backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by random2.. on Mar 23 at 5:18 AM


Russia's meteor  (Source: gannett-cdn.com)
NASA needs funding for small meteor defense

NASA told Congress to "pray" if a meteor similar to the one that hit Russia last month is ever three weeks away from the U.S.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. told Congress that the U.S. doesn't have the proper equipment to identify a small meteor (the size of Russia's meteor) in a House Committee hearing on Tuesday.

"If it's coming in three weeks ... pray," Bolden said. "The reason I can't do anything in the next three weeks is because for decades we have put it off. We are where we are today because, you know, you all told us to do something and between the administration and the Congress, the funding to do that did not - the bottom line is always the funding did not come."

The U.S. is able to detect larger meteors (and offset them a bit by crashing a spacecraft into them, thus slowing them down and changing their course) with plenty of in advance, but smaller objects are more difficult because the sun blinds satellites. That's precisely why Russia didn't see the meteor coming -- and neither did the U.S. 

Had the meteor not stayed intact for only seconds longer, it would have had the impact of 20 Hiroshima bombs once hitting Russia, according to a CBS News report

Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office, said that the U.S. needs a space-based infrared telescope to see smaller objects coming. This particular telescope would work because the sun wouldn't be an issue in blocking sight of the objects. 

Yeomans also suggested ground-based wide field optical telescopes that could keep an eye on large parts of the sky at night. 

The space-based infrared telescope would cost "a few hundred million dollars."

However, government funding remains an issue. Bolden said NASA was budgeted only $20.5 million for its near-Earth object observation program for fiscal 2012. 

While NASA doesn't see any large meteors coming toward Earth in the foreseeable future (and current large meteor detection equipment would know decades in advance), small meteors need to be taken seriously as well to prevent destruction. 

The Chelyabinsk meteor exploded over Russia on February 15, 2013. It was estimated to be traveling at 40,000 MPH and was about 11,000 tonnes. 

Source: CBS News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bad Site?
By P_Dub_S on 3/20/2013 12:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
I just went to view this article from Anandtech and I got a warning on Firefox that this site is Malicious. Might need to check into that.




RE: Bad Site?
By Argon18 on 3/20/2013 12:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
I got the same warning. It says www.dailytech.com is an "Attack Site".


RE: Bad Site?
By mmc4587 on 3/20/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bad Site?
By maugrimtr on 3/21/2013 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 5
Linux won't save you an XSS attack or a malware install if it has a Linux module enabled...


RE: Bad Site?
By mmc4587 on 3/22/2013 7:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
Malware install?... please.
Cross Site Scripting attack... yeah that could be a problem.


RE: Bad Site?
By martin5000 on 3/20/2013 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Me too, I ignored the warning because I'm a bit of a dare devil.


RE: Bad Site?
By vanionBB on 3/20/2013 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome did the same thing, not sure what is up with that.


RE: Bad Site?
By Spookster on 3/20/2013 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 1
I get that now trying to visit DailyTech on Chrome. Google says DailyTech is trying to infect me with malware.


RE: Bad Site?
By kleinma on 3/20/2013 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
I have seen malware attacks on dailytech due to 3rd party flash ads sneaking them in. The site itself seems clean, but the ads on occasion have not been, although its been a while since I have seen that here. I did notify the site owners about it when it was happening maybe 6 months ago, but never got any response over any action that was taken.


RE: Bad Site?
By Cstefan on 3/20/2013 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Web sites complain about using adblock, but this is why people use it. Flash block and adblock are a beautiful thing especially if you have been burned by infected ads.


RE: Bad Site?
By unplug on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Site?
By Camikazi on 3/20/2013 2:46:51 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe it just didn't pick up the attack like other browsers did and you are now infected :)


RE: Bad Site?
By Labotomizer on 3/20/2013 5:17:36 PM , Rating: 3
Actually it's doing better than Chrome/Firefox. Those two share the same "safe site" database. Daily Tech itself is fine. I have had IE10 block several attempted java based exploits over the last week though. It didn't need to block the whole website to nullify the attack.

And those attacks are why DT ended up on their blacklist.


RE: Bad Site?
By maugrimtr on 3/21/2013 9:39:52 AM , Rating: 1
It's doing worse if it allows you to access a known unsafe site. Also IE's blockers are like Chrome's - they're not failsafe - a good enough attacker can bypass them with a bit of work which is why Chrome doesn't overly rely on IE's approach. IE simply doesn't take the same shutdown approach as Chrome. Dailytech is NOT fine when reported as hosting malware.


RE: Bad Site?
By random2 on 3/23/2013 5:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware - Stops pests dead in their tracks.


RE: Bad Site?
By Amiga500 on 3/20/2013 2:55:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No issues on IE10!


No detectable issues on IE10. ;-)


RE: Bad Site?
By sigmatau on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Site?
By lennylim on 3/20/2013 4:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they're referring to the language here :

"Had the meteor not stayed intact for only seconds longer, it would have had the impact of 20 Hiroshima bombs once hitting Russia"


RE: Bad Site?
By Dorkyman on 3/20/2013 9:34:44 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get it.

The meteor didn't stay intact, it disintegrated in the upper atmosphere. Had it remained in one piece and hit the ground, it would have been a biggie. I think that's what the writer was trying to say.


RE: Bad Site?
By Dorkyman on 3/20/2013 9:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind.


RE: Bad Site?
By GTVic on 3/21/2013 4:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
I won't not agree ... maybe


RE: Bad Site?
By rwei on 3/20/2013 8:22:05 PM , Rating: 4
Now, if only I could set Chrome up to send me warnings for articles written by Jason Mick...


Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By FaaR on 3/20/2013 5:31:09 PM , Rating: 3
What enormous socialist spending spree would that be?

And regarding that lunatic ranting about climate change...whuh? What satellites would THAT be you're talking about?

Is this maybe another one of those deliberate joke posts you were talking about in that other topic? I sure hope so, because nothing you just typed makes any sense whatsoever. Except for that bit about SpaceX, minus the invocation of imaginary-bearded-guy-in-the-sky deities of course. Gogo SpaceX! W000t! :D


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/2013 6:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
I thought the meaning was plain. Under this Administration NASA has went from a space exploration and research organization, to one who now mostly studies climate from space. The greatest thing they've done has been to sit back and watch SpaceX do their job for them. Oh and a Mars rover /golfclap

It should be embarrassing for any American, regardless of political affiliation.


RE: Translation
By FaaR on 3/20/2013 6:44:21 PM , Rating: 3
Curiosity is a landmark accomplishment for America and NASA, I don't see why you feel a need to crap on it. Instead you should be proud. Shame on you if your disparagement of it is only because the rover was launched during Obama's reign. As for NASA itself, it has been abused by a number of past congresses and administrations, its goals set and re-set a number of times, sometimes deliberately unrealistically (like with Dubya's talk about going back to the moon again, without providing the funding necessary for it.) Obama is not unique in this regard.

Maybe when you guys finally wind down your imperialist wars of aggression in both the middle east and asia you'll be able to fund space exploration more comprehensively again. I for one sure hope so. Money is so much better spent discovering the universe (even if only in the immediate vicinity of planet earth), than it is when spent on blowing people to bits.

Here's an interesting story at Ars Technica with ties to past american greatnesses, which you might like to read: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/moon-rocket...

Depressingly perhaps, it again involves private sector billionaire entrepreneurs, but maybe such is the future from here on out, who can say.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By FaaR on 3/20/2013 7:14:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, because nobody who wasn't born inside arbitrarily drawn lines on a map could possibly know anything about what goes on inside said arbitrary lines!

Wow. Just...wow. Your personal level of crazy is apparantly even higher than anyone could possibly have guessed.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By Jamundo on 3/20/2013 8:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you find it ironic that you're calling someone rude and offensive and then proceed to totally fly off the handle? His previous comment before the imperialist stuff was all rather factual. Yes the comments about imperialism were slightly rude. You however feel compelled to go 5 levels beyond. How are people suppose to take you seriously when all your comments are so radical, and you always predictably will blame everything on Obama/Democrats/enviromentalist/climate scientists, etc.

Like someone said earlier budget cuts to NASA have been done on both sides. Also from what I've read it's that they needed funding for new telescopes which I'm fairly certain don't get used to test for climate. Not only that it's not like a satellite used to monitor space is able to monitor climate and vice versa just by orientating them towards earth or space.


RE: Translation
By Samus on 3/20/2013 10:35:58 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer - keep your unwanted opinions off here and bring them over to Fox News where your other club members give a crap.


RE: Translation
By Cluebat on 3/21/2013 7:49:42 AM , Rating: 4
This forum should be open to all opinions. Even angry ones. If you don't like it, go back to Democratic Underground.

There are many facts in his angry rant.


RE: Translation
By JPForums on 3/21/2013 10:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are many facts in his angry rant.
There are plenty of facts on both side, but it seems neither are particularly open to the other. Being angry doesn't make your facts less valid, but it does make it more difficult to get others to listen to those facts.

Obama has redefined NASA's role to a more terrestrial one of researching climate, investigating car manufacturer defects, and the likes. This has taken funding that could have been used to purchase said telescopes in the article. However, space observation satellites currently in orbit have no utility in being pointed towards earth.

Obama and the legislative branch (they might possibly have something to do with it as well I think) have cut spending to NASA to fund his socialist projects. Since the question came up, I'll name just a few projects he (and in some cases earlier administrations) supports: Auto industry bail out, funding research into/subsidizing alternate fuels, nationalized health care. I'm not arguing for or against them, just pointing them out as a socialistic endeavors. FaaR is correct though, NASA is a huge socialistic endeavor itself. The difference is the end goals of the projects and NASA's extraterrestrial goals don't currently align with Obama's administration. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last.

All the funding, planning, and launching of the mars rover was done under another administration. Outside of the comparatively low cost of using what has already been paid for, NASA has done relatively little extraterrestrial work recently. As implied above, this isn't the first administration to downplay NASA, though I can't recall them ever being used for corporate investigations in the past.

There is some truth to the idea that you need to live in it to really understand it. It's not about arbitrary lines so much as difference of law, culture, and first hand vs third hand knowledge. For instance, it is less likely that FaaR would describe America's conflicts as imperialist if he lived in America. However, there is also truth to the idea that wars are costly and if they didn't exist the associated cost could possibly, though not likely, be applied to the space program. I would suggest that FaaR has exactly as much right to comment on American topics as Reclaimer has to comment on European Union or Chinese topics.


RE: Translation
By GoatFather on 3/21/2013 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess we know didnt pass high school world history. Socialism has become a convenient label for the ignorant who are only interested in the politics of fear.


RE: Translation
By superflex on 3/21/2013 9:19:05 AM , Rating: 2
He presented more fact than opinion.
You, not so much, Samus.


RE: Translation
By mikeyD95125 on 3/21/2013 4:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have no business discussing this from here on out. You aren't American, so you cannot possibly have a valid opinion about our Space Program or our politics. When you pay my taxes, THEN you can tell me what you think.


Ah so one can't have a valid opinion of another class because they themselves are not included in that class? Well I guess that throws out a humans ability to know anything but himself.

You're full of it man. You claim to follow logic and the rules of argumentation, but when you don't like something you just use ad Hominem and try to belittle whoever you're arguing against. You don't appeal to the truth. You treat these forums like a speech and debate class instead of a platform and means of contributing to learning beyond what is stated in the article. Others on this forum seem to get this, but you don't.

I'd consider paying your taxes if it meant sparing the rest of us of you telling us what you think.


RE: Translation
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 7:15:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe when you guys finally wind down your imperialist wars of aggression in both the middle east and asia you'll be able to fund space exploration more comprehensively again.
So we're Imperialists? And Europe never was, of course. :rollseyes: Also, didn't know we were having a war in Asia. Guess I need to watch the news more often.

quote:
Money is so much better spent discovering the universe (even if only in the immediate vicinity of planet earth), than it is when spent on blowing people to bits.
Ok, reality check time. I do NOT agree with our foreign policy AT ALL!! But a FAIR chunk of the reasoning for doing what we do is so others don't have to. Your military budgets are much smaller because we do what you don't/won't. If we shrunk our military to your levels, you guys just might have to fight your own damn battles. Honestly, I don't have a problem with that and considering our fiscal issues (DOD is under a big budget cut at the moment and the cuts are to go on for 10 years) I see that as a REAL possibility. People here are up in arms over government spending (which includes the military) and once we're out of the middle east, I don't expect much military involvement for a LONG time.

If you want a glimpse at the future of US involvement, look at how we're handling Iran and North Korea. I can tell you that 15 years ago, there would've been military strikes in Iran already. In all honesty, neither of those countries pose any threat to us, just to our allies which is the ONLY reason we're involved at all. I even see that role diminishing.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By JediJeb on 3/21/2013 8:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
We don't agree all the time, but I can agree now. How many colonies did countries like England, Spain, France, Portugal, and other European nations have in Africa in the past? For that matter how many of those nations had colonies here in what is now the US? Maybe the Europeans are just still angry with the US because when we threw off their reigns and found independence it started a domino effect that cost European countries most all of their colonies around the world.


RE: Translation
By Jamundo on 3/20/2013 8:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound like Nasa's budget was only cut recently. The majority of the cuts happened under the Bush administration.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/2013 10:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Translation
By superflex on 3/21/2013 9:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
Facts are hard


natural disasters
By Crazyeyeskillah on 3/20/2013 3:39:12 PM , Rating: 1
We can't stop hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods, how can we really expect to stop meteors massive enough to cause catastrophic damage? We're still in an infantile stage in this regard with no real hope of adjusting the outcome and this is just a common sense display of helplessness being issued to congress. NASA is merely stating that there is no blame that can be issued because at this point in our evolution we still have no control over such a situation, and the cost to potentially alter such a scenario is clearly prohibitively excessive right now. Based on the size of the planet and the recorded occurrences of such scenarios, how is it even an issue worth spending money on at this time?




RE: natural disasters
By FaaR on 3/20/2013 5:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
If we had 1+ year's warning, there's some stuff we could do. Paint the object white/highly reflective would be one thing, causing light pressure to push it into a different orbit that would miss the earth for example.

Since the force involved with that is extremely weak we'd need a lot of time (distance, really, but that's essentially one and the same thing in cosmological terms) for something like that to work, but it's a simple, reliable solution. Just essentially fire bags of paint at the asteroid and let nature/physics take its course. K.I.S.S...


RE: natural disasters
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/2013 6:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly question here, but what if the object is spinning rapidly off-axis? Wouldn't that negate the light pressure effect?

Also it would probably take us over a year just to get a project like that going lol.

In all honesty the OP is probably right. There's just nothing we can do at this point.


RE: natural disasters
By FaaR on 3/20/2013 6:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
We'd need to paint as much of the asteroid as possible of course. If it is spinning (which it pretty much unavoidably has to do), we'd spread out the painting procedure over the course of a number of revolutions, to cover more surface.


RE: natural disasters
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 6:57:11 PM , Rating: 1
Why does it have to white paint?


RE: natural disasters
By sigmatau on 3/20/2013 7:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, I would have thought it would be black paint so it can absorb as much light as possible.


RE: natural disasters
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/2013 7:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
You don't want to absorb the light though. The theory is that light will reflect off the white painted surface, resulting in enough force to oh-so-slightly alter the trajectory of the object.

I certainly wouldn't be willing to risk the future of man on such an untested and iffy concept, but there you have it.


RE: natural disasters
By siliconvideo on 3/21/2013 8:20:47 AM , Rating: 2
Check out the Crookes radiometer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer, it spins with only sunlight shinning on it. Same principle can be used to move space rocks


RE: natural disasters
By JPForums on 3/21/2013 9:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
That said, the force from light is so small that if it isn't applied consistently for a great enough amount of time, the impact force from the mass of the paint would have a greater effect on trajectory. Perhaps transporting a high mass object would be more beneficial than paint. Find the meteor soon enough and it doesn't really take much to alter its course to a more favorable one. We don't necessarily need nukes or bombs in general. Any object impacting far enough away (at the correct trajectory) would alter its course.


RE: natural disasters
By JediJeb on 3/21/2013 9:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I also don't see the paint trick working well enough to alter an objects orbit. If you think about comets, they have pretty predictable orbits even though while they are near the sun they are spewing quite a bit of mass out into space which should drastically alter their course if something as simple as painting the surface white would do it.

Something the size of what hit Russia could be moved with something we can build, but something larger like those larger than a house, could even an F1 engine firing continuously attached to it actually alter it's course within a small time frame such as weeks?


RE: natural disasters
By Reclaimer77 on 3/21/2013 10:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
The Earth is moving at something like 67,000 miles per hour around the Sun. If we were to intercept the object from far enough away, and slow it down even a tiny bit, the Earth would then be out of it's way by the time it intersected our orbital trajectory.

Paint shmaint. Where's our orbital Railgun defense network? :P


RE: natural disasters
By Gondor on 3/21/2013 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, the link doesn't work correctly.

Second, if you read the article yourself you will surely notice explanation of device's operation, which has little to do with light but a lot to do with correct pressure (unavailable in space) and uneven coloring of the vanes (one side reflective and the other absorptive).

In other words: it won't work, not the way you thought it would.


Stupid question alert
By ewhite06 on 3/20/2013 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Glad to see I'm not the only one getting the Bad Site warning...

Why can't an arsenal of nukes be used to deflect something? Not to strike it directly, but detonate off to one side in sequence or close together? That way the shock waves or heat would alter the trajectory 0.0001% If it was far enough out, even the slightest nudge could be enough to miss us 3 months later. I understand how fast such a thing could be traveling and how massive it is, but i find it hard to believe that a dozen nukes going off precisely at a close proximity can't move it a hair.




RE: Stupid question alert
By Spookster on 3/20/2013 1:46:53 PM , Rating: 3
Because Bruce Willis says that won't work.


RE: Stupid question alert
By Amiga500 on 3/20/2013 2:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
What shockwaves? There is nothing for the explosion to pressure pulse with!

The best bet would be to try and use "bunker busting" nukes to burrow in, detonate and hopefully fragment (through seismic shockwaves, very different from gaseous shockwaves) the asteroid to a level where the larger bits mostly burn off on atmospheric entry.


RE: Stupid question alert
By FaaR on 3/20/2013 5:25:20 PM , Rating: 3
Nuking asteroids is problematic because not all asteroids are particularly solid, and if we have little in the way of advance warning there's no telling what that thing moving towards us really is. Is it one massive lump of stone or nickel-iron, or is it mostly just rubble fused with ice, or held together under its own weak gravity? Nuking something like the latter could mean instead of one impact site we'd shotgun-blast an entire continent or even hemisphere; peppering it with large rocks, causing even more widespread devastation.


RE: Stupid question alert
By MozeeToby on 3/21/2013 9:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
You can't break up an asteroid, but you can deflect it. Setting off the nuke 50 meters above the asteroid's surface will vaporize a layer of rock on the surface. The force of that vaporized rock leaving the asteroid will impart a force just like a rocket; not as much as if the vapor was confined by a rocket bell, but enough to make a difference. And it would only take a few launches to put dozens of warheads on course. There are better options, but given our current technology level nukes are still the most likely to succeed.


Nukes wouldn't help
By dxf2891 on 3/20/2013 3:09:49 PM , Rating: 1
A nuclear strike would not be a viable solution due to the radioactive fall out. Even a crashing rocket to alter trajectory would have to be massive and the falling debri would cause significant damage. The Russian meteorite was 11 tons and was moving at a rate of 45,000 mph. That is a bus moving faster that the speed of sound in one direction. If the trajectory isn't altered before it hits the atmosphere, enertia would keep it on the same course within a few hundred yards regardless of what we hit it with.




RE: Nukes wouldn't help
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A nuclear strike would not be a viable solution due to the radioactive fall out.
Radioactive fallout? Where would that occur again?


RE: Nukes wouldn't help
By FaaR on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Nukes wouldn't help
By JediJeb on 3/20/2013 10:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The worst effects of a Soviet high-altitude test occurred on 22 October 1962, in ‘Operation K’ (ABM System A proof tests) when a 300 kt missile-warhead detonated near Dzhezkazgan at 290-km altitude. The EMP fused 570 km of overhead telephone line with a measured current of 2,500 A, started a fire that burned down the Karaganda power plant, and shut down 1,000-km of shallow-buried power cables between Aqmola and Almaty.


A nuke would do little unless exploded very near the surface of and incoming meteor, and if it was near the atmosphere when we detect it and tried to shoot it down looks like from past experience we would fry a huge amount of infrastructure on the ground. No telling what one large enough to actually deflect or destroy the incoming target would do to our current electronics considering how much more we use now versus 1962.


RE: Nukes wouldn't help
By Avatar28 on 3/21/2013 2:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think the whole point of this is that NASA is saying they need money to detect these sorts of things further out. If we could detect it a few weeks ahead of time that's enough to potentially push it off course enough to miss or to destroy it. Of course, there's still the matter of actually having something capable of getting to it quickly enough but that's a separate matter.


correct the language!
By Richlet on 3/21/2013 1:57:38 AM , Rating: 3
Tiffany: If the meteor had stayed intact... if it hadn't broken up, it would have had..




RE: correct the language!
By marvdmartian on 3/21/2013 8:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had the meteor not stayed intact for only seconds longer, it would have had the impact of 20 Hiroshima bombs once hitting Russia, according to a CBS News report.


Yes, the bolded "not", above, makes that a confusing sentence!


If a meteor comes again
By Scaredy Retard on 3/20/2013 12:59:22 PM , Rating: 3
I hope the next one lands on an ad company that serves malware.




Prayer?
By mgilbert on 3/21/2013 8:01:56 AM , Rating: 3
Of all organizations, NASA should know that prayer doesn't work. There is no magic man in the sky changing the world below, and putting the laws of physics on hold, just because someone asks. If prayer worked, there wouldn't be hospitals full of innocent, dying children the world over - or is it just that the families of those children forgot to pray???




If it is big enough to know about...
By croc on 3/20/2013 9:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
...please don't tell me. I'm too old to be able to bend over and kiss my own ass goodbye.




NASA's Muslim Outreach
By superflex on 3/21/2013 9:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
Will we have to pray to Allah?




Huh?
By random2 on 3/23/2013 5:14:25 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Had the meteor not stayed intact for only seconds longer, it would have had the impact of 20 Hiroshima bombs once hitting Russia,


Pardon?




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki