At that size, if it hit land, then it could wipe out a small country and begin to disrupt global weather patterns. If it hit the ocean, then the resulting Tsunami could do even more dammage.
Not to mention blowing a planet into little bits would do little if anything to affect its gravitational influence on its surroundings, since you'd still have the same amount of mass with the same center of gravity.
But then, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
(and paraphrasing off the top of my head). From the site:
The exact damage inflicted by an asteroid or comet depends upon a number of factors -- size, speed, composition of object, and whether it hits land or ocean. (HDCA, paper ref.)
For a land impact, it can be said in general that an object of roughly 75 meters diameter can destroy a city, a 160 meter object can destroy a large urban area, a 350 meter object can destroy a small state, and a 700 meter object can destroy a small country.
For an ocean impact, the destruction is much greater -- smaller objects can cause far more widespread damage. The effects of an ocean impact are felt much further away than the effects of an airburst due to the more effective propagation of water waves, and the fact that human populations and assets are largely concentrated in coastal cities which historically became established due to water transport (i.e., shipping and trade) and businesses near ports.
For example, the earthquake-induced tsunami in Chile in 1960 produced waves in Hawaii 10,600 km away of height up to over 10 meters (30 feet), and up to 5 meters (15 feet) in Japan 17,000 km away with an average of 2 meters, causing heavy damages and loss of lives.
The Meteor Crater in Arizona was caused by a nickel asteroid only about 30 meters across, if you want some perspective. But one that size won't be visible until it's right overhead and it's too late to do anything about it.
Filing an antipatent is like posting as anonymous coward, while filing a patent is like posting under a registered username. It's for ideas you feel like sharing but which aren't worthy of posting under your own username. Occasionally, one will get modded up, just as an antipatented idea might hit paydirt and make someone a whole lot of money, in which case you can kick yourself for not having actually taken credit for it. Bad ideas that get patented are a waste of the filing fee, just as bad ideas attributed to usernames get modded down. And the most insightful part of the analogy is that both the USPTO's system and Slashdot's moderation system are severely fucked up and reward the most innane ideas at times, while occasionally producing correct results that justify their being continued.
I'm describing "historical" times. You're describing "prehistorical" times. It's a simple matter of definition. And if you can find any dinosaurs who "recorded" their mass-extinction, then I'll give you a cookie. Certainly, there've been lots of important asteroid impacts in prehistorical times, as anyone who's been to Arizona or Mexico knows.
Gravitational nudges by Earth, Mars or Jupiter can potentially set such asteroids on a collision course with our planet, says Yeomans.
That's the last straw. It's for precisely this reason that we as a nation (needn't be specified -- you know who we are) must fulfill our manifest destiny and blow Mars and Jupiter up off the face of the earth. I don't care whether we have to blow them into a billion little asteroid-sized pieces, and I don't care that Jupiter is primarily gaseous in character. We defeated the British, the Mexicans, and the Vietnamese, er, umm, I mean the Evil Soviet Empire, so the least we should be able to do is destroy two unsuspecting and poorly defended planets.
Just think of all the money we'll save by not having to fund manned missions to explore what will no longer exist!
Think of something you do that's important to you, either for work or in some other capacity. Now think of all the little things that are necessary for you to do that one big thing -- break it down into little discrete pieces, and find all their little contingencies. Now write up a brief description of all those little things.
Patents only exist on the plane of concepts, and there are only so many concepts you can fit into one idea, once you're constrained by not being able to patent physical phenomena.
The 3DO failed as much because of the dearth of games when it launched as because it wasn't marketed correctly. Rather than being a multipurpose machine that can also happen to play some games, the X-Box will probably be marketed as a game machine that can also happen to do some multi-purpose things as well. And there's a world of difference between asking people to sit in front of their tvs in order to look at photo-cds and asking them to sit in front of their tvs and watch television.
That said, I hope Microsoft gets burned on this one. Call it a vendetta.
Actually, my comment was accidentally attached to yours instead of another, where a claim of being able to measure cosmological age from carbon dating was asserted. That being said, it looks liek you'd likely enjoy reading some Kuhn.
I'd laugh at your ignorance, but you're not the only one who's gone off about carbon dating in this thread. Carbon dating is only good for measuring ages of organic materials, on earth, and only for a few tens of thousands of years of age.
Your use of the word "cooperation" bears too much likeness to our intellectual property here at The Corporation(c). Cease and desist forthwith, or you shall suffer the same fate as Sesame Street's.
Seriously, RadioShack has for years collected all sorts of demographic info on its customers (or at least the ones who're stupid enough to give it to them). Why couldn't they just tap into ratshack's database for each customer who walks away with one of these devices? Cuecrap gets the demographic info, and ratshack gets you to come into one of their stores and potentially walk away with another purchase.
Surely I'm not the only one who reads "DX" as the medical procedure "dilation and extraction". That's hardly the image MS should want associated with their POSes, but then they're the ones who gave us wince.
You miss the point. This present legal issue unfortunately has greater ramifications than just for people who want to watch their dvds on their linux boxes. If code is declared not to be speech and therefore potentially illegal, then all of computer science will suffer. Surely you wouldn't be naive enough to say: "Well, I don't mind if they burn that book, because it wasn't a terribly good book anyway."
The ability to author, distribute, and discuss code is necessary for the advancement of computer science, just as it is with mathematical formulas and mathematics or with manuscript and music. The judge in the DeCSS case has declared this illegal. It matters not what the code was, so much as that it was code. There's the matter of precedent, and tyranny knows no taste. Perhaps next time, it'll hit a little closer to home for you.
Are you sure you're adequately distinguishing between the scientists who're exploring these issues and the tabloid journalists who sensationalize these preliminary findings for the purpose of selling more rags?
With respect to the defendants' constitutional argument, the judge stated that while the Constitution "is a framework for building a just and democratic society -- it is not a suicide pact."
Oh, dear. Nothing closer to taking one's own life than allowing people to communicate with each other and advance the art of computer science. However did our founding fathers make do in the years before the ratification of the constitution, when just anyone on the block could copy his dvds?
Slashdot Mirror
At that size, if it hit land, then it could wipe out a small country and begin to disrupt global weather patterns. If it hit the ocean, then the resulting Tsunami could do even more dammage.
Not to mention blowing a planet into little bits would do little if anything to affect its gravitational influence on its surroundings, since you'd still have the same amount of mass with the same center of gravity.
But then, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Just put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.
The Meteor Crater in Arizona was caused by a nickel asteroid only about 30 meters across, if you want some perspective. But one that size won't be visible until it's right overhead and it's too late to do anything about it.
Filing an antipatent is like posting as anonymous coward, while filing a patent is like posting under a registered username. It's for ideas you feel like sharing but which aren't worthy of posting under your own username. Occasionally, one will get modded up, just as an antipatented idea might hit paydirt and make someone a whole lot of money, in which case you can kick yourself for not having actually taken credit for it. Bad ideas that get patented are a waste of the filing fee, just as bad ideas attributed to usernames get modded down. And the most insightful part of the analogy is that both the USPTO's system and Slashdot's moderation system are severely fucked up and reward the most innane ideas at times, while occasionally producing correct results that justify their being continued.
I'm describing "historical" times. You're describing "prehistorical" times. It's a simple matter of definition. And if you can find any dinosaurs who "recorded" their mass-extinction, then I'll give you a cookie. Certainly, there've been lots of important asteroid impacts in prehistorical times, as anyone who's been to Arizona or Mexico knows.
Gravitational nudges by Earth, Mars or Jupiter can potentially set such asteroids on a collision course with our planet, says Yeomans.
That's the last straw. It's for precisely this reason that we as a nation (needn't be specified -- you know who we are) must fulfill our manifest destiny and blow Mars and Jupiter up off the face of the earth. I don't care whether we have to blow them into a billion little asteroid-sized pieces, and I don't care that Jupiter is primarily gaseous in character. We defeated the British, the Mexicans, and the Vietnamese, er, umm, I mean the Evil Soviet Empire, so the least we should be able to do is destroy two unsuspecting and poorly defended planets.
Just think of all the money we'll save by not having to fund manned missions to explore what will no longer exist!
You mean, how many have collided and seriously disrupted life on earth? None within recorded history, much less modern history.
Think of something you do that's important to you, either for work or in some other capacity. Now think of all the little things that are necessary for you to do that one big thing -- break it down into little discrete pieces, and find all their little contingencies. Now write up a brief description of all those little things.
Patents only exist on the plane of concepts, and there are only so many concepts you can fit into one idea, once you're constrained by not being able to patent physical phenomena.
You mean if I buy one of these things, Regis will be shut down? And there was much rejoicing. (Yay.)
The 3DO failed as much because of the dearth of games when it launched as because it wasn't marketed correctly. Rather than being a multipurpose machine that can also happen to play some games, the X-Box will probably be marketed as a game machine that can also happen to do some multi-purpose things as well. And there's a world of difference between asking people to sit in front of their tvs in order to look at photo-cds and asking them to sit in front of their tvs and watch television.
That said, I hope Microsoft gets burned on this one. Call it a vendetta.
Actually, my comment was accidentally attached to yours instead of another, where a claim of being able to measure cosmological age from carbon dating was asserted. That being said, it looks liek you'd likely enjoy reading some Kuhn.
I'd laugh at your ignorance, but you're not the only one who's gone off about carbon dating in this thread. Carbon dating is only good for measuring ages of organic materials, on earth, and only for a few tens of thousands of years of age.
Go look up Hubble's constant. Here, I'll even do some of your work for you.
A Brief Conversation with NASA's Mars Program.
Your use of the word "cooperation" bears too much likeness to our intellectual property here at The Corporation(c). Cease and desist forthwith, or you shall suffer the same fate as Sesame Street's.
If it's half as cute as this one, then Konqi has a real run for his money. How long until the media pick up on this inter-mascot war?
No, we shouldn't.
Massive proliferation is one of the few ways to defeat bullshit like the DeCSS mess. Congratulations on making the correct (if obvious) choice.
Seriously, RadioShack has for years collected all sorts of demographic info on its customers (or at least the ones who're stupid enough to give it to them). Why couldn't they just tap into ratshack's database for each customer who walks away with one of these devices? Cuecrap gets the demographic info, and ratshack gets you to come into one of their stores and potentially walk away with another purchase.
Surely I'm not the only one who reads "DX" as the medical procedure "dilation and extraction". That's hardly the image MS should want associated with their POSes, but then they're the ones who gave us wince.
You miss the point. This present legal issue unfortunately has greater ramifications than just for people who want to watch their dvds on their linux boxes. If code is declared not to be speech and therefore potentially illegal, then all of computer science will suffer. Surely you wouldn't be naive enough to say: "Well, I don't mind if they burn that book, because it wasn't a terribly good book anyway."
The ability to author, distribute, and discuss code is necessary for the advancement of computer science, just as it is with mathematical formulas and mathematics or with manuscript and music. The judge in the DeCSS case has declared this illegal. It matters not what the code was, so much as that it was code. There's the matter of precedent, and tyranny knows no taste. Perhaps next time, it'll hit a little closer to home for you.
Are you sure you're adequately distinguishing between the scientists who're exploring these issues and the tabloid journalists who sensationalize these preliminary findings for the purpose of selling more rags?
With respect to the defendants' constitutional argument, the judge stated that while the Constitution "is a framework for building a just and democratic society -- it is not a suicide pact."
Oh, dear. Nothing closer to taking one's own life than allowing people to communicate with each other and advance the art of computer science. However did our founding fathers make do in the years before the ratification of the constitution, when just anyone on the block could copy his dvds?