Sucker! Just wait until you have to replace those batteries because it only holds a charge for a measly mile.

No, that's completely wrong! The article says "there's no chance that the asteroid will hit Earth on this approach," so how can you come up with an 18% probability. Here is where you went wrong: the center of the path of the asteroid is expected to be ~8,000 miles above the surface of Earth at a specific point on the surface, not that the center of the path is expected to have an equal chance of lying on the surface of Earth's 2D projection.

No, I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. The asteroid is "expected to pass less than 8,000 miles above Earth's surface" which means that 8,000 feet above Earth's surface is either the center of the of the asteroid's projected path or the outer edge of the asteroids path. In either case the asteroid will pass through an area of space bounded by a circle with a radius of 8,000 miles or 4,000. So, there are either 201,061,930 paths with a radius of a mile that the asteroid can take in which it will miss us or by the conservative estimate 50,265,482 such paths. If you take into account the maximum radius of the asteroid is 55 feet then there are well over 4.8x10^9 paths in which we are missed by the asteroid using the conservative estimate.

As noted in the article, "if the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere." And if it didn't there are 139,433,845 square miles of ocean it would likely hit.

I totally agree I have a bunch of laptop displays attached to broken laptops. It would be nice to make use of the displays. It seems the only option is to eBay the displays to someone with the same model laptop. If there was a standard connector I'd have some sweet digital picture frames or some sweet single purpose displays attached to my computer.

Nor was it specifically an Apple. All translations I've read refer to a forbidden "fruit." As usual interpretation is whatever you find useful at the time.

Really?

Reading this thread has been a pleasure. Your belligerent technophobic replies to all these rational verifiable arguments against your asinine fear of nukes is laughable. It's like watching a drooling retard punch himself in the dick because a uncircumcised homosexual South African man might get AIDS when he ass rapes a dormitory of AIDS infected male prostitutes without protection.

And trust me that analogy is bang on (pun intended). Because, like Chernobyl, there is no containment, there is a predisposition for disaster, and the at-risk party is engaging in exceedingly dangerous behavior. Which, by your logic, proves safe sex is imaginary.

Great, let's all start quoting a magazine that has been criticized for its "level of scientific illiteracy" and that had the audacity to print "Darwin was wrong" on its cover. By the way, I looked over the reports from MEXT and never found mention of "kilobecquerels," in fact all the measurements I found were in microsievert. From what I could gather most were only a few times greater than background radiation. So please kindly explain this to me or link to a comprehensible article that references reports from MEXT that I can actually verify.

If you think those numbers are significant, by all means produce them.

In Arizona the 3,875 MW Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station cost $5.9 billion. I think your numbers are off!

Yes, but Jack Bauer was too busy making his TV show and couldn't hand deliver the letter. Ask again in 24 hours.

Quick, we need to redefine the meaning of "planet" yet again.

Insensitive cod! *drum sound punctuating lame joke*

is finders, keepers...but that doesn't fly in the real world.

No, that is the model identifier and doesn't have much to do with the generation of a product. I never said it was formal designation either. It's only confusing if you make it confusing.