No, it doesn't sound anything like that. Statistical probabilities like the 1:45K you cite cannot be multiplied by the damage if it materializes to predict any single event. If that probability of occurrence and damage is correct, then all it means is that there is a 1:45K chance that 450M people will die.
If there were a hundred thousand asteroids each 1:45K probable to kill 450M people, then the only average that could be applied would be that it's nearly certain that 450K people will die, because at least one asteroid is most likely to hit. But that's it.
Meanwhile, the chances are high, estimated at something like 95%, that failing to reverse atmospheric CO2 (and equivalents) to 1990 levels by 2020 will force us past a tipping point by 2100 that will raise the average Earth surface temperature by 10'C. Which will melt at least enough land ice (West Antarctic, Greenland, Himalayas, Andes) to raise sea levels an average of 15m. Which will drown over 80% of humans, who live near coastlines. And in the process drive billions of refugees across the world, destroying our civilization, and possibly the species in the fighting.
But our government is spending the money on "space defense", while ignoring (and spending on suppressing) research into that Climate Change. Even though the greater risk is also a higher priority for America's population.
Practically none of the scientists need to be on the "conspiracy" (if you want a scary word for the government's standard operational "covert program"). They just get more budget for surprisingly well received research projects that augment the ongoing secret Star Wars research (now in its second quarter century). Why question the government's counterintuitive generosity while its going broke from conventional wars, unsupportable tax cuts and unpayable debts, when you're getting your cut of the dream? And when no one would answer those questions anyway, but maybe put you on a terrorist watch list.
I watched it happen in the 1980s with covert Star Wars research funding atmospheric simulations under cover of "pure math". People surrounding the local program suspected it was Star Wars, but didn't want to jeopardize the exceptional funding by rocking the boat. Then Congress stopped the funding, and suddenly the rumors were confirmed by deduction.
If you want a name of a scientist who is in on it, and who does know, you're looking for Michael Griffin, NASA Chief, who got his budget boosted literally to the stratosphere by the falling Tom Delay, just as Bush announced the new NASA priority is to support CIA/Pentagon work on "space supremacy". Griffin used to be Deputy Director of the Star Wars org, though that resume credit was edited out of his Wikipedia entry last Spring, as Bush was announcing NASA's Star Wars priorities.
And what if the Yuuzhan find out that the energy efficiency/generation/transmission system they beamed us back in the 20th Century in exchange for giving up nukes has instead run up our nuke arsenal to billions of micronukes secreted around the planet, interspersed with overwhelmed Star Wars lasers and countermissiles now good for only blasting giant, dumb rocks?
Since that arms race bankrupted Earth before we could get our energy industries out of the hands of fanatical theocrat (of every denomination) capitalists, the ecocalypse eventually wiped out everyone but me, the last Jedi, and the machines I long ago lost interest in shutting off.
Should I spend the time left stopping the automated defense system, or backing it up with the Force? Only the Yuuzhan know for sure, since humans committed to armageddon instead of Paradise.
Missile defense against extremely low priority missile threats are the job of a "limited government"? No wonder "Conservatives" aren't winning many elections lately.
The yearly risk of an "extinction asteroid" isn't compounded like interest, in any way. You don't understand either probability or compounding.
"Ultimately" the Earth will indeed probably get hit by an "extinction asteroid". It probably happened once, 65M years ago, so it can probably happen again. But the odds of it happening sometime in the next 1000 years is so much smaller than all the certain risks we should spend the money on first that I'd like to hear you asking for the right priorities. Even if they're not as sexy as asteroid paranoia.
The Moon? Tell me about all the asteroids that have killed all those people in the thousands of years of human history.
I think you need to remove the blinders from your eyes and notice how much of your money has already been spent on worthless Star Wars boondoggles by capitalizing on paranoia.
There's plenty of evidence. And plenty of logic, as I've already mentioned in the priorities comparison.
The Earth's atmosphere is entirely relevant to the kinds of objects hitting it all day long, every day. The kinds of large objects you're afraid of are not headed to hit the Earth.
So where is your evidence of these large objects that justify this defense budget? Does it compare to the mountains of evidence that the Pentagon will use any excuse to spend more $billions on Star Wars?
I thought not. Stop arguing your imaginary subjects. Your irrational fears are no basis for national spending priorities, or judging anyone else's mind.
Anonymous insane Coward daydreams about my sex life. I guess that's what you need to keep your mind off getting scammed by your favorite Republicans with cool names like "Star Wars", to match your doll collection.
Most of Earth is totally unpopulated. So it's not "sheer luck" that the Tunguska impact wasn't deadly.
And the natural resurfacing that covers up the occasional impacts across all Earth's history is an indication of how rarely it happens. This fear is paranoia dressed up in statistical ignorance.
Meanwhile, how vehemently are you demanding we spend those $billions on getting the US off imported energy? Not very, right?
Of course I'm serious. Show me the trajectory of that 17 mile wide rock coming at the Earth, and we can talk.
Are you scared of a black hole swallowing the Sun, because you've seen that happen to other suns on TV, too?
Get back to me when you've got a serious attitude about actual risks worth spending more $billions on. When this has nothing to do with asteroids, and everything to do with more covert Star Wars missile defense funding.
The large damage from theoretically possible asteroid impacts doesn't make it any more likely that they will happen. That's a statistical fallacy.
And I didn't say any asteroid specialist astronomers should drop their careers. I just said we shouldn't spend any more money on Star Wars, using those scientists as human shields, and add $billions to their budget as a smokescreen for Star Wars. You've presented a logical fallacy, too: the straw man.
You've just proven that you don't understand statistics. Your odds of being killed by an asteroid are much less than by lightning, because it is so much less likely to happen. Just because something kills lots of people when it extremely rarely happens doesn't mean it's more likely to happen. In fact, it's likely that no human has ever been killed by an asteroid.
People with actual ability to use statistics know that it's unlikely that anyone will be killed by an asteroid for hundreds of years, if not thousands or even millions.
Where can I find lists of DNS servers I can use instead of my cablemodem's default from my ISP? Servers that will let me point at them, that are fast and reliable.
If you don't know the difference between the Moon as an asteroid target and the Earth with our atmosphere, what business do you have arguing this scientific subject?
You realize nothing but baseless fear. Star Wars scams and our government's support for our energy slavery are perfect for you.
This program is just a smokescreen for the government to spend even more $billions on Star Wars "missile defense" without admitting it.
The chances of getting hit by an asteroid are extremely small. The chances of getting screwed by our foreign energy dependence is 100% (just look at the news already). If we were spending this money on actual threat priorities, we'd be spending it getting out of the crosshairs of foreign energy suppliers. But we're not. We're spending it on Star Wars.
Gibson rewrote SF future with his revolutionary _Neuromancer_. But each subsequent book shone a little less intensely, and all in the reflected brightness of Neuromancer. _Mona Lisa Overdrive_ is really recommendable only to fans of _Neuromancer_, and _Virtual Light_ is often best left unrecommended, so as not to spoil the "trilogy". Even _Idoru_, which was good, was just an overlong novella, like part of a "Director's Cut" of _Neuromancer_.
I've enjoyed Gibson's books since they were first published. And I've enjoyed asking him questions when he's given readings. But I haven't considered Gibson an expert on "the future", even his own that he writes about, in almost 20 years. That's a lot of past to make up for a futurist.
Now Neal Stephenson, Gibson's literary heir: he's still got a plausible future machine running upstairs.
Of course. What do you think the Patent Office would do with the design for a working time machine? Just grant the patent? Or reject it and adopt the device for "bureaucratic use".
We have now the explanation for the Patent Office's cavalier disregard for the Constitution's direction that they secure inventions for "limited times". The Constitution is in violation of the laws of physics that time is unlimited.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't sound anything like that. Statistical probabilities like the 1:45K you cite cannot be multiplied by the damage if it materializes to predict any single event. If that probability of occurrence and damage is correct, then all it means is that there is a 1:45K chance that 450M people will die.
If there were a hundred thousand asteroids each 1:45K probable to kill 450M people, then the only average that could be applied would be that it's nearly certain that 450K people will die, because at least one asteroid is most likely to hit. But that's it.
Meanwhile, the chances are high, estimated at something like 95%, that failing to reverse atmospheric CO2 (and equivalents) to 1990 levels by 2020 will force us past a tipping point by 2100 that will raise the average Earth surface temperature by 10'C. Which will melt at least enough land ice (West Antarctic, Greenland, Himalayas, Andes) to raise sea levels an average of 15m. Which will drown over 80% of humans, who live near coastlines. And in the process drive billions of refugees across the world, destroying our civilization, and possibly the species in the fighting.
But our government is spending the money on "space defense", while ignoring (and spending on suppressing) research into that Climate Change. Even though the greater risk is also a higher priority for America's population.
That prioritization defies the odds.
Practically none of the scientists need to be on the "conspiracy" (if you want a scary word for the government's standard operational "covert program"). They just get more budget for surprisingly well received research projects that augment the ongoing secret Star Wars research (now in its second quarter century). Why question the government's counterintuitive generosity while its going broke from conventional wars, unsupportable tax cuts and unpayable debts, when you're getting your cut of the dream? And when no one would answer those questions anyway, but maybe put you on a terrorist watch list.
I watched it happen in the 1980s with covert Star Wars research funding atmospheric simulations under cover of "pure math". People surrounding the local program suspected it was Star Wars, but didn't want to jeopardize the exceptional funding by rocking the boat. Then Congress stopped the funding, and suddenly the rumors were confirmed by deduction.
If you want a name of a scientist who is in on it, and who does know, you're looking for Michael Griffin, NASA Chief, who got his budget boosted literally to the stratosphere by the falling Tom Delay, just as Bush announced the new NASA priority is to support CIA/Pentagon work on "space supremacy". Griffin used to be Deputy Director of the Star Wars org, though that resume credit was edited out of his Wikipedia entry last Spring, as Bush was announcing NASA's Star Wars priorities.
And what if the Yuuzhan find out that the energy efficiency/generation/transmission system they beamed us back in the 20th Century in exchange for giving up nukes has instead run up our nuke arsenal to billions of micronukes secreted around the planet, interspersed with overwhelmed Star Wars lasers and countermissiles now good for only blasting giant, dumb rocks?
Since that arms race bankrupted Earth before we could get our energy industries out of the hands of fanatical theocrat (of every denomination) capitalists, the ecocalypse eventually wiped out everyone but me, the last Jedi, and the machines I long ago lost interest in shutting off.
Should I spend the time left stopping the automated defense system, or backing it up with the Force? Only the Yuuzhan know for sure, since humans committed to armageddon instead of Paradise.
How pathetic that you fantasize about my sex life while stalking my responses on Slashdot and other websites I read.
Stop leeching off my online life just because I flamed you to death sometime in the past. Worthless punk.
Missile defense against extremely low priority missile threats are the job of a "limited government"? No wonder "Conservatives" aren't winning many elections lately.
We are not mining asteroids.
Got any more SF scenarios to justify spending more $billions we don't have on Star Wars?
The yearly risk of an "extinction asteroid" isn't compounded like interest, in any way. You don't understand either probability or compounding.
"Ultimately" the Earth will indeed probably get hit by an "extinction asteroid". It probably happened once, 65M years ago, so it can probably happen again. But the odds of it happening sometime in the next 1000 years is so much smaller than all the certain risks we should spend the money on first that I'd like to hear you asking for the right priorities. Even if they're not as sexy as asteroid paranoia.
The Moon? Tell me about all the asteroids that have killed all those people in the thousands of years of human history.
I think you need to remove the blinders from your eyes and notice how much of your money has already been spent on worthless Star Wars boondoggles by capitalizing on paranoia.
There's plenty of evidence. And plenty of logic, as I've already mentioned in the priorities comparison.
The Earth's atmosphere is entirely relevant to the kinds of objects hitting it all day long, every day. The kinds of large objects you're afraid of are not headed to hit the Earth.
So where is your evidence of these large objects that justify this defense budget? Does it compare to the mountains of evidence that the Pentagon will use any excuse to spend more $billions on Star Wars?
I thought not. Stop arguing your imaginary subjects. Your irrational fears are no basis for national spending priorities, or judging anyone else's mind.
Anonymous insane Coward daydreams about my sex life. I guess that's what you need to keep your mind off getting scammed by your favorite Republicans with cool names like "Star Wars", to match your doll collection.
Most of Earth is totally unpopulated. So it's not "sheer luck" that the Tunguska impact wasn't deadly.
And the natural resurfacing that covers up the occasional impacts across all Earth's history is an indication of how rarely it happens. This fear is paranoia dressed up in statistical ignorance.
Meanwhile, how vehemently are you demanding we spend those $billions on getting the US off imported energy? Not very, right?
Of course I'm serious. Show me the trajectory of that 17 mile wide rock coming at the Earth, and we can talk.
Are you scared of a black hole swallowing the Sun, because you've seen that happen to other suns on TV, too?
Get back to me when you've got a serious attitude about actual risks worth spending more $billions on. When this has nothing to do with asteroids, and everything to do with more covert Star Wars missile defense funding.
The large damage from theoretically possible asteroid impacts doesn't make it any more likely that they will happen. That's a statistical fallacy.
And I didn't say any asteroid specialist astronomers should drop their careers. I just said we shouldn't spend any more money on Star Wars, using those scientists as human shields, and add $billions to their budget as a smokescreen for Star Wars. You've presented a logical fallacy, too: the straw man.
You've just proven that you don't understand statistics. Your odds of being killed by an asteroid are much less than by lightning, because it is so much less likely to happen. Just because something kills lots of people when it extremely rarely happens doesn't mean it's more likely to happen. In fact, it's likely that no human has ever been killed by an asteroid.
People with actual ability to use statistics know that it's unlikely that anyone will be killed by an asteroid for hundreds of years, if not thousands or even millions.
Another Anonymous gay Coward dreams about having sex with me.
Where can I find lists of DNS servers I can use instead of my cablemodem's default from my ISP? Servers that will let me point at them, that are fast and reliable.
If you don't know the difference between the Moon as an asteroid target and the Earth with our atmosphere, what business do you have arguing this scientific subject?
You realize nothing but baseless fear. Star Wars scams and our government's support for our energy slavery are perfect for you.
This program is just a smokescreen for the government to spend even more $billions on Star Wars "missile defense" without admitting it.
The chances of getting hit by an asteroid are extremely small. The chances of getting screwed by our foreign energy dependence is 100% (just look at the news already). If we were spending this money on actual threat priorities, we'd be spending it getting out of the crosshairs of foreign energy suppliers. But we're not. We're spending it on Star Wars.
Maybe he's calibrating the future machine by running it against the past to produce the past's future.
Gibson rewrote SF future with his revolutionary _Neuromancer_. But each subsequent book shone a little less intensely, and all in the reflected brightness of Neuromancer. _Mona Lisa Overdrive_ is really recommendable only to fans of _Neuromancer_, and _Virtual Light_ is often best left unrecommended, so as not to spoil the "trilogy". Even _Idoru_, which was good, was just an overlong novella, like part of a "Director's Cut" of _Neuromancer_.
I've enjoyed Gibson's books since they were first published. And I've enjoyed asking him questions when he's given readings. But I haven't considered Gibson an expert on "the future", even his own that he writes about, in almost 20 years. That's a lot of past to make up for a futurist.
Now Neal Stephenson, Gibson's literary heir: he's still got a plausible future machine running upstairs.
The pukesaber's Ipod jack lets it project the Brown Note that causes an equal and opposite reaction in its targets.
Is giving your personal data to a company that sells it to spammers or anyone else with a buck when they start going bankrupt a "security hole"?
In fact I'm an American, and I really don't care about those fine matters of peerage protocol. He's just Obi-Wan. Every other name is made up.
Of course. What do you think the Patent Office would do with the design for a working time machine? Just grant the patent? Or reject it and adopt the device for "bureaucratic use".
We have now the explanation for the Patent Office's cavalier disregard for the Constitution's direction that they secure inventions for "limited times". The Constitution is in violation of the laws of physics that time is unlimited.
Negative refractive index materials, called "lefthanded metamaterials" are already in use.