Slashdot Mirror
Driving from Alaska to Siberia
Pelerin writes "The team from the
Ice Challenger project are driving from
Alaska to Provodanya, in Siberia; across the
56-mile field of ice floes that each winter
"joins" America
and Russia. At the last minute the Russian
authorities
have denied the entry permit but the
crew says they're on track to reach the Big
Diomedes islands, which lie across the date
line, thereby proving it's possible to do this.
This feat
is not as easy as it sounds due to the
harsh Artic winter conditions, and the fact
that the ice floes themselves are drifting
at a pretty good clip. It takes
a specially built vehicle
to tackle this adventure. Geek quotient: pretty
high :)" If you just want to drive to Alaska, you might go with Philip Greenspun. And if these guys don't make the trip to Russia this year, they might not get a chance. Update: 04/08 12:21 GMT by T : DrShrink adds to the story: "The two made it to Siberia, however were turned back due to not gaining permission to enter Russian territory."
I hope your car's heater is working...
...they're on track to reach the Big Diomedes islands, which lie across the date line, thereby proving it's possible to do this. This feat is not as easy as it sounds...
I think they are overanalyzing this. To cross the International Date Line regardless of weather, one would only need a time machine...
Who knows, this may set a new trend for rectruiting firms in Alaska. Work in Alaska by day, live in cheap Siberia by night! On paper, a 56 mile commute doesn't seem so bad... they'd only tell you that it's over a field of ice floes after you sign the deal. Of course, this section of Alaska probably has less than a burdgeoning tech industry.
They fail to mention the reason that the Russians denied access was because their sattelite intelligence showed that the "specially built vehicle" was going to deposit four Tanyas and an Engineer.
--I hate big sigs.
Two brothers in North Carolina have apparently developed a new transportation device, which allows you to move through the air. They're calling this vehicle an aeroplane, or plane for short. Initial tests look very promising, and some of the designs look good.
I think something like this would be incredibly useful for getting from Alaska to Sibera both easily and quickly. Ice is very slippery! Perhaps one day you could even fly from major US cities such as New York to major Russian cities like Moscow. Give it a century, and these aeroplanes will be everywhere!
If they're floating on water some of the time, are they really "driving" from Alaska to Siberia? If that thing were to navigate across a lake, I wouldn't say it's done the impossible by "driving" across the lake. If it did the whole thing while touching solid ice, it'd make more sense.
I'm not saying that this isn't an amazing feat; on the contrary, I think the term makes it seem like what they're doing is easy, and we may all be able to do it soon enough. I'm still waiting for word on when that giant bridge is gonna go up.
While it looks like quite an amazing feat regardless, there are some pictures of that special vehicle floating in water; if it is amphibious, it kind of streteches the definition of "driving" across. If at times you're floating, it is sort of like taking a boat when necessary.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
For the love of God, or Webster, or both Funk and Wagnalls, it's Arctic, not Artic.
A little review...
Artic
Arctic
Artic
Arctic
Sheesh.
After the completion of the English Channel Tunnel, this is now seen to be at least in the realm of possibility.
Heck, there has been some discussion on this already.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis already did this, as I recall. Well, they floated across. :-)
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
I must say, I think that's totally cool. I can't believe they denied the entry permit, however.
It's a shame they couldn't make a permanant roadway (I know, I know, it's 56 miles, but it'd still be cool.
Really. I had the opposite reaction; I found that article to be precisely the sort of maudlin self-contradictory guck that makes me question my staunch (medium-far) leftist politics.
The article runs: Scientists are chatting up the elders of this ancient people to better understand how warm weather is destroying 2500 years of tradition; but, wait, at least on the Siberian side of things, the Soviets got there first, and all the elders that actually knew anything about hunting are all dead; the current batch has only been going at this hunting thing since the death of the Soviet Union; oh, and a few centuries back the Artic was waaay warmer than it was until recently, and the climate swing killed a bunch of guys then, too; but it's all really sad and stuff that more scientists aren't willing to forsake their precious 'facts and figures' to really *talk* to these wonderful, hardy, precious little men and women.
*Bleech*. Yet another make-work puff-piece assignment for a journalist who apparently knows that any contradiction can make sense if you tart it up in the right sort of narrative.
I could go on. However, I'll close with one final question: Why in God's name do Americans still refer to the Inuit as 'Eskimos'? It shows all the social sensitivity of 'negro' or 'indian'.
- undoware.ca
As a Canadian living (legally) in the U.S.A., I've asked a few people that when they used the term "Eskimo". I explained, that it essentially means "eater of raw meat", and while true to an extent, is regarded as an insult (heck, I like steak tartare too). Canadians have used the more politically correct term "Inuit" for quite some time now. The response I get is usually one of shock and ignorance: "Really? I didn't know that!" suggesting that any offence is unintentional. I usually explain the difference and let people chose what terms to use in the future. (I'm not about to be the political correctness police).
You could've hired me.
All long tunnels are rail-only. There are several problems with letting people operate their own vehicles in long tunnels:
1) you have to vent the exhaust fumes. You can use forced air on short tunnels under rivers, and vent tunnels under mountains, but the Bering Strait tunnel is far too long for that.
2) individually operated vehicles mean that you'll have accidents. It's difficult to send emergency crews 20 miles into a tunnel.
3) individually operated vehicles mean that you'll have idiots who run out of gas, or have mechanical breakdowns, etc.
Customs is also much easier with rail systems on either side. Each country can handle customs at the rail station on its own side, there's never any concern about traffic backing up into the tunnel if you only have a limited number of electric trains that shuttle back and forth through the tunnel. With vehicular traffic, you would really need to have each country operate its customs offices in the other country, with a clear shot on the other side.
That's a standard practice already, e.g., US Customs clears passengers at many Canadian airports instead of clearing them stateside, but it's always preferable to operate customs on your own territory due to jurisdictional issues.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
> I explained, that it essentially means "eater of raw meat".
This probably isn't true though so many people believe it that it might as well be. It in reality probably describes something to do with the lacing of a snowshoe, and is from the Algonquin language Montagnais rather than an Abenake dialect as was originally believed.
See more or less any online dictionary for more information, also some more detail at:
here
If you haven't dealt with Algonquin languages before, the 'Goddard' mentioned there is essentially the most reknown Algonquinist there is. If there is anyone who is able to correctly speak on things as difficult as dead Algonquin languages it is he.
Of course since the word is perceived as offensive already, there is little else we can do but treat it as offensive. Words such as Inuit are perhaps more accurate, anyways.
It is very rare that a native american tribe actually (historically) has a name for itself; hence so many of them are named by other tribes, resulting in persistant (sometimes true) rumors about the insulting nature of these names. (Most that are still around have of course adopted names from some source by now)
It would be expensive and dangerous. You would need a REAL SUV with a winch, extra fuel and would need permission and armed escorts through Peru (some of the land is occupied by Sendera Luminoso) and then you may have to go through some sketchy areas occupied by the FARC in Columbia. (the FARC would love to kidnap an adventurous traveler, but they rarely kill foreigners...but you might get caught in the crossfire of the Columbian army and the FARC). Also no real roads exist in the Putomayo district of Columbia nor are they really "roads" in the tradtional sense in Northern Columbia or southern Panama (also FARC and ELN hangouts). Once you went from Panama to Mexico hopefully the worst problems you would have would be repairs, gas and bribes. Through these countries you might have to register the car with the police upon both entering and exiting the country and have proof of insureance that is valid in all of them ($$$).
After that it would be smoothe sailing from I-5 in San Diego up to (I think) Homer Alaska...asside from the 'migra' agents searching the hell out of your vehicle. Once you get to Homer, you'd have problems. The Provedeniya route is limited, the best bet would be to sell the car in Alaska and head by boat to Dutch Harbor. There you could try booking a bearth on a Russian cargo ship to Madagan Siberia or Vladivostok. Try to buy a Toyota HiLux (the Taliban drove them, and they are the staple of every third world country with a different diffinition of the word "road"). The best would be to get to Magadan because then you could drive to Yakutsk but be prepared to get special permission from the Russians to enter in Madagan...a bribe might succeed). Last I heard, Yakutsk to Irkutsk was still drivable in the winter but sketchy during the summer (permafrost...drop by the museum of permafrost studies in Yakutsk and enjoy "milk tar" with the locals) from there, you would probably be prevented by the army from driving further (but who would not want to see Lake Baikal in Irkutsk?) by this time you would have already accumalated enough 'macho points' and a massive credit card debt so you could just continue on to Moscow with the Trans-Siberian railroad or you might want to pay through the nose and get your HiLux put on the train to let you off in Ekaterinburg and drive through there to the Black Sea. When there you would have the tough choice of proceeding through Russia through Georgia (civil war with muslim fundies in the north), Armenia (occasional war with Azerbaijan) and Turkey (war with PKK) or go the long way of Ukraine (bribes), Romania (Bribes), Bulgaria (beatings and bribes) and Turkey (shitty drivers...no bribes).
Istanbul is cool, hang out there for a while at a youth hostel, make Australian girls lust after you.
From there your only choice is to drive through Syria. Hope you can get the car through and hope you don't have a Jewish sounding name or have been to Isreal (they will call it 'Occupied Palestine'..use that term to not get your car confiscated).
You Cannot drive from Syria to Lebanon to Isreal, so your best bet is to go through Jordan (use 'Occupied Palestine' as the term again to get some tea. The term for bribe is 'Baksheesh' offer it by asking if there is any way that they can help you).
Going from Jordan to Isreal should be doable. Be prepared to answer alot of questions from the IDF, explain to them that you are a nutball with alot of money or so into debt that you hope to be killed in Africa.
Isreal to Egypt...probably doable, depending on the politics at the time. But from Egypt it will be tricky.
You may be able to cross into the Sudan from Egypt at Wadi Halfa but the Sudan is kinda pissed at the US right now (marry a Swiss person in Istanbul if you can...they have an excellent dental plan as well) and US citizens are forbidden from entering Libya by the US state department (I hear the Libyans don't stamp your passport but also don't like the fact that you have been in Isreal) This is where your trip would most likely stop without getting on a plane. If you could cross in the Sudan you would be stopped by the military as you got near the South, where they have been having a civil war for about 20 years and what little roads exist are probably unpassable. In Libya you would have to drive at night through the Sahara along routes used by illigal immigrant smugglers from Niger....Lots of bandits, and the desert might kill you before you got to Niamy or Mali.
You also couldn't get around The Democratic Republic of Congo, due to poor roads and "Africa's World War" going on. It is also unlikely that you would be able to get past Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda as well.
Not to worry though , going to Isreal would have stopped you from getting this far to begin with.
I pulled my hair out planning this trip a few years ago, but I was not going to drive, just try to see how far I could get without using an airplane while seeing as much land as possible.
Plan a short version of the trip and you'll have a blast. Traveling is great.