🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.222724.13801@emr1.emr.ca>, argyle@cg.emr.ca (malcolm argyle) writes:
=In article 4FC@breeze.rsre.mod.uk, black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes:
=>In "New Scientist", a reputable science weekly in the UK, the collision date is
=>down as 14th August 2126. The period is about 130 years according to 
=the article. It says the chances of a collision are 1 in 400.
=
=Having just recovered from the perpetual barrage of meaningless statistics 
=during the World Series (though the outcome made it all worthwhile!), I am 
=forced to take issue with the last statement.  What the reports in fact said 
=was that _IF_ the comet intersected the earth's orbit then there would still 
=only be a 1 in 400 chance of it actually hitting the earth.  I would imagine 
=that IF decreases the probability by a at least an order of magnitude.  Please, 
=lets not make the media's job of distorting the facts any easier!  The reports 
=are quoted below from a previous post.

You ought to get your OWN facts straight before bitching.  The reports say "IF
the comet intersects the Earth's orbit *SOMETIME ON AUGUST 14, 2126*, then the
chances of a collision are 1/400."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.