.

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Take action Now! by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      You know the big room with the blue ceiling and the green and brown carpet? I think there's some "Nature" hiding in there.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  8. Nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone gets their panties in a wad over this type of thing every few months. Why are we worrying about something with an infinitesimal chance of actually happening almost a century from now?

    1. Re:Nothing new... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's this kind of short-term thinking that will result in the destruction of the human race.

    2. Re:Nothing new... by digitig · · Score: 1

      Yes -- better start planning now for the heat-death of the universe!

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Nothing new... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Even if it's unlikely to happen, we still need infrastructure in space to deal with it if it does, or to facilitate interplanetary(stellar) shipping on every other day of the year. Plus a backup planet to trade with...

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    4. Re:Nothing new... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We don't need planets to trade with (yet), just asteroids to mine. There's tons of asteroids out there filled with valuable metals, and unlike planets, they have no significant gravity well that requires fuel to get into and out of. Even better, mining asteroids doesn't result in environmental devastation like mining does on Earth. The technology to go to asteroids and mine them for profit and resources is the same technology needed to steer asteroids into safe orbits to protect our planet from impacts.

    5. Re:Nothing new... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      did I say planet? I just meant off-world source. I'm a huge proponent of asteroid mining for those reasons, plus individual asteroids can contain upwards of a trillion dollars of recoverable resources.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  9. Who will save us? by Manos_Of_Fate · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'd better freeze Bruce Willis, just to be sure.

    --
    Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
    1. Re:Who will save us? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 4, Funny

      We better freeze the members of Aerosmith as well, otherwise he won't have epic tracks to listen to on his way to the asteroid.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Who will save us? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Funny

      shouldn't we just freeze them on general principle? Just to get them out of the music scene once and for all?

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    3. Re:Who will save us? by treeves · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think they're already pretty much frozen, in the 1980s.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:Who will save us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morgan Freeman, too. We'll need him as President.

    5. Re:Who will save us? by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know about that, Aerosmith seems pretty against cryogenics.

      I don't wanna close my eyes
      I don't wanna fall asleep

    6. Re:Who will save us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name "Bad Astronomer" doesn't induce a sense reliability in their claim.

    7. Re:Who will save us? by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      Freeze him, and then shrink him and the ship they plan to have him fly, unless the asteroid is getting larger on it's way to earth.

      Remember that the gravity on an asteroid will be proportional to it's mass (as it is with most other celestial bodies). So while "movie" Bruce had no problem standing on his "dinosaur killer" asteroid, this asteroid will have virtually no gravitational field, as it is so small. It would be harder to stay on this asteroid than it was for anyone watching Armageddon to put up with Ben Affleck's terrible acting. :)

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  10. We're all dead ! We're all gonna die! by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    Now about that asteroid, sounds like a problem! Quite a pickle.

    1. Re:We're all dead ! We're all gonna die! by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather an asteroid than a hemorrhoid.

    2. Re:We're all dead ! We're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that most posters on this board don't have to worry about it as the youngest will be in their late 90s at the time. I know being 60 I would not loose any sleep over it.

  11. Good news!!!!!!!! by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Funny

    If we launch Rosie O'Donnell into orbit now, her gravitational pull will divert it away! Yay!

    1. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but think about all the flooding from the tidal changes!

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How the hell do we launch something that big, I didn't think our rockets had that kind of lift capacity?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      How the hell do we launch something that big, I didn't think our rockets had that kind of lift capacity?

      Much like African Swallows, you need a couple rockets and a string...

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    4. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do we launch something that big, I didn't think our rockets had that kind of lift capacity?

      That one's easy : bits and pieces!

    5. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

      Chop her into smaller pieces and reassemble her in orbit, of course. Bonus: reassembly might not work.

    6. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      And the shift it would cause on the earths orbit.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    7. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If we launch Rush Limbaugh into orbit now, the average IQ of the planet will go up enough we can talk the asteroid into missing us.

    8. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Saturn V is no longer produced. Nothing launches Rosie O'Donnell into space any more.

    9. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? rosie odonnell?

    10. Re:Good news!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fatty joke is not funny, you ugly ass!

  12. UPDATE ALERT LEVEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TO BLACK-WATCH PLAID!

  13. I initially read this as... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Fifty Meteor Asteroid's Might Hit Earth In 2098

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  14. And... by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IPv4 address should run out by then, or not, things will be hotter, or colder, social security may have crashed, or not, the USA will be a socialist nightmare, or not, God will make a sudden appearance, or not, and the Beatles may reunite, or not.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:And... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Yup. IPv4 addys alone are enough to cause chaos the likes of which we've not seen since the riot scene on "Airplane!", scary stuff.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:And... by BiggoronSword · · Score: 1

      ... and the Beatles may reunite, or not.

      My money is on not.

      --
      interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
    3. Re:And... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      ... and the ZOMBIE Beatles may reunite, or not.

      Happy now?

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:And... by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Dogs and cats living together.. mass hysteria!

    5. Re:And... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Surely you can't be serious!

      Looks like I picked the wrong century to quit drinking!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:And... by grub · · Score: 1


      and the ZOMBIE Beatles may reunite, or not.

      Depends... Was John Lennon shot in the head or chest?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:And... by digitig · · Score: 1

      My money is still on "not".

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:And... by operagost · · Score: 1

      I find the idea of zombie Beatles far more frightening than any asteroid.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:And... by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Stop calling me Shirley!

    10. Re:And... by OldPappy · · Score: 1

      OK, the Zombies were a different group, and were never with the Beatles. So, they could not reunite.

    11. Re:And... by masmullin · · Score: 4, Funny

      All you need is brainz! All you need is brainz! All you need is brainz brainz... brainz is all you need.

      when I find myself in times of trouble, mother mary comes to me... and I eat her brainz, its yummy, its yummy.

      yesterday, my mortality was so far away, but i find that I am rotting today. oh i believe in yesterday

    12. Re:And... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Of course not. By then, the deregulation of finance and commerce, the privatisation of public services, tax cuts to the ultra-rich and the elimination of labour regulations will have already turned planet Earth in a paradise, like they've been promising us for 30 years. Just hang on a little more, heaven is just around the corner.

    13. Re:And... by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Remember this 'un? A Hard Day's Night of the Living Dead. Somebody has on option on a book about Zombie Beatles!! Zombie Beatles!! Zombie Beatles!!, too. Grrr... Help me if you can, I'll eat your brainzzz...

    14. Re:And... by u17 · · Score: 1
    15. Re:And... by macshit · · Score: 1

      The Bad news: The zombie apocalypse and environmental disaster have reduced the remnants of humanity to a struggling hunter-gatherer existence, and average life expectancy is now 25 years.

      The Good news: The IPv4 address space should last a bit longer!

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    16. Re:And... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Snorting my beer, thank you sir. You reminded me of the end of Bill and Ted's, in Ox's delivery of his history report: "Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... San Dimas High School football rules."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  15. 2098 by zombieChan51 · · Score: 1

    I hope by that time we have an army of Super Soilders in Iron Man Suits that could take care of that nasty asteroid.

    1. Re:2098 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      But Tony won't let the Air Force have the plans, what a wet blanket he is.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  16. Is it REALLY that bad? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Informative
    BA:

    An impact by something like that is about the same as exploding a 20 megaton bomb.

    So yeah, bad.

    Wiki:

    The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the "Tsar Bomba" of the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya on October 30, 1961, with an estimated yield of around 50 megatons.

    So this impact would be 40% of the Soviet test. How badly did the Soviet test harm the Earth?

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, for one thing they never tested in the middle of a heavily populated area, if the stone should choose to fall in a city and not the ocean. A bigger concern would be if said explosion happened in a nation with a paranoid dictator who lets the nukes fly because he thinks he's under attack, cascading into everyone following suit.

    2. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not much. Kind of a bummer if the asteroid isn't nice enough to land in an uninhabited part of Siberia though.

    3. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wouldn't be an extinction level event or anything like that, but it would almost certainly ruin the day of anyone nearby where it did hit. And even if we could get advanced warning of where it would hit and evacuate all the people, if it heads towards a city, that's a lot of property/infrastructure/housing that will be obliterated. So not necessarily catastrophic, but probably not particularly great either.

      Although if we figured out that it was going to hit somewhere basically unpopulated and un-utilized (middle of a desert or something), it could actually be kind of cool. We could probably get some excellent satellite video footage of it.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    4. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That test was an air burst. In any case a nuclear weapon delivers its energy as heat while a meteorite delivers its as kinetic energy so the effects are not going to be the same even when the energy is.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      3% of the Earth's surface is urban area, so chances are it won't hit a heavily populated area.

    6. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on where it hits. A single 50 megaton nuclear bomb doesn't really do much to the earth, long term. Obviously, the Soviet bomb hasn't had any lasting environmental impacts worldwide. However, they exploded that bomb near the Arctic Circle in an unpopulated, desolate place. If it had been in the middle of Hawaii, that probably wouldn't be much of a vacation spot now.

      A 20Mt asteroid hitting in the middle of the ocean would be a big and interesting event, but nothing to be too concerned about. However, a 20Mt asteroid hitting in the middle of Washington D.C. would affect human history in a big way (whether for better or worse is debatable; I'd miss the Smithsonian museums personally).

    7. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
      I was thinking about that, too.

      The odds are (~70%), it will hit in an ocean somewhere. It would create one some-bitch tsunami. So, if it smacks down in the Atlantic, we can kiss all the cities on the Atlantic coast good-bye?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    8. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by wjousts · · Score: 3, Funny

      By 2098 it'll probably be more like 85% of the Earth covered in water. By the coastal city of Denver will be under a tsunami watch just in case.

    9. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      20MT in the sea? No it really won't do much in the way of tsunamis.

      FTA - "An object a bit smaller than that carved out Meteor Crater in Arizona." So less than 1.5km wide, that'd make a smallish hole in the ocean, but nothing like that feared landslide from the Azores.

    10. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Heat is kinetic energy.

    11. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No much real damage, except for the guy that had to light the fuse.

      Seriously though: it was done in a very, very remote part of the planet. You wouldn't have wanted to be out in the open within 30 miles of ground zero. Now, consider Hiroshima and what 21 kilotons did.

    12. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Not only that, it can only hit half of the earth at any given point, so it goes down to a ~1.5% chance.

    13. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Methinks a lot of that meteorite's kinetic energy will be tranformed into heat almost instantly upon impact, vaporizing a lot of stuff. It's the blast -- the heat-induced expansion of atmosphere and vaporized material that will create most damage methinks.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    14. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by tokul · · Score: 1

      How badly did the Soviet test harm the Earth?

      Not as bad as Castle Bravo. Although piece of land in Arctics was obliterated.

    15. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a theoretical sense you are right, of course. So what is the equivalent temperature of this hurdling space rock?

    16. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to check their maths...

      If it's 3% chance for the earth (and assuming equal for both halves) if you isolate a half guess what....it's still 3%.

    17. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's faulty logic, if 97% of the earth is non urban, and 3% of the earth is urban. That means that each half would also have a 3:97 ratio of urban to non urban density. If the asteroid could "only" land within 10% of the earth's surface the ratios would STILL be the same! (this is assuming even distribution of urban:nonurban on the surface, while this is obviously not true unless the article said exactly what time of day and from what angle the meteor was coming from, you have to assume even distribution.)

    18. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same, but some calculations and googling turns up the fact that 20 MT is about 2e17 joules, which is reportedly what you get from a Mag 8 or 9 earthquake.

      Although I don't think a circular splash of an object falling in the water organizes the subsurface motion in the way a tsunami-producing earthquake or landslide does.

      So I wouldn't say there's no chance of a tsunami, but I won't say there's going to be a big one.

    19. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You mean he wil think he is under attack even after all the news and video of the incoming rock? If we can't move it, we will at lest know where its going to hit and deal with it appropriately. i.e. evacuate.

      Of course the odds of it hitting a populated area is tiny.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except if we can't move the rock, we will move Washington DC.

      We have 90 years. I would like to think we will be able to tell where the impact will happen 5 years before it does, and then start the evacuation process..

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If we were fairly sure we knew where the thing would hit, and its impact location would be a big problem (for instance: Hawaii -- I for one want one of my favorite vacation spots to remain undisturbed), then a better strategy would be to immediately put some energy into diverting the asteroid so that it doesn't hit the planet at all. We mostly have the technology, and 90 years is plenty of time. Some type of rocket that lands on the asteroid and starts up a small ion engine would probably be plenty to move the asteroid, and it wouldn't take long to develop and deploy this with existing technologies. With asteroids, the farther ahead you apply energy to change their trajectory, the more effect you have, but if you want until the last minute, even a bunch of giant nukes won't save you. Unfortunately, humans are so stupid and short-sighted that they usually wait until the last minute before dealing with problems.

    22. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      heat != temperature.

      It is ~20 quadrillion calories of heat. (assuming 20 megatons = 20 million metric tons).

      On a large scale, there is almost no difference between a 20 megaton impact and a 20 megaton chemical explosion. For a nuclear explosion, the only difference will be that part of the energy is lost to high energy radiation like gamma rays.

    23. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that is a fifty ton meteor hit north korea, Kim Jong Il would find a way to blame the americans for it.

    24. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Marcika · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same, but some calculations and googling turns up the fact that 20 MT is about 2e17 joules, which is reportedly what you get from a Mag 8 or 9 earthquake.

      Although I don't think a circular splash of an object falling in the water organizes the subsurface motion in the way a tsunami-producing earthquake or landslide does.

      So I wouldn't say there's no chance of a tsunami, but I won't say there's going to be a big one.

      So you won't say anything at all then? :-P

      To elaborate on your point: It would be a pretty puny tsunami (equal to a Richter 8.0 sea quake). For comparison: the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami came from a 9.3 sea quake, equivalent to 1340 megatons of TNT - 50 to 100 times more than this potential one...

      And a proper extinction event like the 10km Yucatan asteroid that hit at the K-T boundary is about a million times more energetic.

    25. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 1

      Most of that energy gets wasted in atmospheric compression though. It's not like it all gets transmitted to the water.

    26. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by SpaceCadets · · Score: 1

      I hear what you're saying, one question though, who decides what's important? If it's going to wipe out DC, I'm sure there will be lot of effort to killing the asteriod, but what if it's going to destroy the homes / farms of fifty farmers on some country somewhere, will the effort still be expended? Just wondering, not poking holes. :)

    27. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The asteroid will probably explode when it hits the upper atmosphere. This is called an air burst and will be very similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

    28. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Kim Jong Il won't have the power to blame anyone in 2098 -- even if he should turn out to have Metusaleh genes, he's abdicating (for lack of a better word) now.

      The real danger isn't a direct hit on a city, but an ocean hit that creates severe flood waves.
      And that risk is greater than 3% if it should hit. But so far, whether it'll hit the earth at all is a big "if", and rather unlikely.

    29. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks you 'methinks' too much.

    30. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      To move the impact point 1km along the equator, you must change the impact time by 6.773 seconds. If we could influence the object right now (given the assumptions below) that would mean a maximum delta-V change of 2.83x10^-8 m/s and an expenditure of a mere 1162 Joules. Naturally as it gets closer, the energy required goes up. Note that the asteroid is only traveling at a leisurely 11 m/s or so - a mere 25 mi/hr.

      Assumptions:
      Force is applied in-line with the asteroid's motion.
      Density of asteroid: 7.8x10^3 kg/m^3
      Distance: 30x10^9 m (30 million km from article)
      Diameter: 50m
      Transit time: 88 years or 2777068800 sec.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    31. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      current estimates are for less than a foot of sea level rise. Far less than a 1% change in "water" coverage.

      Nice try. Epic fail.

    32. Re:Is it REALLY that bad? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that you are unable to tell the difference between a joke and science. Epic fail indeed.

  17. WOLF WOLF WOLF by peter303 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the astronomers issue press releases like this every month, what happens when an asteroid really comes close?

    1. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by woutersteven · · Score: 1

      they say i told you so!

    2. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      It will be too late then, so why bother.

    3. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      It's not really their fault, this isn't "Oh no, we're all going to die!" (that was, of course how the media sold it to their readers), the real press release was "Hurray, our new telescope works!".

    4. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      By the time we see it, it's already too late. Press releases like this help us know the danger so we put some $$$ into finding these things.

    5. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by Preston+Pfarner · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if it's a comet, it might be called Wolf-Biederman ...

    6. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      A lot of people will suddenly scramble to make a "Last Post".

      --
      --Udo.
    7. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Who really cares what the man on the street thinks? They have no real power to do anything about this one way or another.

      Now, for the people who have the understanding of this kind of thing they know how to ready these reports without getting their panties in a bunch. They're the people who matter. They're the ones who are going to determine what should be done when. Or do you think we should not report on any information if it doesn't involve the mass population? In that case most news websites can be boiled down to about three stories a week.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    8. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And if they don't, what will people like you say to the astronomers when an asteroid really comes close?

      Oh, right. You'll bitch they didn't tell anyone.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully these early warnings will spur someone on capital hill to fund a think-tank for how to divert an asteroid, followed closely by money to develop the ideas.

    10. Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It will be confirmed with a percentage, and then governments will take the appropriate action.

      The boy who cried wolf is a nice metaphor, but it doesn't apply what there are another 10 people also looking for said wolf.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. good news by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Well finally some good news after all this doom and gloom lately.

    Hope it hits something that needs to be hit and solves some sort of a problem of that time.

  19. Kinda slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    88 years to move 20 million miles? The thing is only moving 26MPH relative to us, and it's only 150' in diameter. How many kilacalories (since everything else is in imperial) in a megaton of TnT? That doesn't seem like it would be packing 20 megatons of kinetic energy.

    1. Re:Kinda slow by richdun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I'm guessing it isn't on a direct course for Earth, and is traveling through the solar system on some eccentric orbit around the Sun. Also, once it gets here (if it gets here), it will accelerate both as it gets closer to the Sun's gravity well and as it gets closer to Earth's gravity well (the latter especially as it enters the atmosphere).

      If it is headed directly for Earth, though, like "They're on a direct course for Sector 001," we're in trouble.

    2. Re:Kinda slow by ChipMonk · · Score: 1

      Let's see, 4/3 times pi times 75' cubed... 1,767,146 cubic feet of asteroid. At 62.42 pounds per cubic foot at STP, that much water would weigh 110,305,245 pounds. The asteroid density is probably considerably higher.

      But even if it isn't, anything weighing 110 million pounds, hitting the Earth at 26 MPH, would saturate pretty much every seismograph on the planet. Sure, some of the material will burn off in the atmosphere, but Earth's gravity will compensate for the lost mass via acceleration.

    3. Re:Kinda slow by wjousts · · Score: 1

      it will accelerate both as it gets closer to the Sun's gravity well and as it gets closer to Earth's gravity well (the latter especially as it enters the atmosphere).

      I rather think it will decelerate when it hits the dense atmosphere, but your point still stands.

    4. Re:Kinda slow by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm guessing it isn't on a direct course for Earth, .

      Duh! It is not on a direct course to Earth. It is on the galactic superhighway that happens to pass through the Solar System. The planned highway notification has been filed long ago in Alpha Centauri. You would have know if had cared enough to look.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Kinda slow by blair1q · · Score: 1

      At those speeds, at any reasonably steep angle of incidence, the atmosphere will cause a few seconds of heating, fire, some ablated material, but the bulk of the meteor will be almost unimpeded when it impacts something solid or liquid.

      20 megatons, however, would only be a terrible disaster if it hits a densely populated area. If it's rural or completely uninhabited, it will have the global effect of a nuke test of that size, minus the radiation, i.e., it will be news but not a noticeable change to the planet overall. And if it hits deep water, it might not leave a mark on the planet other than its own debris.

    6. Re:Kinda slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      88 years to move 20 million miles? The thing is only moving 26MPH relative to us, and it's only 150' in diameter. How many kilacalories (since everything else is in imperial) in 2,204,622,620 pounds of TnT? That doesn't seem like it would be packing 44,092,452,400 pounds of kinetic energy.

      There, FTFY.

  20. 2098? by wjousts · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet we won't do anything about it until late 2097? Probably be a big issue in the 2096 elections and then congress will be paralyzed by partisan divisions for the first half of 2097. Only the rapidly approaching 2098 mid-terms will force them to focus on the, also rapidly approaching, killer asteroid.

    1. Re:2098? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming of course that the USA still exists in 90 years or it hasn't lost enough power for people to actually care.

    2. Re:2098? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      I have every confidence in the newly elected President Trig Palin III.

    3. Re:2098? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your silly the US won't be around by then.

    4. Re:2098? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      And his first lady, Lindsay Lohan Clone-B.

    5. Re:2098? by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      And why shouldn't you? The populace loves to get out and vote, illustrating that they have a say in the everyday affairs of government as always. No doubt, Pres. Palin III will roll in on a wave of "Change we can believe in" echoing back to the days of her forebear's opponents and be just as successful in convincing the American (or Sino-American or whatever compound government will exist then) voters that there is a reason to vote. And, on some level, there will be... lesser of two evils is still a great motivator for many even today.

  21. non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still twenty million miles away so if it hits us, it won't happen until 2098

    Either the asteroid is travelling at 26mph, or that conclusion doesn't follow from the given premise..

    1. Re:non sequitur by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Or just a journalist that doesn't know anything about orbits and misunderstood the information he was given.

    2. Re:non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are at the equator and you travel to the west at 1000 km/h, how much time will it take to get to the north pole?

  22. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    We've had one. Ronald Reagan.

    And the discussion is about an Asteroid, Limbaugh will be dead by 2098 so who cares?

  23. Mod parent up by amazeofdeath · · Score: 1

    Absolutely right, emphasis on the tiny chance. Where are my mod points...

    --
    U+F8FF
    1. Re:Mod parent up by severoon · · Score: 1

      Wow, 20 megatons, that sounds bad. If medicine advances to the point where I can live well past 120 years old (and I mean live, like really live, not an existence consumed by mostly writhing around in agony), and I happen to live where this thing might hit, by then I'm afraid I'll be too set in my ways to want to move out of the armageddon zone.

      If this thing were going to hit where I live today I'd start a new life in a new city like that...by comparison I'm young, I'll roll with the punches. But I'm going to be over 120 years old people! I can't be expected to evacuate a 100 mile zone and set up somewhere new. I'm anticipating I'll be old and crotchety by then!

      This all adds up to one thing: terrible news. The chances that medicine will advance, that this thing will hit a populated place, the place where I live, and the chance that I'll be willing to move out of there? Really, really terrible news.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    2. Re:Mod parent up by amazeofdeath · · Score: 1

      I know you are trying to be funny, but you still should have replied the GP here, not me.

      --
      U+F8FF
    3. Re:Mod parent up by severoon · · Score: 1

      I was just reinforcing your point with my own particular brand of humor, which others have described as smelling of stale breadcrumbs and overripe bananas.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  24. Flying Cars by PmanAce · · Score: 1

    I bet there will finally be some flying cars by then...

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
  25. 88 years until Bellus!!!! by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Bellus is approaching!

  26. Not as impressive as it sounds by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the summary:

    " While it's only 50 meters wide, it could have the impact of a 20 megaton bomb."

    Which sounds impressive - until you realize just how empty the Earth really is. Across probably 80% of the Earth, a 20 meg explosion will produce few (if any) casualties. Doubly so since that size range is likely to breakup and deposit most of it's energy in the upper atmosphere.
     
    Phil, you've done lots of good stuff, but you're just reaching for the hits and ad impressions with this one.

    1. Re:Not as impressive as it sounds by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I hope that it hits France. I hate the French.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Not as impressive as it sounds by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I don't know... I always thought it was Phil's job to keep people up to date on this kind of thing. You know... "Bad Astronomy", Astronomy news. See any connection to the theme here?

      Certainly much better than the number of political articles that make the front page here who's only real purpose is to start flame wars.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Not as impressive as it sounds by SatanMat · · Score: 1

      Nous vous detestons aussi

    4. Re:Not as impressive as it sounds by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Si elles viennent d'avoir un sens de l'humour.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Not as impressive as it sounds by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Heh I'm sure it's destined to land right on top of the Extra Ultra Large Hadron Collider - on the day they find some particle for messing with time. By then, the impact zone will be predicted, and the facility will be abandoned, just for the creation of the time particle to be wiped out.

  27. Big Deal? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Informative

    Twenty megaton blast? Meh. We've seen worse.

    Of course, I'm sure where it strikes will make a bit of difference.

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
    1. Re:Big Deal? by proton · · Score: 1

      We've all seen the documentaries, we all know where its going to hit; downtown New York!

  28. Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it gets here, fusion power plants will only be 50 years away.

  29. The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will we be on IPV6 by then?

  30. Humans ftw by AlfaMike · · Score: 1

    20 megaton? Hell, we did better already. Let's just hope it doesn't hit some crowded area.

  31. Like in 1908? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not much. Kind of a bummer if the asteroid isn't nice enough to land in an uninhabited part of Siberia though.

    Well, hopefully it gets the same memo we sent out in 1908.

  32. A catalyst for world peace by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Today countries all over the world cling to ethnic and religious differences as primary societal foundations. As long as that is true we will have never ending war. This asteroid is a gift of a single unifying foundation for all of humankind to unite around. Working together to deflect this asteroid will diminish those cherished divisions along ethnic and religious lines. Once we are done, the young generations will see no reason to go back to hating each other.

    1. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'religious' -- watch out you might get what ask for. Everyone will pray that the asteroid will not hit the earth.

    2. Re:A catalyst for world peace by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not fair smoking something that good and gloating about it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once we are done, the young generations will see no reason to go back to hating each other.

      History has proven this false time and time and time and time again. Too bad.

    4. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, England and the colonies got along great since both shared ethnic and religious ties. The Native Americans never fought either.

    5. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bwahahahahaha

    6. Re:A catalyst for world peace by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      It's paraphrased from the movie or comic "Watchmen" In the movie the rally point was Dr. Manhattan which actually made more sense then the original comic being some new random alien squid thing.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullcrap. We'll fight each other over the best method to deflect the asteroid (and whether we should do it at all or trust in God to protect us instead), and it won't get done until it's too late.

      CAPTCHA: Congress. Go figure.

    8. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL right.

      The Christians will embrace the apocalypse, the Muslims will blame it on the infidels, etc etc...

      CAPTCHA: "godsend"

    9. Re:A catalyst for world peace by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      Today countries all over the world cling to ethnic and religious differences as primary societal foundations. As long as that is true we will have never ending war. Global warming is a gift of a single unifying foundation for all of humankind to unite around. Working together to avert catastrophic climate change will diminish those cherished divisions along ethnic and religious lines. Once we are done, the young generations will see no reason to go back to hating each other.

      Doesn't apply too well to current issues...

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    10. Re:A catalyst for world peace by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It always intrigues me when people say we will have never-ending war. Have you actually looked at the statistics to see what has happened to war in the past three decades, or the past century? The number of wars has dropped dramatically and consistently. I know it is hard sometimes for a person from the US to see this, since it feels like we've become more warlike since the 90s, but if you actually look at the numbers that's more of an illusion.

      As the remaining fighters realize they have more to gain from trade than from fighting, then wars will continue to cease.

      --
      Qxe4
    11. Re:A catalyst for world peace by proxy318 · · Score: 1

      Let me know how that works out, Ozymandias.

      --
      Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    12. Re:A catalyst for world peace by geekoid · · Score: 1

      many people on /. won't like this..but the number one reason for peace is global markets and large corporations.

      The number of people who have died* in the Iraq war is probably less then dies in the first engagement of any other war in US history.

      *tragic, but still very few.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Once we are done, the young generations will see no reason to go back to hating each other.

      Sounds like you haven't noticed their attention spans (or lack thereof)!

    14. Re:A catalyst for world peace by moonbender · · Score: 1

      The number of people who have died* in the Iraq war is probably less then dies in the first engagement of any other war in US history.

      That'd be completely wrong even if you only consider US casualties (4400+ for Iraq). List of wars involving the United States

      And of course it's pretty grim to ignore the casualties on the other side: if you're only fighting asymmetrical wars, it's not surprising that your own casualties are going to decrease, no thanks to global markets and large corporations.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    15. Re:A catalyst for world peace by khallow · · Score: 1

      if you're only fighting asymmetrical wars

      From a practical point of view, if you're only fighting asymmetrical wars and not taking many casualties while doing so, then you're doing it right. Dying in a war is something only the other side should be doing. There are obvious reasons why a war can be wrong on many grounds, but merely being unfair isn't one of those reasons.

    16. Re:A catalyst for world peace by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      but in the Iraqi war it's mostly hundreds of thousands of civilians that have died.

      we're doing it right? if you mean lining the pockets of power and money grubbing scum while mass murdering, then yes, we're doing it right.

    17. Re:A catalyst for world peace by lgw · · Score: 1

      "Hundreds of thousands" is the number Sadam mudered; far less died in the conflict that followed. Less than ten thousand died to violence in Iraq in 2009 - nearly twice that many died to violence in Venuzuela and they don't even have a war on.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:A catalyst for world peace by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I've heard propaganda like that, but hard proof of lines like "Saddam gassed his own people" that Bush spewed is hard to come by. Meanwhile, there were some 600,000 to 800,000 Iraqis killed by our destruction of their country.

    19. Re:A catalyst for world peace by khallow · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, there were some 600,000 to 800,000 Iraqis killed by our destruction of their country.

      A number which has turned out to be purely imaginary. And most of the actual deaths (say if you were use hard figures like those on Iraq Body Count) are due to intertribal warfare or IED bombings not advanced weapons.

    20. Re:A catalyst for world peace by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Bob the Angry Flower, is that you?

    21. Re:A catalyst for world peace by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Huh. Those are some harsh numbers, particularly since they surpass even the death toll in Mexico. I wonder if we'll find out in 10 or 20 years that the US funded some of the violence in Venezuela. Given the track record, I wouldn't be surprised.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    22. Re:A catalyst for world peace by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Stop that! I thought he was on to something good.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:A catalyst for world peace by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Or it could be flown to to fly it into to mecca or Seoul or LA or anywhere else thats the current annoying hot spot. Orbital bombardment will guarentee someone will not want to be trifled with. Oh, Star Trek was fiction for a reason. It won't hapeen because people are too greedy.

    24. Re:A catalyst for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until they determine that the asteroid's trajectory puts in smack-bang on Jerusalem. Instead of trying to deflect the asteroid, everyone will be wasting time trying to deflect arguments against why they'their precious deity has targeted Site One for obliteration. Afterwards, though, maybe there'd be a chance for unification, when the sand-bound city has been vaporised and covered with glass.

    25. Re:A catalyst for world peace by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      logical extreme: fire a thermonuclear weapon at a country to get rid of insurgents. If you're not concerned abotu collatoral damage (i.e. murdering huge numbers of people so long as your country isn't hurt) then this is the position you end up. That's sociopathic.

    26. Re:A catalyst for world peace by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Ignoring, of course, Africa. As usual.

    27. Re:A catalyst for world peace by lgw · · Score: 1

      The violence in Venezuela is pure "tribal warfare" (the modern version with street gangs etc), because the police have basically stopped doing their jobs (and given the situation the police find themselves in, it's hard to blame them too much).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  33. Re:Don't worry by slapout · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Troll? Didn't you see the news story? Obama said "We can absorb a terrorist attack." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/22/130040247/obama-says-we-can-absorb-a-terrorist-attack-your-thoughts

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  34. The moral of this story is: by petes_PoV · · Score: 0

    The real story here is how a remarkable telescoped dubbed Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System that went operational in May found its first potential target in our growing impact alert system for Earth."

    If you go looking for trouble, you'll probably find it.

    So now we'll be alerted about every possible, improbable and potential risk that might occur at some distant time in the future. I can see two stages to this: fear and panic for the first few "alerts" and apathy for all the rest. Then, one day, a really BIG threat will be discovered. One that is imminent and everyone will ignore it since none of the preceding ones amounted to anything. Shortly after that, the one remaining scientist will crawl out from under the rubble and say "I told you so".

    Let's save all these announcements until there's a real and present (to use the cliche) danger. One that we can actually take some actions to mitigate, rather than just run around waving our collective hands in the air.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:The moral of this story is: by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      If you wait for there to be a present danger, you drastically reduce your options for preventative action. Even a 50 meter asteroid is MASSIVE compared to anything we have in orbit and it could take decades to design and implement a response capable of deflecting such an orbit.

    2. Re:The moral of this story is: by east+coast · · Score: 1

      These types of general warnings have been going on for a while now with no fear or panic from anyone. If nothing else this brings up a potential test bed for trying any solution we have to this problem. These kinds of solutions don't just roll out over night.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:The moral of this story is: by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      You won't see alerts on each one. This is the first one from this telescope, and they're pretty happy about it.

      The way these things are done is that any discovered small bodies are found, solved, and stored in a database (the aptly named Small Body Database at JPL for instance). If they are classified as potentially hazardous (the formal definition is passing within a certain distance of the Earth's orbit I believe), then they will be tagged as such.

      Small body survey instruments will then be tasked to check up on them every once in a while. Every measurement improves our knowledge of the bodies trajectory significantly. Its likely that this particular asteroid will be measured again in a few years, and that those measurements will let them refine the trajectory estimate to a point where we can say with certainty its not a threat. All of this goes on without much need for media attention.

      However, if the process leads to something that is actually a real threat, more targeted follow-up investigations will refine the estimate further. If it is a real threat, you'll see much different media coverage than you do here. While the press may sensationalize, they still include those words like 'small chance of impact'. Finally, a mission will be launched to stop it. Fortunately, for something like this, with a small body and much more than 20 years of warning, you could deflect it for ~$300M easily. Quite frankly you need the same hardware to narrow down its trajectory that early, so by the time you find its a threat, you can already start mitigating it. If these class of bodies are common enough, you could reuse hardware and probably bring the costs down ~$100M.

    4. Re:The moral of this story is: by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody is panicking, no one is running around with their hands in the air.

      Stop exaggerating to make incorrect predictions.

      |

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. telescoped? by prograde · · Score: 2, Funny

    telescoped [tel-uh-skohp-dee] noun, a process that runs in the background waiting for incoming photons.
    Usage: "here is how a remarkable telescoped ... found its first potential target."

  36. This we can deal with by Troggie87 · · Score: 1

    Given the rapid improvements we are likely to see in anti-satellite weapons in the next few decades, I doubt asteroids of that size will be any significant threat by then so long as we know about them in advance. Its small enough to blow up. Bigger asteroids, or ones we don't catch till a day before, are the ones that will kill people. Even if its solid iron I imagine we could nudge it offcourse with a handful of well aimed rockets.

  37. If I'm alive... by Mad-cat · · Score: 1

    If I'm still alive then, I'll head to the expected impact site. Best funeral pyre ever!

  38. strange brew that's also good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be home made Kombucha. Maintaining its' usefulness come hell or high water.

  39. Impact in your PJs by tepples · · Score: 1

    A "gram of TNT" is defined as 1 kcal, or 4.184 kJ. So a "ton of TNT" is a million grams of TNT, or 4.184 GJ, and 20 megatons are about 84 PJ.

  40. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by Hatta · · Score: 1

    And every president since has been more showman than leader.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  41. WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE! by wiredog · · Score: 1

    I mean, someday. But probably not from this. Most of us will be dead from something else long before.

  42. oblig. by mevets · · Score: 1

    Leave Paris alone, can't you see she's suffered enough.

  43. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say HW Bush, Clinton (first term) or GW Bush were showmen.

    Clinton went that way in his second term at times, but in the end, following the Impeachment, tried to settle down and establish a legacy, by attacking Serbia and then trying to get Israel-Palestine hammered out.

    HW Bush should have been a little showman and he would have won reelection in '92 and W never had the public speaking skill down to be a showman.

  44. the odds will only get smaller.... by scharkalvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They JUST found this thing. The amount of data available to determine it's orbit isn't enough to know exactly where it is going. HOWEVER when they dig up some old sky photos they will find earlier positions of this thing. The more earlier data points the better they will be able to predict it's path. Usually this means that the odds of an Earth impact will go down. It's happened before with other newly discovered objects.

    1. Re:the odds will only get smaller.... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      Better would be to keep watching it every few months with the new detector. Then they'll get solid ephemerides without years' worth of perturbations that start from greater instrumentation error.

      And your statement that "the odds of an Earth impact will go down[...]It's happened before" is fallacious. The odds may go up as we get more information. What will go down is the size of the error in our prediction of its course.

    2. Re:the odds will only get smaller.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Just check in with it every years for 20 years, if it is still staying on target, then 6 months.

      When it gets to 2093, I would hope we will be able to determine precisely where it's going to hit and then just evacuate.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:the odds will only get smaller.... by youn · · Score: 1

      well, if it's 50 meters we could nuke it far away enough so that the small debris are not really a problem... if we launch an artificial satellite around the satellite, we could deviate it very slowly enough so that it just flies by earth (attraction between the 2 objects will deviate from original path)... shouldnt be a big problem even if the rock is on collision course... it would have been more of a problem if it was a larger object though

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    4. Re:the odds will only get smaller.... by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      The odds are that the odds are going to be smaller, but there a small odds that they are going to get bigger.

        Eventually the odds are going to be 100% or 0%. That's how the odds work.

  45. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by bjk002 · · Score: 1

    "And every president since has been more showman than leader."

    Yes, but not Mr. Reagan... a man who spent the entirety of his life making films in Hollywood. No sir, not a showman at all.

    --
    Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
  46. Not worried... by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    I still have 88 years to invent warp drive :)

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  47. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HW was a weak showman but also a weak leader, so I think that counts. Clinton was always a showman, and quite a good one. W was pure PT Barnum, he actually had people believing that he was a Texas cowboy and not a Connecticut Yankee. "There's a sucker born every minute" is the only way to explain Bush's two terms.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  48. author shouldn't be reporting on science by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Informative

    The /. summary reads " It's still twenty million miles away so if it hits us, it won't happen until 2098". This statement seems to imply that because it is 20 million miles away it will take 88 years to get here. That implies a very poor understanding of basic math and science skills. 20 million miles is just not that much in terms of astronomy. The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, and covers a distance of over 300 million miles each year as it falls around the sun. 20 million miles would not take this rock 88 years to reach us, the real issue is that its orbit and the earth's orbit don't intersect until 2098. Until then the rock may be closer or farther than 20 million miles from us, the 20 million is just a distance it was away from us at one time.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:author shouldn't be reporting on science by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that one bothered me, too. I wasn't really sure from the summary if it meant it was only traveling .25 million miles per year (unlikely, but implied) or just that 98 was when the orbits would intersect (more likely, but not as worded).

    2. Re:author shouldn't be reporting on science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, the wording is terrible!

      Coincidentally, we're being skimmed by a comet that's passing much closer at 11 million miles on Oct 20: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103P/Hartley

      Its nucleus is larger than this meteor, too, at 1.5 km diameter.

    3. Re:author shouldn't be reporting on science by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Well, it bothers me that your comment (and the one you replied to) both phase the problems as the orbits intersecting in 2098. If the orbits intersect then (and there's no known close pass by another planet to deflect the object's orbit), then their orbits intersect right now.

      This is as big a logic error as saying that, since the object is now 20 million miles from Earth, it'll take most of a century to reach us. In reality, depending on its orbit, it should cross the Earth's orbit in roughly a month (to one place accuracy). It's just that we won't be at the crossing then, or on its next pass, or ...

      What I'd like to see in stories like this is a link to an article that shows the orbits involved. We hardly ever see those, even on /. where a lot of us would understand them.

      Actually, in this case the summary contains a link to the Bad Astronomer's article, which is reasonably informative despite being obviously aimed at a "general" audience. And it doesn't seem to make the usual mistakes in phrasing that we have so much fun mocking here. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:author shouldn't be reporting on science by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true, is it? I mean, this asteroid could have maneuvered itself/been maneuvered into orbit behind the Earth at a slightly higher speed, and it could be closing that gap at the rate of.... 20 million miles/88 years, which appears to work out to just over 25 miles per hour. In other words, it's going faster than the posted speed limit for our residential zone :(

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    5. Re:author shouldn't be reporting on science by Quirkz · · Score: 1
      Okay, so I stand corrected. The orbit is the path, and doesn't change (unless deflected) regardless of the object's position along that path.

      What would be the correct term for "when the two objects on their respective orbits happen to be close to each other such that they might actually collide"?

      I agree visual diagrams are always nice.

  49. Nuke it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be reasonable to belive that if we shot a nuke directly at it, that it would either destroy it or at least push it away using the concussion? Either way 1) I won't be around so I don't care and 2) it will be the most cost effective thing our gov't has ever done. Also our military uses reactive armor....what if we used that to "catch" the asteroid? Then we could drill a hole it in for a real "space mountain" or make it a obscure version of "James and the Giant Peach" (hotel) We could call it somethiing dumb like Disney Universe and plant a flag on it with Mickey Mouse.

  50. Really *that* bad? by arcctgx · · Score: 1

    20 megatons is not a very powerful explosion. Didn't the Russians explode a 57 megaton thermonuclear device back in 1961? Apart from nuclear fallout, nothing particularly catastrophic had happened. Since most of our planet's surface is not populated, the odds of an asteroid hitting a populated area is not very high.

    So, our children may witness a 20 megaton explosion in some remote location. Not a big deal.

  51. At least I'll be dead by then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was concerned until I realized that I'd be dead by then. But then I thought that being dead wasn't really an improvement on being killed by an asteroid. At that point, I wasn't really concerned about the asteroid anymore. Now I'm just trying not to think about it at all, because I don't want to be killed by old age or an asteroid.

  52. Re:Meters...miles by frovingslosh · · Score: 1, Troll

    Couldn't you have used just the Unit System the whole world uses???

    By that logic they should have also written it in Chinese, the most popular language on the planet. However, /. is U.S. centric and so using miles is perfectly rational. It might have been better to not give a measurement is meters. but those of us in the U.S. are not as up tight about that sort of thing as some people. Now excuse me while I open another 2 litter Coke.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  53. Still smaller than the Tsar Bomba by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    Even if this asteroid did impact the earth, the impact would still be smaller than the yield of the 50 megaton blast produced by Tsar Bomba in 1961. So as long as it doesn't impact any populated areas, we should be fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

  54. Surprisingly, summary ok, article bad by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    TFA says its 20 million miles away as if that's a lot. Typical meteor closing speeds are in the ballpark of 50,000 mph, so 20 million miles (or km) is nothing. It's 2 weeks. It's not going to hit any time soon, not because it's 20 million miles away, but because it's going to go make a bunch of orbits around the sun, and so are we, and in oh, 80 years or so, our orbits might intersect again after we've both traveled many billions of miles more.

  55. 50meters of iron or 50meters of sand? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    It kinda makes a difference as to whether or not it will hit the earth or break up first.
    Now if its 50 meters of plutonium that would suck.

    1. Re:50meters of iron or 50meters of sand? by Marrow · · Score: 1

      sigh, I guess it would blow up in space if it was plutonium.

    2. Re:50meters of iron or 50meters of sand? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why would it blow up? It would just get hot and expand.

  56. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can it not be that all politicians are showmen on some level and that when a given politician wins, he's convinced a plurality of voters that he is the best of bad choices (and various other voters that he is a good choice)?

  57. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Ronald Reagan was an entertainer? Does it count when you don't know you're doing it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. Well... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    The Hiroshima explosion was about 15 kilotons, and it managed to destroy some substantial portion of the city. If 20 megatons is a good estimate for the energy of this thing... well, it'll be bad even if it falls at some distance from a city. If it fell in the US anywhere east of the Mississippi, there'd be a huge number of casualties. So no, not world destroying, but if it hits somewhere even moderately populated... yeah, bad.

  59. its ok really by tibbar · · Score: 1

    i plan on being dead by then...

  60. Chuck Norris by billy8988 · · Score: 1

    As long as Chuck Norris is alive, earthlings need not worry

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtQPBHhiAQI

  61. Re:I've seen that movie... by eleuthero · · Score: 1

    ... which movie? Doesn't Paris always get hit?

  62. 20 megatons? pfffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You pussies. We've already airburst 50 megatons. What a bunch of pussies.

  63. Past events and geologic timespans by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was thinking recently that we were lucky that most of the ecosphere-killing events in our history were astoundingly long ago and that our local space should be pretty clear by now. And then I realized that the dinosaur extinction event that happened 65 million years ago took place when the Earth was about 98.6% as old as it is now. If the Earth was now a day old, the dinosaurs were wiped out at 11:40PM. Suddenly those past catastrophes seemed not as comfortingly ancient.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Past events and geologic timespans by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Earlier in the Earth's history such hits probably happened a lot more often. So it IS true that our local space is clearer than it once was. So maybe a real big rock gets in our way once every 100 million years instead of every 1 million. Smaller rocks get though more often. The LAST one of any major size was probably in the early 1900's in Tungusta.

  64. non-sequitur by cdtbqiot · · Score: 1

    "It's still twenty million miles away so if it hits us, it won't happen until 2098."

    The Earth covers twenty million miles in 13 days.

    Perhaps it won't hit us until 2098, but this has nothing to do with being 20000000 miles away.

  65. Will we be around anyway? by VVD · · Score: 1

    They way things are headed, who knows? I live in NYC and another attack is always in the back of my mind...sucks.

  66. The joke's on the asteroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world ends in 2012.

  67. on a scale of misanthropy... by malilo · · Score: 1

    how bad is it that my first thought was "Cool!" ... I'm astronomer, I've been waiting to be relevant to the safety of humanity for a while...

    --
    "sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
    1. Re:on a scale of misanthropy... by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      XD its not that bad

      --
      warning pointless sig
  68. uh by Entropy997 · · Score: 0

    Are we *really* still talking about potential asteroid collisions as though it's quite possible to happen? Didn't any of you hear of project Deep Impact? The alleged asteroid material extraction and analysis mission? Come on. Project Deep Impact, named after the movie?!! ROFL nt at secrecy. The impact from the probe altered the trajectory of the asteroid.

  69. SPACEGUARD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In honor of Arthur C. Clarke, shouldn't we name this asteroid detection system SPACEGUARD? This is the name Clarke gave a similar system that appeared in some of his books.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceguard

  70. Re:I've seen that movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hist teh uglu hiltons?

    (Well, you get the semantics of the previous sentence. I just don't fell like using backspace tonight)

  71. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

    That is what the US public seems to want.

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  72. In Other News by yabba-dabba-do · · Score: 1

    Monkeys might fly out my butt!

  73. Re:Rush Limbaugh Might Become U.S. "President" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Kilgore! Great you're back.

    Now where's Laszlo Toth?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  74. Nukes for Peace ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    ... Working together to deflect this asteroid will diminish those cherished divisions ...

    You will have to wait for a different asteroid since this one is "only 50 meters wide". At this size it could be safely nuked so its more likely we'll be upgrading nuclear devices and their delivery systems to reach and intercept such a small fast moving target. Numerous nations can manage that on their own.

  75. Hey Jeremiah: "LTNS", & a site you'd love imo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello Jeremiah Cornelius.

    I spoke to you here once, & many years ago, where I stated I liked your posts generally (& I also said you might need to "mellow out" a touch & calm down (but, imo @ least, you're just 'passionate' about the subject matter you speak on @ times)).

    Anyhow - in said post, iirc? Well - You did me a favor & turned up a list of the 12 or so "hidden/anonymous" people (RICH wealthy bankers) who were at the meeting of the original enactment of the "Federal Reserve Bank" (yea, "federal" alright)... I wanted that info. @ that time too!

    So, rather belatedly (but, better late than never)?

    I thought I'd pay the favor back by pointing you to this website (you might like it, though you're probably aware of much of it, here goes nothing) -> http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/ ... Enjoy!

    APK

    P.S.=> I figure it's subject material that's "right up your alley"... yes, I am "off topic", but I have not seen your name here the past year or two, so... there you are! apk

  76. Right: He is "UnBrEaKaBLe"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line: One of my FAV flicks of the past decade (very early on).

    (Plus, he's cool to boot!)

    APK

    P.S.-> Plus, face it guys: Any guy that can nail a chick like Demi Moore (she has always been "hot", no questions asked, & ages like wine too) as well as Cybill Shepherd (during their "moonlighting" period 85-89) HAS to have his shit straight! apk

    1. Re:Right: He is "UnBrEaKaBLe"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually I don't reply to your posting since they're kinda hard to decipher -- but dammit, this one is spot on.

  77. By that time.. by brillow · · Score: 1

    we will have converted its mass into computronium anyway.

  78. Go Speed Racer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the big deal? If it is 20,000,000 miles away, and will arrive in 88 years (770,880 hours or so, ignoring leap years, etc) it will impact the earth at very nearly 25 miles per hour ... seems more like a North Korean nukeular bomb ...

  79. Re:Hey Jeremiah: "LTNS", & a site you'd love i by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Have I mellowed? :-)

    I do remember you looking into this, and our "chat". You used the specific legal term "real persons" vs. merely "legal persons". I'm not liable to forget...

    Thanks for the link. I suppose that there is a lot to mine here. Do you have favourites?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  80. The Really Bad Astronomer by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    The last time I caught Plait living up to his marketing gimmick, it was also about asteroids. He fell into the common trap of starting with the descriptive statistic (an asteroid of X size has hit every Y years on average) and assuming the predictive (last one hit Z years ago so the next one is due in Y - Z years). He should know better. These objects are independent. One has nothing to do with another (unless the happen to bump each other). If one hits today, the next may hit in a billion years or tomorrow. While you *can* make an average out of X events in Y years, it tells you nothing that can be used for anything.

    This time it has to do with reporting science vs. reporting news. This NEW system has found one object that its calculations suggest something about. How accurate and precise is it? That can be estimated but can't be proven without replication and comparison with other instruments. And apparently if it has been, they haven't arrived at the same conclusion. This rock does not appear in the SENTRY data as displayed on NASA's NEO Program impact risk tables, not even as an only recently observed object, as of 27 Sept. It's not among the objects removed from the list either, so the teams contributing to SENTRY haven't seen it or the data associated in order to check the validity of the instrument, much less the claims. Things are not as PANStarrs says, or they're making claims without corroboration.

    There *is* an object with a 5.5% chance of impact in 2095 -- 2010 RF12. But it's a whopping 7 meters diameter. And having been observed for a whole 3 days, that probability is extremely likely to fall drastically. That one object kicks the total cumulative impact probability up over 2% for the next century, but only for now. The cumulative will probably fall right back to the 1.5% before this object appeared.

    But as for 2010 ST3, nowhere to be found. Real astronomers should know better than to announce something from a new instrument as though it's a conclusion. At best they have a data set for the SENTRY people to check over and verify their measurements. Other real astronomers should call out the ones who make such claims. Bad astronomers, masquerading as bad science writers, obviously would rather pretend to refute some aspects of the implications without bothering to talk about things like validity, replication and responsible reporting.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  81. Dangit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2098 was going to be the year of Linux on the desktop..

  82. The real question is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it full of bugs?

  83. Plenty of the documentaries are GREAT there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't use that "real persons/legal persons" stuff etc./et al, but I did state to NOT let the world "get to you" (because it does me as well @ times, how "f'd up" it is/can be)... but anyhow: My favs. there? Too many to note, but I like these sections best there:

    Conspiracy
    Drugs
    Economics
    Environment
    Politics
    Science
    Psychology
    Technology

    Some of them you MUST "take with a grain of salt" though (especially the one about Atlantis, not sure what section it's in but... well, it's kind of TOO "way out", imo @ least!), but on the whole? Great stuff, & I am sure you will enjoy it!

    APK

    P.S.=> Additionally? Yes, it seems you have "mellowed" (I think I just caught you on a day when the world was weighing heavily on you is all (you seemed rather upset is all, & I too @ times can be that way, especially when I look around me & see what's "going down" out there))... apk

  84. http://bmaparts.com/ by BMAPARTS · · Score: 0

    So How in the heck are they planning to stop this if the asteroid is a over 20 million miles away?

    --
    Need Auto Parts? Check us out here! http://www.bmaparts.com
  85. That's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not my problem