Slashdot Mirror

GO CANUCKS!

Back in the early 60's my father and his friends pulled this same prank on one of his high school teachers but they reassembled the car in the teacher's office. As chance would have it the high school in question is in Vancouver. Of course then they had to take it apart again and redo the whole thing or face suspension... probably didn't quite seem as funny then.

The news account I heard on television indicated that they used bungees to hold the shell of the beetle, which they estimated to be 500 lbs. Considering that the UBC guys used two cords and I've seen a 300 lb guy bungee jump on one cord (really not a pretty sight) I'd say they were within tolerances for the bungees.

FWIW, the author is wrong in stating that the Golden Gate is the creme de la creme of suspension bridges. There's one in Japan that's significantly longer. I saw the Discovery program on it and it's a pretty wicked piece of tech. The main span of the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge is 6532 feet compared to the Golden Gate's 4200 foot span. And it survived the earthquake that hit Kobe with no problems whatsoever - it connects Kobe to Awaji Island so it took a pretty massive hit from the quake.

----

Discovery Online has John Draper in their Hall of Fame. Gives some general information about him.

There's more information about him, EasyWriter, and his work at WebCrunchers.

Discovery.com have their own interactive ISS model, which includes a construction timeline, amongst other things.

It's designed for high-bandwidth connections, so 56k users will have to wait a while for download, but it's pretty much worth the wait.

Since I haven't downloaded the NASA version (6MB+!) I can't compare the two directly, but the Discovery one's pretty good.

Sean Ellis

Discovery.com have their own interactive ISS model, which includes a construction timeline, amongst other things.

It's designed for high-bandwidth connections, so 56k users will have to wait a while for download, but it's pretty much worth the wait.

Since I haven't downloaded the NASA version (6MB+!) I can't compare the two directly, but the Discovery one's pretty good.

Sean Ellis

There is a lady that is currently in training to do a "space drive", infact I believe I found the link on SlashDot. Also, more can be found here
--------------------------------------
I'm a karma whore, mod me up damn you!

Here's somemore from Discovery.com

"Polar bear's liver is poisoned becuase of high quantitys of vitamin D, not vitamin A."

From Emazing Science Facts:
"Polar bear livers have such high levels of vitamin A that they are highly toxic to human beings."

From The Alaska Cooperative Extension:
"While most people do not have a ready source of polar bear liver, it is a well known, even notorious source of vitamin A. That is, vitamin A is toxic marginally above required levels and polar bear liver is exceptionally potent."

From Discovery Online:
"Although the extremely high vitamin A content in this fatty diet would be toxic to humans, the polar bear's liver can process it just fine. (When traditional Eskimo hunters killed a polar bear, they would drop its liver through a hole in the ice so nobody would be tempted to eat it.)"

From The Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The polar bear is sought for its trophy value and (especially by Eskimo) for its hide, tendons, fat, and flesh; the liver, however, is inedible and often poisonous because of its high vitamin A content."

Thank you, drive through.

First off: it helps to understand the purpose of the show -- its stealth science education - tricking 10 year old kids into watching an explanation of how a wing works. They sit thru the mini-lectures because they get rewarded afterwards with someone making precision adjustments with sledgehammers. When chosing challenges, its the education that drives the choice. The competition is partly to make it addicting, and partly to give the kids the idea that actually designing and building something might be a lot of fun.

Yes, this is a "rich" junkyard. There are all sorts of neat things to find. And unlike some, there is a lot of stuff that isn't metallic. (usually its construction debris -- the plywood we found had clearly been a concrete form in a prior life) -- Its mostly what you get, when you don't have the yard workers picking over the good bits. The set was a corner of a real working scrap yard. On the other side of the wall, there are cockneys in hydraulic claw loaders, tossing cars thru the air. You have to wear a hard hat when you go to the bathroom. (its out by the truck scales). When stocking the yard between episodes, the random lumps of steel plate is just dumped over the wall from what they have sitting around. But yes, they will add extra stuff to make it possible to complete building a machine.

The basic rule for seeding: If its not possible to safely improvise a part with the time and tools provided, they will provide something that can be pressed into service. It will require some ingenuity to make it work. If there are specific safety regulations, the relavant parts will always be provided. For example, things like safety valves, regulators, and gas tanks will be planted, and will have their certification paperwork sitting in the directors briefcase. (and if we happen to find such a part that isn't one of the known good ones, they don't let us use it)

But: Just because they give you a part, that doesn't mean its clear sailing. For example the wheels you mentioned. Sure they were there, but none of the differentials in the yard came close to fitting the bolt circle. If you wanted to use them, you had to make it work.

And this brings up another point: That same helpfull crew that hides essential parts, can just as easily remove them. They made sure that there wern't matching differentials for those wheels. In the fire fighting boat episode, there wasn't a pump to be had. Both teams had to make a pump. And not just a wimpy one, the burning shed was supposed to be 50 feet away.

As to engines, yes, there is sample bias. What happens in a conventional junkyard, is that if a car comes in with a running engine, the engine is pulled and sold. Only dead engines are put out into the yard. As a junkyard owner, you don't want someone wrecking a $200 engine to get a $2 part. In this yard the teams are those yard employee's that have the job of pulling the good ones out. Teams get their engines from the same places people that sell used engines get them -- from cars whose owner has decided to artfully customize his vehicle with the help of a tree, broadside.

Yes, this is TV, and they do have to make sure they have two machines, with at least one of them likely to complete the course, and the other at least able to fail in an instructive way. The shows cost close to half a million dollars per episode to make, and the producer is betting that money on half a dozen amateurs. But they do have a surprisingly light touch. We did have ample opportunity to open fire at both feet.

The time limit is pretty real. You get an hour tools down for lunch, and credit for the time that the hosts spend disturbing you. If nothing else, a second day of a film crew adds a lot to the price. And they may only have the test site for a specific day, so you really do have to finish on something like on time.

I can assure you its not scripted, what happens is up to the contestants. The teams really did find out what they had to build that morning, on camera. The producer has been very suprised at what the teams made sometimes.

Now perhaps if I hadn't found the 'heap first, I might have given battlebots some thought. But its not the same kind of challenge -- The problem solved is the same one each time. If you need a part (except during the match) you can just order one, and it will arrive in a couple of days. You have as much time as your advance planning allows.

But: The thing that really annoys me about battlebots, is the attitude of the hosts when discussing something technical. The clear message presented is: "you aren't expected to understand this". Junkyard has the exact opposite purpose.

Anyhow, my web page has a lot more detail about the shows, the other teams, etc. For those that watched it in July, there will be 4 new to the US shows. (the two second season shows that they skipped this summer, land yachts, and mileage marathon, and the first two of the third year, Demolition and bombers) If you watch no other, watch the demolition show. Three Yorkshiremen with accents so thick they need power tools to cut, build an articulated claw that eats brick walls. (thats at 8pm)

The marathon schedule is here. This is the kickoff to regular weekly showings. The rest of the third season will run three shows a night on Wed in December. They will follow this up with an "americanized" version of the show in Jan/Feb. Yea all the accents (except for Cathy) are American, but they used the same crew, pile of scrap, and challenges. Didn't water it down at all. The only thing I will miss is Robert (aka Kryten) as host.

Our shows aren't part of the Marathon, but they will be shown in December. Monday we had 300 MIT community members in 10-250 for a sneak preview of the Steam Race car show. Much mirth was in evidence, and the reaction to my presenting the hosts a copy of the Hackers Dictionary, bordered on deafening. We had to call questions at 45 minutes.

Instead of thinking about "that was planted", work on your welding chops, and think about two others that would be a good balance to your skills. Its great fun to watch, but if you think that you have what it takes to compete, DO IT. Everyone I have talked to that has done a show, with without any hesitation, accept an offer to do another. If they called me today, my reply would be "is there room on tommorow mornings flight?"

-dp-

First off: it helps to understand the purpose of the show -- its stealth science education - tricking 10 year old kids into watching an explanation of how a wing works. They sit thru the mini-lectures because they get rewarded afterwards with someone making precision adjustments with sledgehammers. When chosing challenges, its the education that drives the choice. The competition is partly to make it addicting, and partly to give the kids the idea that actually designing and building something might be a lot of fun.

Yes, this is a "rich" junkyard. There are all sorts of neat things to find. And unlike some, there is a lot of stuff that isn't metallic. (usually its construction debris -- the plywood we found had clearly been a concrete form in a prior life) -- Its mostly what you get, when you don't have the yard workers picking over the good bits. The set was a corner of a real working scrap yard. On the other side of the wall, there are cockneys in hydraulic claw loaders, tossing cars thru the air. You have to wear a hard hat when you go to the bathroom. (its out by the truck scales). When stocking the yard between episodes, the random lumps of steel plate is just dumped over the wall from what they have sitting around. But yes, they will add extra stuff to make it possible to complete building a machine.

The basic rule for seeding: If its not possible to safely improvise a part with the time and tools provided, they will provide something that can be pressed into service. It will require some ingenuity to make it work. If there are specific safety regulations, the relavant parts will always be provided. For example, things like safety valves, regulators, and gas tanks will be planted, and will have their certification paperwork sitting in the directors briefcase. (and if we happen to find such a part that isn't one of the known good ones, they don't let us use it)

But: Just because they give you a part, that doesn't mean its clear sailing. For example the wheels you mentioned. Sure they were there, but none of the differentials in the yard came close to fitting the bolt circle. If you wanted to use them, you had to make it work.

And this brings up another point: That same helpfull crew that hides essential parts, can just as easily remove them. They made sure that there wern't matching differentials for those wheels. In the fire fighting boat episode, there wasn't a pump to be had. Both teams had to make a pump. And not just a wimpy one, the burning shed was supposed to be 50 feet away.

As to engines, yes, there is sample bias. What happens in a conventional junkyard, is that if a car comes in with a running engine, the engine is pulled and sold. Only dead engines are put out into the yard. As a junkyard owner, you don't want someone wrecking a $200 engine to get a $2 part. In this yard the teams are those yard employee's that have the job of pulling the good ones out. Teams get their engines from the same places people that sell used engines get them -- from cars whose owner has decided to artfully customize his vehicle with the help of a tree, broadside.

Yes, this is TV, and they do have to make sure they have two machines, with at least one of them likely to complete the course, and the other at least able to fail in an instructive way. The shows cost close to half a million dollars per episode to make, and the producer is betting that money on half a dozen amateurs. But they do have a surprisingly light touch. We did have ample opportunity to open fire at both feet.

The time limit is pretty real. You get an hour tools down for lunch, and credit for the time that the hosts spend disturbing you. If nothing else, a second day of a film crew adds a lot to the price. And they may only have the test site for a specific day, so you really do have to finish on something like on time.

I can assure you its not scripted, what happens is up to the contestants. The teams really did find out what they had to build that morning, on camera. The producer has been very suprised at what the teams made sometimes.

Now perhaps if I hadn't found the 'heap first, I might have given battlebots some thought. But its not the same kind of challenge -- The problem solved is the same one each time. If you need a part (except during the match) you can just order one, and it will arrive in a couple of days. You have as much time as your advance planning allows.

But: The thing that really annoys me about battlebots, is the attitude of the hosts when discussing something technical. The clear message presented is: "you aren't expected to understand this". Junkyard has the exact opposite purpose.

Anyhow, my web page has a lot more detail about the shows, the other teams, etc. For those that watched it in July, there will be 4 new to the US shows. (the two second season shows that they skipped this summer, land yachts, and mileage marathon, and the first two of the third year, Demolition and bombers) If you watch no other, watch the demolition show. Three Yorkshiremen with accents so thick they need power tools to cut, build an articulated claw that eats brick walls. (thats at 8pm)

The marathon schedule is here. This is the kickoff to regular weekly showings. The rest of the third season will run three shows a night on Wed in December. They will follow this up with an "americanized" version of the show in Jan/Feb. Yea all the accents (except for Cathy) are American, but they used the same crew, pile of scrap, and challenges. Didn't water it down at all. The only thing I will miss is Robert (aka Kryten) as host.

Our shows aren't part of the Marathon, but they will be shown in December. Monday we had 300 MIT community members in 10-250 for a sneak preview of the Steam Race car show. Much mirth was in evidence, and the reaction to my presenting the hosts a copy of the Hackers Dictionary, bordered on deafening. We had to call questions at 45 minutes.

Instead of thinking about "that was planted", work on your welding chops, and think about two others that would be a good balance to your skills. Its great fun to watch, but if you think that you have what it takes to compete, DO IT. Everyone I have talked to that has done a show, with without any hesitation, accept an offer to do another. If they called me today, my reply would be "is there room on tommorow mornings flight?"

-dp-

Discovery also has an article covering this topic as well. Not much different than the other two links already provided, however.

What's that? He's already there?? And if he wasn't, you wouldn't take him back anyway??! Curse you Australians and the wombats you rode in on!!!

Sean

Just my 2 cents

"Rock over London, Rock on Chicago.
Wheaties, Breakfast of Champions"

Man, first we see a skull in outer space, and now we see a violent collision between galaxies. Doesn't anyone think of the children? We need to ban these violent space images before they turn the hearts of our children dark!
________________

Think of this - make an entire NFL uniform out of small cells of this stuff, and a little box that transmits a map of the forces experienced by each cell over the surface of the uniform. Then you could superimpose a color-coded force map over the footage of the player wearing the uniform and see the forces experienced in, say, a receiver getting slammed by the safety in a slant over the middle.

Maybe this stuff could be used to improve protection for athletes, automobile drivers, jet-fighter pilots, and that Aussie Crocodile Hunter guy.

-------------

The story was generated based on several presentations given at the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The total number of new planets discovered is 10, including the double planet system of twin Saturn-sized planets.

The information was actually released to the various news agencies last week, but was under strict embargo until early this morning.

This brings the total number of extrasolar planets to 50.

Here're the original source links to this story:

• Geneva Extrasolar Planet Search
• Extrasolar Planet Search

And then coverage by news sources around the Internet:

• ABC News
• BBC News
• CNN Space
• Discovery.com
• Fox News
• MSNBC
• Space Chronicle

And of course, my own coverage on Universe Today.
Planet Discoveries Coming Fast and Furious - August 7, 2000

Fraser Cain

It looks like this story was leaked by Nasawatch/SpaceRef or Space.com prematurely. It was supposed to be embargoed until the International Astronomical Union actually made the announcement on Monday. Naughty naughty.

Well, I guess the cat's out of the bag now, so here's a list of all the sites covering the story in addition to Nasawatch/SpaceRef.

The news will get much better on Monday, when all us space news sites can actually post the real story and provide all the details. Stay tuned.

• BBC News
• CNN Space
• Discovery.com
• Space Chronicle

And of course, my own coverage at Universe Today:
Astronomers Discover Nearby Extrasolar Planet - August 4, 2000

Fraser Cain

This story was originally written as an Associate Press article, and all the major space news sites have AP feeds. So, you're likely to see exactly the same coverage anywhere you go.

Right now, everything is just rumour and speculation. In fact, NASA has flatly denied that the Pluto mission is cancelled. This reminds me about the recent discovery "lakes on Mars"... er "liquid water on Mars"... er "evidence that liquid water existed on Mars in the recent geologic past"

As always, here's a comprehensive list of all the coverage I could dig up. I warn you, though, it's all very "similar"... er "identical".

• CNN Space
• Discovery.com
• MSNBC
• Space Chronicle

And of course, my own coverage on Universe Today
NASA Costs Rise Significantly - August 4, 2000

Fraser Cain

Now I think this story is really interesting. Here's a list of Internet coverage about the story:

The research is being done by the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. Here's their press release on the subject.

To shoot the bugs into space, they used a NASA sounding rocket. Information on the rocket launch facility is located here.

Here are some links to the Discovery.com article, as well as a few others:

• BBC News
  
• CNN Space
  
• Discovery.com
  

And, of course, my own coverage on Universe Today:

• Tough Bugs Ready for Spaceflight - July 26th

Fraser Cain

Nowhere is the Devon Island project being billed as "science". Of course we cannot do Mars "science" on Earth, that would be nonsensical. This project is about the practical knowledge needed to support a long-term habitat on another planet.

"The outpost is not intended to be a high-fidelity mockup of a martian outpost, with regenerative systems and enclosed life support. Rather, the point of the habitat is to learn how to operate on Mars, to coordinate the people, robots, vehicles and mission control centers."

(Right there on the Discovery website you didn't read.)

To some extent this is above all a public relations project ("stunt" being in the eye of the beholder). The Mars Society, though, is all about making Mars exploration practical. This isn't so much a "science experiment" as it is a dry run using the model proposed by Dr. Robert Zubrin, the society's president. It's a learning experiment, in other words.

NASA does plenty of pure research science in this area -- for example, astronauts have spent months at a time in very rigorous closed systems that test air and water recycling technologies. (This is much like Biosphere, actually, but with experimental controls.) But NASA is barred by Congress from funding almost anything resembling true preparation for a Mars mission. The Mars Society is seeking to fill that niche with the Devon Island station.

Don't think of this as science, because it isn't about getting scientific results. It's about learning what works and what doesn't so that when we DO go to Mars we have plenty of foreknowledge.

It's also about education, about public outreach, and about motivating the troops. And last but not least, it's our (the Mars Society's) money -- we can spend it any way we like. So there!
----

• Officia l NASA press release
• Boeing's ISS page
• ISS teleconference
• NASA Spacelink
• CNN special feature
• Congress' ISS Authorization Act
• Zvezda statistics
• Discovery Channel coverage
• Unofficial ISS Users' Guide
• NASA press kit
• Yaho o! ISS directory

- vl

Just what is the attraction of shows such as Survivor anyway?

Where I live now, we have a channel that shows ``Real Life TV'', and it looks awful! I have a life, thank you, and I'm not especially interested in hearing other ``real'' people argue about meaningless topics, fight over who'll get the last slice of bread, debate which of two kinds of music (both of which I despise) is the greatest, have babies, get married, survive on an island (with a huge television crew watching their every move), or anything else!

What happened to having to write shows? To having intelligent people think about ideas and create a dramatic presentation? Oh, yes, it's expensive. It's much cheaper to throw together some people no one would even talk to if they didn't already know them, force them to interact under surveillance, and broadcast the results.

If you want to watch some ``reality'' television that still has some educational and entertainment value, I recommend Junkyard Wars (originally Scrapyard Challenge in Britain), now airing on The Learning Channel.

Let's see.. a maximus occurs every eleven years or so, so by my calculations the last one we had was in 1989. Unlikely there'll be any damage? You might want to read the article (linked to in the above article) at discovery.com, for some info on what happened in '89. Power disruptions, satellite problems, burgler alarms going off, etc.

Remember, this isn't the "y2k bug"; the alarmists in this case are knowledgeable, rational scientists that are supposed to know what they're talking about, not uninformed spokespeople and politicians telling us it's the end of the world. Of course, science, particularly that relating to space and other things of which we have little relatively little knowledge, is often not an exact science, but the doomsayers in this case do have history on their side. I'm gonna wear sunscreen just in case.

Devil Ducky wrote:
You seem to have forgotten the other major project that NASA has been working on: The Mars landings. All of these probes (that keep crashing) are being sent there to explore for a hopeful manned mission. I read somewhere (I think on /.) about a time schedule for the manned mission being soon after the space station nears completion.

Take a deep breath.

There is no timetable. There is no realistic plan for a manned mission. There is, at this writing, no hope of Congress authorizing any funds for one.

The people at NASA would obviously love to be planning one, and they stretch every thin dime they're given in order to sneak in useful research in that direction. But the reality is that Congress has been led to believe that a Mars mission would cost between one and five hundred billion dollars, per proposals presented during the Bush administration, and they're all looking at the next election thinking they'd be lynched for approving it.

The Mars Direct proposals take a different approach, ditching the orbital launching platform, ditching the enormous crew, ditching the orbiter+lander approach that mimics Apollo, forgetting about a three-year journey with six weeks on surface, and achieving all its necessary redundancy in other ways. The budget is a far more realistic FORTY billion, and places skilled human scientists on the Martian surface for an entire year.

But it isn't NASA's plan, and while they've come close (Mars Semi-Direct), they are for all practical purposes enjoined by Congress from spending any taxpayer dollars on any planning for a Mars mission.

They even tried to get authorization for a TransHab module for ISS that would serve as a proving ground for Mars vehicle and habitat technology, but that was turned down.
----

"Diesel engine improvements far outweigh the efficiencies demanded by the solo car driver; a car in 1998 emitted 4% of the toxins that a car in 1978 did, while diesel has hardly budged."

You may want to check out this news item.


Natural Selection Creates Super-Engines

Here is another article from Discovery. A little more info, but not much.

The male panda can only mate for 10 to 20 seconds at a time, and hence the chances of getting the female pregnant are very low. With Viagra, the male could mate for up to 20 minutes.

* Results not typical. Please consult your doctor before you begin using Viagra.

~=Keelor

Well, according to this report, DNA did not link Jefferson, Hemmings, and Woodson.

Interestingly enough, the Appleseed Databook notes that "true production of master-slave armor" begins in 1992, with "armored shell exoskeleton unit created" in 2029. Oddly enough, true Landmates either aren't widely produced or kept secret for a while; they're portrayed to be a recent development in the first book.

MADOX-01 was particularly interesting, postulating an armored trooper created by the JSDF and US military(in 199X no less!), to semi-replace the attack helicopter. A cheap, lightweight, extremely mobile tank-killer, armed with a small gatling gun and some assorted missiles/shaped charges. About the only thing wrong with it is the assumption made by a lot of directors that the problem of nap-of-the-earth/ground-effect flight will be solved in no time, in a human-sized form without bulky fuel tanks(same assumption in Bubblegum Crisis and Power Dolls). Still, you could use a roller-skate design, like the VOTOMS or Heavy Gears..

IIRC, the Discovery Channel did a series of articles on military/high technology and the anime series predicting them. The MADOX one is at discovery.com/area /technology/virtualtech/issue3/splash.html.

The Open Source Movement extends beyond the boundaries of cyberspace. Open the source of this entertainment packet. Why have they redirected their database to the bit bucket?

That's all I've got to say about that

...this approach, with the one taken by Mark Tilden:

• http://eagle.online.discovery.com/stories/technolo gy/robots/robots1.2.html
• http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT _Intro/History/MachineIntelligen ce2.html

The latest Smithosonian had an especially good article about him. Apparently his original demo 'bot was a robust walker that could clear most obstacles, run by all of 12 transistors.

I think somebody needs to look at combining the approaches of AI based robots that make decisions based on modeling their world, and robots such as Tilden's that seem to simply have "body feel" for their environment. Perhaps a Tilden type robot body could carry a reasoning "head" that sets goals for the body to carry out. I think this would be much like ourselves. Imagine if you had to walk or jump with only your eyes to guide you. No sense of balance, or kinesthetic sense. I doubt you could do it. We shouldn't expect robots to do the same.

There is another problem. The killer bee problem in the Americas was started when scientists tried to make honey bees more reilient to warm climates. They crossbred American honeybees, a rather benign form of bee that doesn't mind human presence, with African bees, which do. The bees seem to have picked up the wrong part of the mix, they became slightly more resistive to climatic change, and they became extremely fierce. Though not the result of Genetics, they illustrate some of the unexpected outcomes that breeding of non-native species can have with the local population. These hybrid bees have driven out local bees and proved to be more than just a nuisance to some people.

More info:
Killer bee attack in Mexico
AgNews on Killer Bees
Desertusa Attack of the "Killer Bees"
Fleming's Bee page

I'm glad I didn't get this news any sooner! I talked my wife into letting me open my Christmas present, a Meade DS 114 EC, early, so I'd have time to assemble and get used to using it, before the 22nd! So it wasn't all a loss! (Although she may make me pack it back up now :( )

London is a prime example of a city under the watchful eye of the police. I remember watching a documentary on high tech policing. They claimed that over 95% of downtown London is monitored by one or more cameras. The reason: it was viewed as their best defence against IRA terrorist bombings.

The system was well explained in the documentary. It also included a photo recognition system that could pick you out from a large crowd, so if they wanted to specifically track one person, they could do so.

While it is interesting in terms of technology, they also brought up the issues on (the lack of) privacy. The notion that "you should not feel uncomfortable if your not a criminal" is somewhat intrusive to say the least.

The documentary was aired on The Learning Channel earlier this year. I don't remember the exact date...

see http://www.dis covery.com/indep/newsfeatures/marspolar/marspolar. html for more.

The big question: will anybody have better coverage?

It'll be interesting to see if male and female lifespans are equal in another 200 years or so, after sexual equality has been fully established.

According to Desmond Morris' The Human Sexes , recently rerun on TLC, men's life expectancy was several years longer than women's for most of recorded history.

It has been only in this century that women's lifespans have caught up with, and exceeded, men's -- Morris attributes this to improvements in medical care, specifically the dramatic reduction in the number of women who die while giving birth.

when i was working in the unix shop of an unnamed popular web content provider a few years ago, M$ came to us with a proposal: they were rolling out a fancy new OS (win98), with this nifty new feature (activedesktop), and there was going to be a panel on the desktop with one-click access to 25 popular websites. we could have one of those spots, but we had to agree to include prominently in our site 4 of these 7 nifty new (and of course incompatible) web technologies M$ was pushing, and place an IE sticker on all our pages. prisoner's dilemma: do we say yes? can we afford not to say yes? we knew M$ was going to all the other content providers too, if they managed to make it so that all the users out there wouldn't be able to see our site, it would have been a mistake not to get on board when we had the opportunity.
notice that they never said "you must get rid of your SGI boxes, fire your unix jockeys, and burn your copies of netscape server", but that was effectively what they were saying. since these proprietary web extensions could of course only be served off of NT/IIS, we needed to buy new hardware, hire new admins and cgi coders, and how long can you afford to support parallel hardware and software development paths? eventually you dump that which you're not contractually obligated to M$ to support, and goodbye netscape server. (by the way, i notice that they are still serving some of their content off of netscape server, but i recognize none of the names in the Interactive Technology department, so i assume they all left for this reason.)
now, what if this site was the one reason you went online? (i'm sure this isn't the case, but map the analogy to your favorite site...) when they finally go M$, do you just give up browsing forever? or do you just knuckle under and go get IE?
they put pressure on the browser/server wars from every direction, brilliant, evil, but not necessarily illegal.

Actually I think there's a real good possibility that it could fly on solar power. There's already a rather large R&D plane that flies by solar power. The thing has an enormous wing span and is designed to stay aloft up in the higher atmosphere for extended periods of time. Of course, the fact that the top of the wings are covered in solar cells helps.

While digging around Discovery Online (I believe it was a Discovery program that I saw the plane on -- yes it was flying) I came across this story http://www.discovery.com/stories/technology/microp lanes/microplanes.html which has some info about the current state of flying spies. It didn't seem that anyone in those projects felt that solar would be the final solution. The equipment used in these devices isn't small enough for the RoboFly, but who knows how much they could eventually scale them. There's some video footage of what the current camera is capable of.

Anyway, the point is that I figure they could fly it with solar power, but I don't know how much else they could get. There's not much surface area to cover.

Of course, since it's "...will be powered..." I doubt they know how they'd do it. Probably hoping there's a way when they get there :)

Chris

According to the The Artimis Project:
The Moon is a venue of "lex nullus"; that is, it is identical in legal status to the high seas, meaning that nobody can own it and everybody can go there.

http://www.discovery.com/cams/sun/sun.ht ml
Although they admit that it's actually four separate cameras, each just capturing one wavelength of UV light - so presumably using different technology?