Slashdot Mirror


South Pole to Get Highway

tetrad writes "The New Scientist magazine reports that the US is building a road to the South Pole. The "highway" would cross the Ross Ice Shelf and then pass through the Transantarctic Mountains (map here). Convoys of tractors will be the only traffic on the road, bringing fuel and heavy equipment to the South Pole, as well as enabling the installation of a $250M fibre-optic communications cable (discussed previously)."

409 comments

  1. About Time! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 5, Funny

    All I can say is "about time!" I've been waiting for this for years. I mean, now I can finally go to South Pole Disneyland.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    1. Re:About Time! by Negatyfus · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would give almost anything to see Mickey Mouse freeze to death.

    2. Re:About Time! by YAN3D · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heres some other guys who are happy.

      TheBoys

    3. Re:About Time! by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      Well, in about 15 years you should be able to see his maker thaw *from* death

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    4. Re:About Time! by gabec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I told my friend about this article and her response was: "Hah! Forget world hunger and stopping war, let's build a road to the moon!" lol.

    5. Re:About Time! by vidnet · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't that what Disney on Ice is?

    6. Re:About Time! by CrayzyJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      she meant elevator to the moon, right?

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    7. Re:About Time! by artemis67 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I thought that was the plan to cryogenically freeze Walt until he could be revived by medics of the future...

    8. Re:About Time! by nycsubway · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't put the highway across the Larsen ice shelf. Then it would become the mickey mouse water show.

  2. Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With global warming, we can't count on a consisten ground - it might flood.

    1. Re:Well now by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more, 24 degrees in Tampa and I am freezing my nuts off...but it beats 90 degree weather with 90% humidity any day!

      --Joey

    2. Re:Well now by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      Hell has frozen over, the Bucs are in the super bowl.

  3. Two birds with one stone by OldStash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yay! Now people can contribute to global warming and measure it at the same time!

    1. Re:Two birds with one stone by Mantrid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Personally, I embrace global warming! Bring it on already! It's fricking freezing here!

    2. Re:Two birds with one stone by the+gnat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, New England could really use some greenhouse effect right now. I walked all the way to work yesterday and was convinced that I'd never be a father.

    3. Re:Two birds with one stone by digitalsushi · · Score: 4, Funny

      I must be the only person in New England who is glad it's -2F outside right now. I'm in downtown Big City NH, in a room 22x18 feet- there's 22 terminal servers (pun not intended, you'll see), 2 7000 series cisco routers, 6 dell 2450s each with add on RAID, a 6450, two something called "VA Linux" servers, and about 15 x86 boxes. Of course theres a bunch of switches and UPS units, as well as a forced hot water pipe. There's a dead 60,000 BTU A/C in the corner, and 2 48 inch windows on the same side of the room. I've got a 36 inch industrial fan sucking the air in from outside (-2F mind you), and yesterday, it took 18 minutes of that to get the temperature in here from 102F to 72F.

      Most annoying part about getting your AC fixed when it's -2F? Getting your provider to stop laughing and hanging up on you before you can get the service department. Yeesh.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    4. Re:Two birds with one stone by kubrick · · Score: 1

      It was 41 degrees Celsius here yesterday, and will be again today. But that's OK... it's a dry heat. :/

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    5. Re:Two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, but there are over six billion of us, and the cumulative effects can be pretty big.

      Also, I live in South Australia -- we can't be outside for longer than 30 minutes during the summer without getting burnt (without suntan lotion). It used to be OK to do this 20 years ago, it's not any more. Personally, I blame the hole in the ozone layer for that one...

    6. Re:Two birds with one stone by ktambascio · · Score: 0

      Some, please mod this up!

    7. Re:Two birds with one stone by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Someone!Please mod this crap down!

    8. Re:Two birds with one stone by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that every reputable environmentalist (read: not PETA) has already said that "global warming is not a good name - the word is climactic shift".

      The actual level of warming is insignificant - we're talking an average 1.5 degrees C or something. Nobody cares about that little bit of warming. Only the blowhards (yes, leftists have our embarrassing equilvalents to Rush Limbaugh too) think that. The real concern is how this change is effecting the weather. Anyone who's studied the thermodynamics realizes how much a tiny temperature change can do to weather patterns worldwide - so the problem is we get hurricanes in deserts, droughts in rainforests, blizzards in california, and generally worldwide crop failure. Pardon me, but I like to eat.

      Weather is a very fractal thing - push it slightly one way and it will change completely across the board. Both the natural and artificial world rely on expecting certain weather - our crops, our forests, and our cities expect certain things. Only certain cities are prepared for hurricanes (and I'm sure you've noticed the increase in major hurricanes in recent years).

      Global warming is not a problem. Talk to real experts and not loony treehuggers, and you'll hear about the climactic shift that is closely related to global warming. That is a threat to humanity and the planet's ecosystems.

      The other legitamate environmental concern is local pollution. You think that the Ganges is the only polluted body of water? Here's a hint - your local factories also pollute the water. They just pollute it in less obvious ways - not nasty agricultural runoff that covers the lake in icky slimy algae, but more sinister things. In my town, the bay water looks fine. You can get bad swimmers itch at the beaches, so you can only swim from a boat - but still that's just regular chemical imbalances producing unnatural ecosystems. The real concern is the water is carcinogenic. There's a coking mill on the edge of the water, and the runnoff from that means that anyone who swims a lot or drinks a lot of that water will probably end up a hospital a few years down the road. This is not a third world country - this is part of the great lakes.

      The third concern is concentration of toxins - sure, they're only generating a couple of gallons - but when one part per million can kill you down the road, and the stuff takes decades to break down (many nasty aromatic hydrocarbons are that persistant), you probably don't want that stuff being vented anywhere near people. But they do anyways. The world is big, but benzene is still benzene.

      Environmental concerns are legitamate - the problem is that a large number of environmentalists are extremist lunatics. But really, its no different then if we had people like RMS and JonKatz speaking up for us computer people. Just because the people you hear about in a movement are idiots doesn't mean the movement is wrong.

    9. Re:Two birds with one stone by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I know how that goes. I'm in North Dakota, and our AC broke. -15F weather, and we have the doors open, fans blowing in, and it's still hot enough to sweat in. Of course, we have a service department that CAN'T hang up on us (or we call our boss to call their boss). Your provider must not be used to large buildings (skyscrapers always need AC) and network centers.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Two birds with one stone by Xerithane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Environmental concerns are legitamate - the problem is that a large number of environmentalists are extremist lunatics. But really, its no different then if we had people like RMS and JonKatz speaking up for us computer people. Just because the people you hear about in a movement are idiots doesn't mean the movement is wrong.

      True, but there is also a decisive lack of concrete evidence (non-circumstancial) that would say the climactic shift has anything to do with humans. Natural cycles of planetary systems modify temperature, as do ocean currents (which do change frequently) so I personally don't think humanity is doing much to contribute one way or the other. If the ocean currents stop or slow, we'll have a mini-ice age, then all your climactic shift concerns will be going for the other way.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    11. Re:Two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap! Please some this mod down!

    12. Re:Two birds with one stone by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      "global warming is not a good name - the word is climactic shift"

      Yes, I've heard that the loony left is trying to wipe the fried egg of of their collective faces by claiming that they haven't really been shouting GLOBAL WARMING. USA EVIL. KYOTO PROTOCOL ONLY WAY TO SAVE LIFE ON EARTH! for the last 15+ years.

      Face it, those who said you were full of crap were right. Now you are trying to pretend it wasn't you, it was all those whack jobs that you support and support you. I really hate to pop your fantasy balloon, but climate changes over time. You do know that 1000 years ago, the climate was warmer than it is now, right? Greenland was actually green when Eric the Red "discovered" it. It isn't green now because it is COLDER than it used to be.

      You whack jobs used these same data points used in the GLOBAL COOLING/NEW ICE AGE scare tactics in the mid 1970's, but you decided that it was suddenly warming instead of cooling. The goal has always been to the same: to control people's behavior and lives through the application of fear and government force.

      Go away, Henny Penny.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    13. Re:Two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they said global warming 'cause fucktards like you are too thick to figure out that we're causing climactic shift - and climactic shift is partially caused by greenhoue gases (read: global warming).

      Shut up and sit down dickweed.

    14. Re:Two birds with one stone by talesout · · Score: 1

      The real kicker here is that, historically, the overall temperatures on the planet have gone down, down, down. Think about it. We constantly hear about how hot and muggy the entire planet was sixty-five million years ago. I think we have a LONG ways to go before we get back to that condition. Hell, maybe the planet is just balancing itself back up a bit. Or maybe it's just preparing for the next ice age by warming everything up and getting shit stirring.

      Humanity hasn't been around long enough to have a CLUE how this planet's weather and climate change through time. Pretending that we do is the real crime here. It'd take centuries, possibly millenia more before we'd have enough evidence to show a real trend in weather patterns that have any effect on overall climate.

      I'm not one to shut down all the alarms. I'd like to see pollution pulled back. But not because of global warming or ozone holes or any of that made up crap, but because sucking down great heaping bucketfuls of industrial smoke and sludgy water is BAD, MMMKAY? That much we do know. Fuck the false arguments, make a stand on the reality of it. Scare tactics based on tomorrows that we'll never know don't work. Telling people they'll die slow painful deaths from all the toxins in the environment may not work either, but at least that'd be true.

      --


      Bite my yammer.
    15. Re:Two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greenland and Iceland were intentional mislabeled. Greenland was icy. Iceland was nice.

      There are these things called libraries and the have these things called books inside. Check into it. And no Mr. Conservative - history, education are not useless and all of the books have not been rewritten by the socialists/communists. Important decisions should not be decided by hunches ("Evolution is not true because it seems too wierd!", "Iraq should be attacked because I just know he's going to attack us one day"). I thought you republicans were supposed to be pragmatic and logical. Guess not.

    16. Re:Two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you don't seem to think that we can affect the environment, that we are too puny to have an affect. Do you have facts to support that, or is it just a "feeling in your gut"?

      Here's one example of us having a definite affect on the planet: if all of the thousands of nuclear weapons were detonated, there would be a definite affect on the planet. We could turn this planet into a moon if we wanted.

      6 billion human beings + powerful technologies have a definite intentional and unintentional affect on this planet.

      That's a fact, and not tree-hugging mystism. Wake up, stop burying your head in you butt, and realize that your (and others) greed has consequences.

    17. Re:Two birds with one stone by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Global warming is not a problem. Talk to real experts and not loony treehuggers, and you'll hear about the climactic shift that is closely related to global warming. That is a threat to humanity and the planet's ecosystems.

      But surely if climatic shift is closely related to (if not caused by) global warming, then the 'treehuggers' are still campaigning against a perfectly legitimate issue. In fact, if global warming is the cause of the problem, they should indeed be campaigning against it, because you need to stop the cause in order to stop the problem.

    18. Re:Two birds with one stone by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      I fear for the futue. I have heard of these things you call libraries, and I have even been inside one or two. Hmm, history. Did you know that in England and Europe, temperatures dropped because of the Industrial Revolution? Yep, it's true. I even know why, but I doubt if you do, so I'll try to explain.

      The industrial revolution was fueled (literally) by coal and wood burning. Now a principal result of the burning of coal and wood is liberation of stored energy along with residual product (I'll just call it "ash" in my own ignorant manner.) Now the result of all the ash being liberated into the atmosphere is believed to have raised the albedo of the Earth slighly, causing "cooling". (I'm using quotes there because it really is a reduction in heating from the sun, but the effect is the same.) (The increase in atmosperic pollutants can cause increased cloud formation as suspended water droplets coalesce around the ash seeds.)

      World temperatures also have been know to drop due to natural phenomena. In the 1980's Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. The resultant ash caused nice sunsets and lower temperatures.

      I'm also sure that you have made use of your education to understand what solar max is, and that since we have passed it, we will be getting a little less radiation over the next 10-11 years or so until we start seeing an increase again. Right?

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    19. Re:Two birds with one stone by bleckywelcky · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Please note before you read this that I am not an environmental nut nor does this comment mean that I am a anti-global warming activist, I am merely a scientist (an engineer more specifically) making an observation.

      If the average temperature of the world increased by 1.5 C over a period of time on the order of 10 years I would be freaking scared. The world is extremely fragile in many ways (although quite durable in many others). However, on the grand scale of things if our entire system were to drastically change its temperature like that over such a short period of time, the world would be in chaos (the environment, etc). Imagine if that instead of having a temperature everyday of 98.6 F (37 C) that you had a temperature of 101.3 F everyday (38.5 C)... You would not be a happy camper. Moreover, you would probably die after, at most, a couple months of that.

      A 1.5 C change IS a big deal and I wanted to make sure that you don't go throwing around 'negligible' numbers that freakishly large anymore...

    20. Re:Two birds with one stone by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      Here's one example of us having a definite affect on the planet:

      affect: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      if all of the thousands of nuclear weapons were detonated, there would be a definite affect on the planet.

      OK, I'll grant you that that is a hypothesis, but it is not a proof. It has not been tested, nor do I wish it to be. You don't seem to grasp the difference between hypothesis and proof or even testing a hypothesis. Sad what passes for thinking these days.

      Also, I don't think we can turn this planet into a moon. Figuring out the definition of a moon is left as an excercise to the intelligent.

      As for your assertion that 6 billion human beings + powerful technologies..., I would contend that 6 billion humans period will have intentional and unintentional effects on anything. I consider agriculture to be a powerful technology as is the wheel. Both have had unitended consequences, as have newer creations, such as the telephone, radio, and welfare. The only way you can prevent unintended consequences is to kill everybody. Certainly that isn't what you want (I hope.)

      So my advice to you is to look at a problem you want to solve, and try to solve it. You can't put a genie back in a bottle, but you can figure out what to do with it instead of running around screaming.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    21. Re:Two birds with one stone by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1

      Hear, Hear!

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    22. Re:Two birds with one stone by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      A 1.5 C change IS a big deal

      As an engineer you also know that you take sample points for data consistently, which is not done when talkng about global warming. Most of those data points come from measuring points in cities where the termerature may indeed be rising. Not because of global temperature but because of increased thermal capacity. All the new asphalt and concrete poured in the last 20 years holds a lot of heat, some of which is radiated.

      More accurate measurements would happen away from large asphalt areas, but those are the first measuring sites closed down. It was also discovered last year that the data being interpreted from ocean buoys (water temp and air temp) don't have the correlation that was assumed, so all the models that used that data have/had to be changed again.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    23. Re:Two birds with one stone by errxn · · Score: 1

      I'm not one to shut down all the alarms. I'd like to see pollution pulled back. But not because of global warming or ozone holes or any of that made up crap, but because sucking down great heaping bucketfuls of industrial smoke and sludgy water is BAD, MMMKAY? That much we do know. Fuck the false arguments, make a stand on the reality of it. Scare tactics based on tomorrows that we'll never know don't work. Telling people they'll die slow painful deaths from all the toxins in the environment may not work either, but at least that'd be true.

      Well, that would be refreshing, to say the least. But the problem is that then a lot of the so-called "friends of the environment" out there (and by "friends of the environment", I mean the ELF-types and such, not legitimate climatologists and scientists) would have to admit that what they are really fighting is capitalism, not the degradation of the environment.

      Personally, I would be a lot less offended by these people if they would just be more honest about their motives. After all, doesn't the statement "I'm burning down this mountaintop ski lodge because I'm waging war against the excesses of capitalism" make a bit more sense than "I'm burning down this mountaintop ski lodge because I want to save the environment"?

      These people are nothing more than the left-wing equivalent of an abortion-clinic bomber. Think about it. In both cases, both laws and logic take a back seat to the perpetrators' "righteous" cause. And, in both cases, the more legitimate voices of reason who lean to their side on the debate don't want to have a damn thing to do with them.

      Honesty, that's all I ask....

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    24. Re:Two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not that you really care, but this plan will reduce CO2 emissions. The alternative is to fly things in by plane. Ground transport is almost always cheaper. Water is the cheapest.

      Also, very little Antarctic research has anything to do with global warming, but global warming gets all the press.

      A large portion of the research at South Pole is astronomy.

    25. Re:Two birds with one stone by MegaHamsterX · · Score: 1

      Need to add a little comment here just to bitch.

      We need to seriously fix these temperature swings.

      It hit a tad above freezing in S.FLA last night, it hasn't been this cold in probably ten years or more and it would normally be a nice 80F. Native Floridians are missing the cold weather survival skills that even people in the Georgia and Alabama have.

      Oh yeah, you don't get any OJ if it doesn't warm up some!

      Cold weather clothes....for what, oh that's why I'm shivering.

    26. Re:Two birds with one stone by olly+the+limey · · Score: 0

      "You do know that 1000 years ago, the climate was warmer than it is now, right? Greenland was actually green when Eric the Red "discovered" it. It isn't green now because it is COLDER than it used to be."

      um... source?

      -olly the limey

    27. Re:Two birds with one stone by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      I'm sure George Washington and Nelson Mandela damaged some property too, but no-one argues that their causes weren't righteous.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  4. Ok, but why? by soulctcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    All of this money that they're wasting could go to feed all of the starving programmers... ...oh wait, I figured it out now. This is where they're SENDING the starving programmers.

    1. Re:Ok, but why? by Negatyfus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but we're just the first group to be evacuated. Two other tractors will be sent after us with the rest of the people, they told us.

    2. Re:Ok, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The late but great Douglas Adams has seeen this all before

    3. Re:Ok, but why? by Banjonardo · · Score: 1

      Programmers. Programmers, haistylists and phone-booth cleaners.

      I heard it was because some goat was gonna eat the planet or something?

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  5. says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did they ask the rest of the world, or did they just assume ownership of the south pole??

    1. Re:says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did they just assume ownership of the south pole??

      I guess so...

    2. Re:says who? by dunar · · Score: 1

      the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 lays out a lot of the "ownership", based on scientifically active countries - I think 12 originally and 39 total are now involved. It has a lot to do with active research.

      Specific land claims are a little different, with countries closest to Antartica being most active in maintaining historical claims.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
      -dunar

    3. Re:says who? by big_groo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, yes - and they've reserved the right to do just that.

      Check out the CIA World Factbook entry on the US here.

      Scroll down to the very end and read 'Internationl Disputes'.

    4. Re:says who? by idletask · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I don't know what can qualify as ownership when it comes to Antarctica, but many countries have established points on this continent:

      • USA, with MacMurdo (how strange that the highway would go this way, isn't it?), Amundsen-Scott;
      • Russia, with Vostok (with the world record of low temperature, -89C - ouch), Mienyy, Molodezhnaya, Leningradskaya;
      • Argentina, with General Belgrano;
      • Great Britain, with Haley;
      • Australia, with Davis, Casey;
      • Japan, with Mizuho;
      • New Zealand, with Scott.

      If any of this country disagrees with this highway (well, except USA, that is), surely enough they will get heard soon enough.

    5. Re:says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the USA do not ask anybody. They take what they want, killing everyone standing in their way and threatening the world with nuclear attacks. They have a god-given right to take over whatever land they want on this earth.

    6. Re:says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if NZ disagree the US will have problems. The US flies from NZ and the road will be in Ross Dependecy which NZ teritory.

    7. Re:says who? by Zemran · · Score: 1

      and I suppose you wonder why people around the world shoot Americans and blow up the bars they go to?

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    8. Re:says who? by big_groo · · Score: 1

      I think American foreign policy speaks for itself.

      And to answer your question - no, I don't.

    9. Re:says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only thing special about the South Pole is that your compass won't work.

  6. Yee Haw! by tuba_dude · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey, once we install that road, can we bring our SUVs down and pollute there too?
    That's been, like, my dream since I first owned a vehicle that gets 16 gpm (gallons per mile)!

    --
    "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    1. Re:Yee Haw! by privacyt · · Score: 0, Funny

      I agree. Is nothing sacred? Why can't Antartica remain pristine? This planet is so fucking doomed it's pathetic.

    2. Re:Yee Haw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are leveling a path of ice, no pavement, no toll stops, just some ice that has been leveled a little bit!!! get over it, damn tree huggers!

    3. Re:Yee Haw! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pristine?

      What is pristine and holy about crapholes like an antartic ice plain or mosquito filled Alaska bogs?

      Why isn't anyone complaining about Egyptian expansion into the Sahara and destruction of the pristine desert? Why hasn't anyone taken Iraq to task for the destruction of the swamps around Basra?

    4. Re:Yee Haw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With your logic: if you saw an elderly lady being beat up you might as well go and start beating her up too.

      Rent a brain.

    5. Re:Yee Haw! by La+Temperanza · · Score: 1

      The penguins, dammit.

      --

      --
      est modus in rebus
  7. What the Hell by sjlutz · · Score: 1, Funny

    As a taxpayer in the philadelphia area, I need new roads here to get to work more efficiently. Or more accurately, get the other idiot drivers out of my way :-)
    Why am I supposed to pay for a road that goes no-where in another country?

    1. Re:What the Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like today, for instance. I76 was backed up because of "sun glare". WTF? Its called a sun visor, all cars have them! God I hate commuting from the city out side of it. But its not like any advancements to the roads around the city are even viable.

    2. Re:What the Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because not everything is about you... If you make solving world hunger, world peace, or anything else really a pre-req for other projects (space exploration, a road to the south pole) no advancement will ever be made.

  8. Sounds good... by JHMirage · · Score: 5, Funny

    Traffic should be pretty light, and I bet I can speed with abandon, but I gotta believe that the tolls will be a bitch!

    --

    A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself.
    1. Re:Sounds good... by malarkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a real job for any geek--Toll Booth Operator on the South Pole Highway.

      As long as you can tap into the fiber optic wire that passes by.

  9. Longevity? by mbredden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, so they're building a road across Antarctica. Are they going to clear all the snow and ice, and build the road on actual terra firma? Or are they just going to build it on top of ice? If they build it on ice, and in 20-50 years that ice melts down somewhat because of (manmade global warming/natural global warming/my ass), the road would be in fairly rough shape if not impassable. I'm imagining this is going to be a costly project and any roadway that they're going to pour THAT kind of money into they are going to expect a fairly long lifespan from.

    1. Re:Longevity? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      What gets me is that they're doing this because of the lack of geostationary satellites over the Antarctic... so, would it cost less to park a satellite in the proper spot in space? I mean, we already waste a fuck-ton of money with NASA... they can at least do something besides poor unit conversions and installing space telescope lenses backwards...

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Longevity? by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you can explain to me how it would even be POSSIBLE to park a geo-synchronous satellite over the South Pole. Since the principle of operation of geo-synchronous satellite is that it's orbital speed == the speed of the earth's rotation over which it's parked, and that the speed of rotation at the earth's poles is by definition zero, that would mean the satellite would have to be orbitting at speed zero. Doesn't seem too likely, does it.

      Sean

    3. Re:Longevity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. This is not a paved road like the ones in the US. It is basically just a way of smoothing of a path on the ice and filling in any gaps.

      It really disturbs me that morons like you that can't read and have to post as quick as possible because they want to sound smart get modded up.

    4. Re:Longevity? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be directly over the South Pole. Just have LOS on it. Therefore, it could be placed at a point where you can give it an orbital speed.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:Longevity? by bullseye2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry it does not work that way. Geo-Sync's are parked in to orbits over the equator.

    6. Re:Longevity? by AGMW · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Satelites have to orbit the Earth (or any body) over a Great Circle, and it just so happens that if that Great Circle is the Equator, then the satelite can appear to be stationary to an Earth observer.

      You could put a few satelites in a Polar Orbit so that at any one time one or more of them would be visible. You would have to be able to switch the signal between the satelites as they came into and left LoS with the Pole (whichever one you were at), but isn't that just like Mobile Phones when your are driving (with hands-free of course) and it switches you between cells?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    7. Re:Longevity? by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      There are ways to get 24x7 communications to the poles with only a few satellites. The Russians pioneered the approach of using a highly eliptical orbit where the satellite spends most of its orbit far away from earth above high latitudes. You *do* have to track the satellite and compensate for doppler, and you have to have a couple of them to maintain continuous coverage, but it does work.

      OTOH it is a lot cheaper to just drag the fiber optic cable to the pole!

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    8. Re:Longevity? by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      I bet the US is pretty mad that Iridium died now. Probably they would've got intermittent connection to that network with a big transmitter.

    9. Re:Longevity? by sigwinch · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you can explain to me how it would even be POSSIBLE to park a geo-synchronous satellite over the South Pole.
      You could make it hover over the pole using a solar sail. With a sufficiently advanced budget, any magic can be made to look like technology...
      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    10. Re:Longevity? by spiro_killglance · · Score: 1

      No your can't have a geo-synchronous satellite over the pole, but what you can do is balance a solar sail above the South Pole, using the mommentum of the light of the sun, to balance the earths gravity. The further away the solar sail is, the smaller it needs to be. Now the balance is unstable so you have to carefully control the sail to keep position, but its a simple and useful technic.

    11. Re:Longevity? by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      ...build the road on actual terra firma? Or are they just going to build it on top of ice?

      They'll probably do as we do in Arctic oil development -- we build the roads *from* ice. Compress the snow and ice, polish and harden the surface, embed with gravel. Very low environmental impact. Ice roads melt in the spring here (so we do most of the hauling and construction in the winter), but at the South Pole I don't know if melting would be a problem.

    12. Re:Longevity? by krugdm · · Score: 1

      If you note this page, you'll see that every geosynchronous satellite follows the same orbit (the cloud around the equator). All the other satellites, such as Iridium or the GPS satellites, are on a tilt and are at varying distances from Earth, and therefore, cannot be geosynchronous.

    13. Re:Longevity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Iridium satellites are still in use. The US governement currently uses Iridium phones, among other users. (I forget the name of the new controlling company, though.)

    14. Re:Longevity? by tedshultz · · Score: 1

      I have been on several of these roads. They are more like groomed ski trails than anything else. They are not designed for car use, but rather for large tracked vehicles (similar to large bulldozers). To make the road, a bulldozer pushes excess snow away, and crushes the sastrugi (waves in the snow). Then a large weighed is dragged over the snow to compact it and harden it. The snow will naturally set up, making it hard enough that you can walk on it without sinking in.

    15. Re:Longevity? by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      Modern ice roads (as we use here) are built with water-pumping trucks. Just compression leaves large airholes in the roadbed, heat from traffic causes quick collapse.

      After the initial surveying, they'll groom/compress the roadbed by whatever means is necessary for the given area. Then the pumpers will spray layer after layer of water (which quickly freeze into layers of ice). The top of the ice will then be textured to increase traction. Large-wheeled vehicles will likely be the norm; tracked vehicles tend to chew up the roadway too much.

    16. Re:Longevity? by tedshultz · · Score: 1

      Although I'm sure the method you described result in much better roads for seasonal use, they may be overkill for a 1000 mile road that would only be traveled once or twice a year. This would be a similar to the ITASE, an Antarctic traverse that ended up at the South Pole. A photo of the vehicles they used can be found here here and here. My understanding is that this will be more of a path that is known to be safe, than a road.

      As a side note, I'm an Engineer working on IceCube (the project that is justifying this "road") and one of our largest cost is fuel needed to make water. "Paving" an "ice road" 1,000 miles long to the pole would be prohibitively expensive as fuel cost about $20 a gallon by the time it gets to the pole.

    17. Re:Longevity? by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      If only for tracked vehicles, compression alone might be better. Article said it would be used for hauling equipment in, which is a pretty big job for tracked vehicles.

      We use an either/or strategy -- For large-wheeled vehicles (trucks, equipment), use ice-roads. For tracked vehicles, stay on the tundra... you don't need no stinking roads (then again, we're completely *flat* in the development fields)

      As my side, I work for a company that, in part, builds ice roads.

  10. Thank goodness for the fiber optic! by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 1, Funny

    Those penguins sure do chew up the bandwidth!

    1. Re:Thank goodness for the fiber optic! by maverick41 · · Score: 1, Funny

      OK, Verizon won't bring DSL to Keller, TX (pop. 40,000) because there is only one central office, but move to a luxury ice-front condo on the pole and you redefine "residential broadband".

    2. Re:Thank goodness for the fiber optic! by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      Fibre to the pole?

      BTW, what happens when the Ross ice shelf collapses?

    3. Re:Thank goodness for the fiber optic! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      As long as they avoid the pr0n, bandwidth should be good.
      Anyway, it's great that Tux will have broadband available in his neighbourhood.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  11. another solution by nyc_paladin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't we just give them segways with snow wheels instead?

    --
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
    1. Re:another solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay! And once those snow wheeled segways are out there'd be finally a reason to rebuild the cities for segway by installing snowmachines in all street corners :)

    2. Re:another solution by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Can't we just give them segways with snow wheels instead?

      I'm imagining a scaled up segway for this application. A 1000 ton, 200 foot tall gas turbine powered segway that could cruise at 150mph over the ice highway would rock. The view from the bridge perched on top of the vehicle would be awesome.

  12. Structural problems by skubalon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't that have some significant problems in structural stability. I mean it's built on an ice shelf. Ice floats. Antarctic ice shelves have been known to dissapear

    Sounds like a waste of money to me!

    1. Re:Structural problems by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      It's not a paved road. It's a smoothed compacted snow road. I bet that the majority of the Ross Ice Shelf that they would be traveling over is fairly smooth. Once they get into the mountains is probably where the majority of the cost will lie.

      I don't think structural stability will be a problem either. The pieces that break off in the article you linked to was 500 billion tons. A convoy of trucks wouldn't have a significant impact, especially in the middle of the ice shelf.

    2. Re:Structural problems by Beatbyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it were a proper highway with rock base, it would have problems. The ice shifts a few meters per year. Cracking and breaking would be the result. They're basically using large tractors to carve a road into the ice and smooth it out to be flattened into a "road".

      Although its not floating. Its a 4km thick piece of ice on top of land.

    3. Re:Structural problems by dragons_flight · · Score: 1

      The "Ross Ice Shelf" is actually a misnomer for a sizable portion of it's expanse. Much of it is actually a marine ice sheet, or in other words, an ice sheet of sufficient weight and thickness that it is resting on bedrock that just happens to be below sea level. As such it is much more stable than an ice shelf, though admittedly a little less so than a continental ice sheet.

      Not knowing anything definite about the route they are taking, I couldn't say whether they are building over the part grounded at the bottom of the bay or not, but I would assume so. Besides which, it is not like they are pouring lots of concrete or anything.

    4. Re:Structural problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California has similar problems, but that hasn't stopped road building or car use there.

  13. that is a big investment by sjwt · · Score: 1

    Considering that they own no part of the
    southpole, and insted have to lease off
    other countrys, one woudl of expected
    us Aussies to be doing that, but where too
    cheep..

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    1. Re:that is a big investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Aussies are smart enough to realise that building roads (which cause global warming, and melt ice) on a big chunk of ice is not a very smart thing to do.

  14. Fibre optics by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 2, Funny
    So the Antarctic scientists get broadband before my village in England?

    Now they'll be 0wning me at Quake, in between sexing penguins or whatever they do ;-)

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Fibre optics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      So the Antarctic scientists get broadband before my village in England?

      Yes, and they also get dentists, decent food and cold beer.

    2. Re:Fibre optics by Kojote · · Score: 0

      Sexing penguins?!?! I'd like to see penguin porno...now thats entertainment!

    3. Re:Fibre optics by tubs · · Score: 1

      > decent food and cold beer

      That coming from a country that gave us such culinary delights as McDonalds, Burgar King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    4. Re:Fibre optics by AGMW · · Score: 1
      sexing penguins

      If you feeling H H H Horny, P P P Pick up a Penguin.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:Fibre optics by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Yes, and they also get dentists, decent food and cold beer.

      Yeah, it must be a bitch to keep beer cold in Antartica.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    6. Re:Fibre optics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Burger King is English.

    7. Re:Fibre optics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexing penguins? You mean like this?

    8. Re:Fibre optics by Shanep · · Score: 1

      That coming from a country that gave us such culinary delights as McDonalds, Burgar King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

      I, as an Aussie, agree that those three suck, baddly, but cold beer is the way beer should be!

      Then again, usually ending up in one of those three establishments after many cold beers, you find that they don't suck too baddly at the time.

      Warm beer on the other hand, always sucks and I never suck warm beer.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  15. Gas stations? by tbaggy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wonder if they'll have the signs on the highway that say "Last chance for gas - next station 1000km away"

    And..how about the poor soul that has to actually WORK at that station!

    1. Re:Gas stations? by Ballsy · · Score: 3, Offtopic

      Of course they won't. The signs will be in miles, since the US insist on maintaining their archaic measurement units instead of migrating to something more widely accepted, like metric.
      As for the guy working at the station, he'll be fine, as long as they build a Tim Horton's beside it.

    2. Re:Gas stations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Sean Connery, the rest of the world can "suck it."

    3. Re:Gas stations? by nightsweat · · Score: 1

      Two words - Arby's Antarctica.

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    4. Re:Gas stations? by kievit · · Score: 5, Informative

      And..how about the poor soul that has to actually WORK at that station!

      Well, it ain't that bad. I work for the Amanda/IceCube experiment. I did not yet go there myself, but a colleague just returned and she found it absolutely great there. For several reasons: the natural phenomena there are quite special, for instance the halo of the sun. Also the working atmosphere is very different from normal, the "level of enthusiasm" among the few hundred researchers (of several different sciences) there is much higher, either because of the oxygen levels (?) and/or because of the adventurous feeling as if you are on a different planet. It seems to be also refreshing to be so far away from (the rest of human) civilization for a while. The place is even addictive, she (my colleague) is still feeling very homesick to that place.

      To be there as a winter-over (8 months, from Februari till November) is a different matter. Then there are much less people (between 50 and 70), typically the only activities are maintainance and routine data taking and you'd better not be somebody like me who gets depressed by longterm lack of sunlight. Still, winter-overs are volunteers and there are actually people taking this job for several years.

      Next winter (that is, during the austral summer) I will also go there for a 5 week stay, I am really looking forward to it. It is actually one of the reasons why I joined this experiment...

    5. Re:Gas stations? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, it's your crappy system, next time you spin off a colony get your units right first.

    6. Re:Gas stations? by Ballsy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can't imagine how NIST could ever adopt pieces of such a "crappy" system. SI units anyone? It seems YOUR 'colony' couldn't make up its mind.....or did you even know that you used to be a series of colonies ? Likely not...

    7. Re:Gas stations? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't get my oh-so-funny joke. I was blaming the English for the U.S. use of English units, because it began when the U.S. was an English colony.

  16. Please dont ... by bigjocker · · Score: 1

    I believe this is just the right time for Danforth to tell what he saw ....

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
  17. South Pole Highway by Doctor+Sbaitso · · Score: 1

    A highway to the South Pole?

    How many tractors are there, exactly?

    --

    ---
    Hello, Slashdot user. My name is Dr. Sbaitso. I am here to help you.
    1. Re:South Pole Highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caterpillar D9 towwing sledges.

      Been done before by Sir Edmund Hillary as the Trans Antartic expedition.

      My question is how do you pull out a D9 which has fallen into a crevase?

  18. Suckers by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    hitchhiker: hey man, you going south to Florida?

    trucker: No I'm goi... err. yeahhh.. hop in little buddy!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  19. But will it be patroled by jackbooted troopers? by haplo21112 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There might finally be a road where I can drive as fast as I want and nobody will care...of course onn that road speeding is probably 30mph...:>

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  20. Last unspoilt place on Earth by dubstop · · Score: 5, Funny

    This reminds me of a story in The Onion's 'Our Dumb Century' book. It was something along the lines of, "US military find last unspoilt place on Earth, blows it to hell."

    1. Re:Last unspoilt place on Earth by squibix · · Score: 0

      Quoth the article: 'Environmentalists appear relaxed about the scheme. The ice cap is a barren wilderness devoid of life.'

    2. Re:Last unspoilt place on Earth by Inflatable+Hippo · · Score: 1

      Just watched koyaanisqatsi with my 3.5 year old son.

      Got past 20 minutes of mind numbingly beautiful scenery followed by some scenes of strip mine blasting and atomic tests.

      Two minutes later:

      "Want more 'splosions Daddy... What gets `sploded next"?

      The planet is doomed.

    3. Re:Last unspoilt place on Earth by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Sometimes children don't fully understand...they can be raised to value the proper things.

      However, I just read that Kangaroo Jack was the largest grossing movie last weekend at $17M. To quote your comment, "The planet is doomed."

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  21. Penguin joke by Mothra+the+III · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was a penguin driving his car down a desert road.

    It was a really hot day, and his car is really a really old convertible. Up ahead he saw a small town.

    All of a sudden, his hood burst open and oil shot into the air.

    He pulled it into the first mechanic he saw in the town and cleaned himself off. The mechanic told him it could be a little while, so he waddled across the street to the ice-cream stand.

    He got a dish of vanilla ice-cream, and since he had no arms, just flippers, he had to fling it towards his mouth. Well, after he finished his ice-cream, and was covered with vanilla ice-cream, he waddled across the street back to the mechanic.

    The mechanic was looking at the engine and said, "Well, it looks like you blew a seal."

    The penguin says, "I did NOT! It's just ice-cream!"

    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
    1. Re:Penguin joke by mikefoley · · Score: 0, Funny

      That's the joke I told my wife the night I met her! (Really!)

      --
      What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
    2. Re:Penguin joke by JPZ · · Score: 1

      Worst. Sig. Ever.

      Surely you mean Joke instead of Sig?

    3. Re:Penguin joke by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 1

      A penguin waddles into a bar and says to the barman "Has my brother been here?"
      The barman replies "I don't know. What does he look like?"

      --
      Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
    4. Re:Penguin joke by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      Two penguins walk into a bar. One turns to the other and says, "Wow, you didn't see that either?"

      Moderation Totals: -1 Not Funny, -2 Stupid

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    5. Re:Penguin joke by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Two penguins walk into a bar.

      The third one ducks.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  22. Watch Out Chile! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Antarctic is not owned by anyone, it is international territory, and governed by an international committee, with representatives from signatory countries. Therefore I would have to assume that before any highway is laid, this committee would have to approve it. I would say that if they're announcing the plans to do this, it's already been approved. I mean, it is a useful project. Scientists living in Antarctica currently have many problems involving not being able to get supplies and not being able to easily communicate their findings 'back home.'

    On a side note, "Both Chile and Argentina have gone to great lengths to make their claims in Antarctica part of their national territory. While there has been no recognition of these claims by any other sovereign state, both countries have great nationalistic pride in these claims. In August of 1973, an Argentine cabinet meeting was held in the area claimed by Argentina. Chile's president Pinochet spent a week in Antarctica in 1977 which caused Argentina to devise the boldest plans for claiming sovereignty. In the fall of 1978, a pregnant Argentine woman was send to live in Antarctica and in Jan. 1979, Emile Marco Palma was the first child born in Antarctica. Following the pattern in colonialism as seen in North America, Emile takes his place in history along side Virginia Dare. The Argentines followed with a wedding in Feb. 1979. Both countries have maintained colonies of civilian dependents living year round at their bases and tourism from bases both in Chile and Argentina has grown significantly in the last decades." So perhaps this means...WAR! Yes, let's fight over a piece of ice.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    1. Re:Watch Out Chile! by mlknowle · · Score: 1

      "Yes, let's fight over a piece of ice."

      Actually, Antartica isn't just a piece of live, like the north pole is; actually, it is a proper continent, covered with an ice sheet. Perhaps a minor distinction, but I remember Rush Limbauh making an argument that global warming doesn't matter because when a piece of ice melts in a glass of water, the level doesn't go up; similarly, he argued, if the polar ice caps melted, it would just get warmer, no sea level change. Then someone pointed out that Antartica is actually a piece of land with ice ON TOP of it...

    2. Re:Watch Out Chile! by dj28 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, if you check the CIA factbook, the United States and Russia do not recognize any claim to Antarctica. However, both nations reserve the right to claim any amount of territory on the continent. So, essentially, the US and Russia hold claims on Antarctica that virtually trump all others. I also believe that 3 or 4 nations actively claim portions of Antarctica as their own territory.

    3. Re:Watch Out Chile! by October_30th · · Score: 4, Informative
      when a piece of ice melts in a glass of water, the level doesn't go up;

      If you float fresh water ice in fresh water the level won't change when the ice melts. However, try using fresh water ice and sea water. This time the water level does indeed rise.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah Yes! Rush Limbaugh ... the noted scientist.

    5. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore I would have to assume that before any highway is laid, this committee would have to approve it.

      What, like the UN Security Council approving an invasion of Iraq? Dubya doesn't seem to care about that...

      Surely there's some oil down in Antarctica he can get his hands on :)

    6. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Newskyarena · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That works fine if you are talking about floating ice. Much of the ice in the world that is melting now, isn't floating, it is land based, which flows to the oceans.

      If enough of this water flows into oceanic basins, the oceanic water level is going to rise.

    7. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Watch Out Chile! by capnjack41 · · Score: 1
      Rush Limbauh making an argument that global warming doesn't matter because when a piece of ice melts in a glass of water, the level doesn't go up; ... Then someone pointed out that Antartica is actually a piece of land with ice ON TOP of it.

      Antarctica is, indeed, a continent, not an ice cube. This and many other observations/debunk-ments are in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, by Al Franken, a funny, funny book.

    9. Re:Watch Out Chile! by spiro_killglance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that antartica was near the equator during
      the time of the dinasours, i'm expect there to
      by lots of oil, diamonds, coal, plus your standard
      exploited minerals in the area. Thus next century
      when the rest of the earth is mined out, Antartica
      will be a very important piece of real estate.

    10. Re:Watch Out Chile! by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      ..global warming doesn't matter because when a piece of ice melts in a glass of water, the level doesn't go up

      There is another issue at work with the rise of sea levels, plain old thermal expansion.

      Although the capacity of the oceans for absorbing energy is pretty immense, keep pumping energy in and they will eventually warm up. As they warm up they will expand, causing the sea level to rise. The releative importance of this effect compared to, say glacial melting is debatable and currently under study (10s of cm per degree as a "cricket pitch" figure). If you want to know a bit more try a random link from Google To see the effect for yourself, get a deep pan of cold water place it on the stove and fill it to a miniscus. Then heat gently and note how long it takes to spill over (don't heat too gently or it will just evaporate).

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    11. Re:Watch Out Chile! by mbspweb · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you check the CIA factbook, the United States and Russia do not recognize any claim to Antarctica.

      This just screams for a "In Soviet Russia" post, but I will restrain myself.

    12. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in old soviet russia Antartica has claims on YOU!

    13. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah Yes! Anonymous Coward ... the noted scientist.

    14. Re:Watch Out Chile! by ISPpfy · · Score: 1

      The water level rises... you know, just to see it wipe out Malibu and Miami Beach would probably be worth it.

    15. Re:Watch Out Chile! by psych031337 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nations with territorial claims:

      Great Britain

      Argentinia

      Chile

      New Zealand

      Australia

      France

      Norway

      Nations with (temp or perm) stations:

      Argentinia

      Chile

      New Zealand

      USA

      Germany

      Italy

      France

      Australia

      R ussia

      China

      Japan

      India

      South Africa

      --
      +++ath0
    16. Re:Watch Out Chile! by tedshultz · · Score: 1

      The US government has one big wild card. The US government does not allow LC-130 to be sold to other countries. LC-130s are C-130 cargo planes equipped with skis allowing them to land on snow. Effectively meaning that if you want to set up a base anywhere not coastal, you need to ask the US for help. A few tourist operations have gotten around this by finding ice runways, or by using much smaller twin otter planes, bun in general you NEED the US to agree with your plans.

    17. Re:Watch Out Chile! by I_am_God_Here · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, the US and Russia hold claims on Antarctica that virtually trump all others
      Just like god intended.

      --

      Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
      Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
    18. Re:Watch Out Chile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because only the USA (only country in the world remember.) knows how to make planes.

      I know of at least eight types of planes that are better equipped to land in the area, and can personally fly two of those.
      What was your point exactly?

    19. Re:Watch Out Chile! by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      A "cricket pitch" figure, I like that :-)

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    20. Re:Watch Out Chile! by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      As if the US is the only country that can build these things. Just try it and see how fast we can build our own.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  23. It's pretty necessary by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Informative

    If there's going to be a permanent presence on the South Pole, this kind of infrastructure is necessary. I worked on a satellite communications system that talked with the NOAA polar-orbit spacecraft. At the poles, you'll see the spacecraft every 90 minutes. Near the equator, you'll only see them 3 times a day for about 10-20 minutes (usable time) per. The polar research stations use the NOAA satellites as a primary communications store-and-forward service, as they can't see the geostationary satellites. Makes communicating with the research stations difficult.

    Don't go expecting an asphalt two-lane road. Calling it a "highway" is misleading. A "conditioned ice-road" is more appropriate.

  24. Um incase you were too busy to read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    'In the next few weeks the ice road should have crossed the wide expanse of the Ross ice shelf, which permanently covers the ocean, and be approaching the Transantarctic Mountains. The mountains mark the halfway point to the Pole.'

    The road is going to be ICE, not pavement. All they are doing is plowint the snow off of a section of the ice shelf.

  25. Once again, science fiction leads the way by Adam+Rightmann · · Score: 1

    This was prominently mentioned in Kim Stanley Robinson's Antartica, which is so much alike in theme and characterization ti his Mars trilogy that it can be referred to as "White Mars".

    --
    A. Rightmann
  26. Re:this will be useful by Andy_R · · Score: 5, Informative

    how many millions (or billions) of dollars will be spent for this?

    Twelve ...as you would have known if you had RTFA. All they are doing is pushing the snow aside and flattening out the ice. No blasting, no rocks, no pavement, no paint.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  27. Permanent fixture? by sczimme · · Score: 1


    From the article:

    Once completed the road is likely to become a permanent fixture.

    Yes, I suspect it might. It's probably not going to melt, and glaciers don't move very fast.

    On the bright side, I doubt we'll see road crews lounging around the work sites: the climate will be too cold for that.

    (In most parts of the US, given a road crew of N, (N-1) will be standing around watching 1 work.)

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:Permanent fixture? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Actually, in my city, the one guy who is actually just sitting in his big tractor eating his lunch. I suspect that the little bit of work that actually does get done is performed by road fairies in the wee hours of the morning.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  28. Antarctic natural resources? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1
    "And the road is unlikely to pave the way to exploitation of Antarctic natural resources, as this is banned under the Antarctic Treaty until 2041."

    Okay.. I know nothing about Antarctica, except it's really cold. What natural resources are there? Is there oil hidden deep beneath the ice or something? I imagine that would have to be the only thing down there. Not like there's coal to mine or trees to chop down...

    --
    Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    1. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by privacyt · · Score: 2, Informative
      According to this, from a website geared toward students, Antarctica has the following natural resources:
      - Ice(!). Yes indeed, in many part of the world, fresh water is so rare that it's now a valued commodity.
      - Coal.
      - Petroleum. Antarctica has never been explored for oil, but it's assumed that where there's coal, there might also be oil.
      - Metallic minerals such as cobalt, chromium, nickel, vanadium, copper, iron, uranium, lead and platinum.

      The main problem thusfar has been that despite Antarctica's mineral weath, it's been too expensive to mine those minerals. But a road to the South Pole would make it much more economical to explore for and exploit the resources.

    2. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had no clue there was all that. I thought Antarctica was a huge block of ice, with maybe some oil buried deep within it. Thanks for informing me. =D

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    3. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by cravian · · Score: 1

      I would guess that a certain government already knows that there's a huge amount of oil under there.

      This road is literally all about starting a long journey with a single step.

      --
      The obvious is blinding, that's why no-one sees it coming.
    4. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the NAZI ufo bases will deter George Q Bush III from drilling for oil down there! Stopped Admiral Bird.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by andrius_sytas · · Score: 0
      "And the road is unlikely to pave the way to exploitation of Antarctic natural resources, as this is banned under the Antarctic Treaty until 2041."

      <sarcasm>

      Sheesh, NOW I'm not worried.

      International Agreement will surely stop USA from exploiting Antarctica. After all, we all know it

      (1) respects international treaties dealing with global ecology issues, including the ones which might harm America's industrial interests,
      (2) holds ecological interests beyond corporate wishes, and would never allow exploitation of the arctic wilderness of Alaska for oil,
      (3) even if it did, Antarctica doesn't even have roads to transport the goods... hm.

      </sarcasm>

      Disclaimer: I'm not saying the road is of any immediate concern (no information for this), I just don't like naivety in the quote.

    6. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Plus volcanoes.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    7. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2041. Since the continent of Antartica drifted from a tropical location, fossil fuel could be buried in sedimentary rock under the ice. Probably too expensive to extract considering the transportation costs.

    8. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by rmdyer · · Score: 1

      There are no natural resources in Antarctica...well, except for that big giant alien spaceship that's parked under the snow at the south pole. Better send Mulder back in, looks like the thing has landed again!

    9. Re:Antarctic natural resources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder you Americans want to 0wn the place. Oh look - fuel for consumerism! Let's get it!

      My thoughts: Piss off and leave the last un-fucked part of the world alone.

  29. You got to be kidding me.... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    After seeing this Ice Berg from Ross Shelf I'm not sure thats such a good idea at that location if things keep warming up.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  30. Additional Links And Info On This Story by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    We ran a story on this topic yesterday over on SciFi Today with quite a few additional information links. A list of ALL of our recent stories is here. You can put SciFi Today Headlines on your Slashdot frontpage by clicking here and putting a checkmark in the SciFi Today box. Check us out!!!

  31. penguin huggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if we'll see any crunchy granola types chaining themselves to chunks of ice in order to prevent this road from being built. Forget living in trees, to be a true environmentalist, you must haul ass down to the south pole and set up camp right in the way of the tractors.

    On the other hand, this also opens up all kinds of jokes about roadworkers and the south pole. Like, how many union guys does it take to build a road to the south pole? A hundred, one to the hold the stop sign (to hold up penguin traffic), 49 to take a hot chocolate break, and 50 to complain to the union rep that it's too cold to work. Better watch out that the crack doesn't get the frostbite!!

  32. Shame really by brokenspoke · · Score: 1

    All those "penguin crossing the road" jokes.

    --
    -- I am Jack's sig line.
  33. resources? by jiminim · · Score: 1

    "And the road is unlikely to pave the way to exploitation of Antarctic natural resources, as this is banned under the Antarctic Treaty until 2041."

    So what exactly are these natural resources?

    1. Re:resources? by privacyt · · Score: 1
      Google to the rescue!

      Basically what I gleaned from the articles was that the resources are: the ice itself (since fresh water can be valuable in some parts of the world); coal (ain't that wonderful? a few more decades of coal burning!); possibly oil; and various valuable metals such as uranium and platinum.

    2. Re:resources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...banned under the Antarctic Treaty until 2041."

      For the US, every treaty has an implicit "unless we want your oil for our lard-arsed car drivers" clause.

    3. Re:resources? by Shanep · · Score: 1

      coal (ain't that wonderful? a few more decades of coal burning!)

      Hey that's great! The more of it we burn, the easier it will be to mine, as the ice around it continues to melt! Pure genius!

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  34. Penguin X-ING Next 40 Miles by Kojote · · Score: 1

    Do you think you could call AAA if you hit a penguin and run off the road?

  35. Did anyone read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just talks about laying cable, not roadway.

  36. Reliability by nomadicGeek · · Score: 1

    The sad thing is that this 1040 mile fiber link to the South Pole will probably be more reliable than the DSL link to my house.

    Of course what can I expect for $50/month.

  37. Railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't a railway be better? I believe a two-track railway takes up less space than a 7.3m single carriageway and electric trains cause less pollution (in the vicinity of the railway) than diesel lorries and cars. As well as this, I think the railway can handle more cargo than the road (we wouldn't want to have to widen the road every ten years, would we?).

    Of course, we would be able use this new railway to connect the South Pole to the rest of the Americas (at least in theory), allowing cargo to move from the USA to the Pole at up to 80m/s (about 180 miles per hour). Sadly, it doesn't look like the UK will be connected (although given that British trains are not known for rapidity or reliability, this would not be a major loss as there would be no point in vital perishable supplies destined for the Antarctic being held up at Potter's Bar due to a signalling fault). (It also seems that there will be no connection to South Africa.)

    1. Re:Railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started writing a response to this and then realized that this can only be a troll. No one could be that stupid and still write so well.

  38. Be Careful! by BWJones · · Score: 1

    From the article: The road could be open to heavy traffic for up to 100 days a year during the austral summer.

    This is the last (for the most part) unpolluted place on earth and we are going to be running heavy diesel puking machinery through there. What really worries me is that the treaty banning exploitation of natural resources runs out in another 30 or so years and what will this highway bring? I appreciate the importance of the cosmic ray detector and for other science being performed at the pole, but we should be very careful. Highway building is incredibly destructive.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Be Careful! by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      They are compacting snow and smoothing ice. Not building a superhighway. The enviromental impact from the road probably will be negligable. Besides, the penguines will have a new slip-n-slide to play with.

      Also, do they use diesel down there? I would have thought that it would gel up in the extreme cold.

    2. Re:Be Careful! by yycs · · Score: 1

      Right, Just think of all of the ice and snow that will get destroyed!!!

    3. Re:Be Careful! by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Highway building is incredibly destructive.

      Destructive to what? All they're doing is clearing off some snow and making the ice flat!

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    4. Re:Be Careful! by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      One of my co-workers actually worked on the Ice Cube project (mentioned elsewhere on this thread) drilling holes to plant the sensors... they use aviation fuel for all their power needs, as diesel does indeed gel up down there.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
  39. The important points by Xibby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since nobody seems to actually read articles:
    $12-million project
    1600 kilometres
    20 days for the inland trip
    10 days for the return to the coast (downhill!)

    (That's a staggering average speed of 3.33 KPH for the trip to the pole, 6.66 KPH for the trip to the coast)

    The traffic will consist of slow-moving convoys of caterpillar tractors, towing sleds with supplies.

    The Scott-Amundsen base is only currently accessible by air, which places limits on cargo and relies on good weather. The road could be open to heavy traffic for up to 100 days a year during the austral summer.

    --
    I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
  40. No, they won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's American, so the sign will read "Last chance for gas - next station 621.5 miles away"

    1. Re:No, they won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you mean "Last chance for gas - next station 621 3/8 miles away"

  41. Finally some answers... by realmolo · · Score: 1

    As long as Wilford Brimley doesn't get them, we'll hopefully get to find out what happened to MacReady and Childs.

  42. Who are they going to call... by mtc162 · · Score: 0, Funny

    When it snows and the road is blocked? Mr. Plow of course!

  43. Where's the benefit? by mcoko · · Score: 1

    The Scott-Amundsen base is only currently accessible by air, which places limits on cargo and relies on good weather. The road could be open to heavy traffic for up to 100 days a year during the austral summer.

    So the road is also limited. And what kind of cargo can a Snow Cat carry that a plain can not? Not much I would think.

    The polar base plans three return journeys each summer, says Spindler. The annual capacity of the route would be about a million litres of fuel - roughly the capacity of three Hercules transporter planes that currently supply the base.

    So any number of road trips will get 1 Mill Liters of fuel that would take just 3 flights. Sounds more expensive to send by land, especially since you can only travel 1/3 of the time a year. What about the rest of the year.

    --
    www.fotoforay.com
    1. Re:Where's the benefit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      especially since you can only travel 1/3 of the time a year. What about the rest of the year.


      Planes can't travel for much of the year, either. The people at the south pole station can not be reached for most of the winter. (There are occassional attempts made in extraordinary emergencies.)
    2. Re:Where's the benefit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's PLANE, jackass.

  44. It's safe by siskbc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Except for maybe the outer few miles, it's completely safe. The earth won't warm that much, and the shelf will only melt at the edges (where it's within a degree or so of 0C now). Within, there's about no chance. The ice in that shelf is *incredibly* old - that's why they take ice cores from it to get a picture of the atmosphere tens of thousande of years ago.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  45. Can any0one say.... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    RrrrrrrOOOOOAAAAD TRIP!

    Oh yeah.

    1. Re:Can any0one say.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought it was funny...

    2. Re:Can any0one say.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there a highway running from Alaska to the bottom tip area of South America? Now if you could start at the north pole that would be one long-ass trip.

    3. Re:Can any0one say.... by AnimeFreak · · Score: 1

      There is a way. You take the Alaska Highway from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Dawson Creek, British Columbia, right down into Price George, Kamloops, and then into the Greater Vancouver area.

      From there, you head to the border via BC17 or BC99 (via BC17, BC10, and BC99A). From there, you should or try to get on the Interstate 5 and drive all the way down it through Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego into Tijuana, Mexico. From there, I am a tad clueless, but I am sure you can keep on going down.

  46. RTFA, RTFA, RTFA by andyring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    C'mon, people, it's NOT THAT HARD to click on a link and read for a few minutes. This is not a "road" as we understand them. Basically, they will clear a path on the ice so it is free from snow and debris, and fill in any crevices, etc., with (presumably) ice, etc. As some have suggested, no, the road will not be dug down and laid on terra ferma. They would have to dig hundreds of feet to do that. Basically, they'll take big bulldozers and clear the way for large caterpillar-type vehicles to carry fuel and supplies. Now, everything must be brought in by air, and that's gotta be expensive!

    1. Re:RTFA, RTFA, RTFA by mgs1000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So will they send out Zambonis to "resurface" the road?

    2. Re:RTFA, RTFA, RTFA by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      And Ice Roads are nothing new. We've been using them in Alaska for years.... It's a little more complicated than just "clearing a path," but it *works*. We are able to get our hauling and construction done in the winter in areas where flying in is too dangerous. In the summer, the roads melt, and environmental impact is next to nothing -- a little soil compression, a little gravel (usually locally gathered anyway).

      (We could, of course, just tear up the permafrost and tundra with heavy equipment, but we take that extra effort to make environmental impact minimal. Bet Greenies don't hear about things like too often....)

  47. RTFA by squibix · · Score: 3, Informative
    In the first line of the second paragraph you would have noticed that the highway is described as an 'ice road' over 'the Ross ice shelf, which permanently covers the ocean.' A bit later, we read:
    Construction of the ice road involves clearing the route of snow, bulldozing rough ice and filling in crevasses. The route will cross the Leverett glacier in the Transantarctic Mountains. ...
    The road will need to be cleared of snow and checked for crevasses and ice movement each spring, says Karl Erb of the National Science Foundation in Virginia, which is funding the $12-million project. "But crevices don't change much from year to year," he says. "We will just have to monitor them."
    Also, it's my understanding that the biggest problem with a road in Antarctica wouldn't be melting, but the continual accumulation of snow. That's what buried the old dome and forced the creation of a new research station a couple years ago. It may be, though, that melting is an issue on the ice shelf, if not over the continent itself.
    1. Re:RTFA by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Also, it's my understanding that the biggest problem with a road in Antarctica wouldn't be melting, but the continual accumulation of snow.

      Antarctica is actually a desert, with little annual accumulation. It's only the eons that have caused mile-thick ice to accumulate. The real issue would be crevasses created by the slow movement of the ice.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  48. Reading the article helps... by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It pretty clearly states that the road is to be built over ice, and that one of the major issues is going to be verifying that no crevasses, ice shifts, etc, have occurred. Since the Antarctic continent is buried in ice sheets that are kilometers thick, clearing away the ice doesn't seem like a practical option. Sean

  49. My mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the wrong article.

  50. Re:this will be useful by schmink182 · · Score: 1
    All they are doing is pushing the snow aside and flattening out the ice

    Hmm...can I just go ice skating on it instead? Sounds a lot more fun than driving there.

  51. Re:this will be useful by halftrack · · Score: 0

    "so, factor in you're going to be going over water, which is frozen and melting?"

    No ... antartica is solid land and some ice at the coast at winter, but mostly solid land.

    In adition clearing some ice and flattening shouldn't be that expencive, $12 millions the article says.

    --
    Look a monkey!
  52. Re:this will be useful by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative
    Did you read the article at all?

    Construction of the ice road involves clearing the route of snow, bulldozing rough ice and filling in crevasses. The route will cross the Leverett glacier in the Transantarctic Mountains.
    ...
    The road will need to be cleared of snow and checked for crevasses and ice movement each spring, says Karl Erb of the National Science Foundation in Virginia, which is funding the $12-million project. "But crevices don't change much from year to year," he says. "We will just have to monitor them."


    It's going to cost $12 million for a 1600km back-country road. It's not a high speed 6 lane super highway. No asphalt. No lines. It's a compressed snow/ice road that they are smoothing out and filling in crevices.

    While I have not ever gone to the south pole, pictures I've seen indicate that it is pretty much frozen year round. I don't think that they are going to have to worry a whole lot about melting ice/snow in the imediate future.

    The National Science Foundation is funding the entire road project...not the US Government directly. Yes the NSF is funded by the government, but I'd imagine that it has a regular line-item entry on the fiscal budget each year so it really isn't anything extra. I'd rather they build this road then have any polition go on a "fact-finding" junket.

    Also, the road is justified. They are starting research at the south pole (Ice Cube Project) that requires heavy equipment to be brought in. Currently the only way to get their is by air, which places limits on the weight of cargo and they have to have clear skies. This road will help with both of those limitations.
  53. At the Highway of Madness by DdJ · · Score: 1

    Do we reallly want to build a highway that cuts through the Mountains of Madness? I mean, do we really want to make it that much easier for the Shoggoths to get out of there and move to a warmer climate?

    1. Re:At the Highway of Madness by gabriel-dialupusa · · Score: 1

      I knew someone would bring that up. ;-)

      If I had modpoints, you'd get them. Go lovecraft. woo. ;-)

      Oh, and Nyarlathotep says, "Hi."

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information,
      for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
  54. Re:this will be useful by p3d0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen here, and that is saying a lot. A 6-lane highway in Antarctica? Rocks? Pavement? Paint? Good grief.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  55. HOw long before the 1st antarctic drive-thru? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    I mean , 1600km is a LONG distance to drive without somewhere to pull in an have some yummy burger. And just think how all that tossed out old food will help keep the penguins fed in the cold winters. And how about a few Holiday Inns while they're at it? I mean who *really* wants to sleep in a Snowcat with a dozen other smelly outward bound types if you can have the luxury of dralon sheets and cable TV? Seriously , though , hasn't anyone noticed the sad irony of a road being drive through the last untainted wilderness on earth to serve scientists whose sole purpose is to measure the bad effects man is having on the enviroment? What the hell are they thinking??

  56. plow man?! by clarionhaze · · Score: 1

    I'd like to be the plow man for that road!

    --
    all i see are 1's and 0's
  57. Important Geek News element missing from story by Andy_R · · Score: 5, Informative

    The slashdot summary is oddly misleading, I think there would be a lot fewer 'wasted tax dollars' complaints if it was written this way round:

    Plane for One Kilometer Cube Neutrino Telescope Goes Ahead
    IceCube is a one-cubic-kilometer international high-energy neutrino observatory, located deep under the ice at the south pole, where the effects of the eath's magnetic fields will inferfere less with the observations.

    Because the cost of flying all the necessary materials in by air is prohibitive, $12m of the $204m budget will be spent on pushing some ice out of the way so that the components can travel overland.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    1. Re:Important Geek News element missing from story by NullProg · · Score: 1

      Good post, do you think any of the anti-American slashdotters will apologize for the exploitation remarks after reading it?

      What is even more misleading is that it costs more for VX-E6 (Pt Magu, CA), to fly back and forth every year in those C-130's than the 12 Million spent on this road.

      Here is the link for the telescope:
      http://www.wisconline.com/UWMadisonNew s/IceCube.ht ml

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    2. Re:Important Geek News element missing from story by Kallahar · · Score: 1

      cool! I can't wait!

      Travis

    3. Re:Important Geek News element missing from story by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      No we won't because we still hate you ;-)

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  58. did you read the article? by squibix · · Score: 1

    i think a highway costs somethign insane like $250,000 a foot for a 6 lane highway

    Insightful my ass. '[T]he National Science Foundation in Virginia... is funding the $12-million project.' This ain't an American Thru-way, it's a one-lane ice road. A highway.

    1. Re:did you read the article? by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 1

      i think the 12 million was for yearly clearing and cleanup

      i highly doubt the useless road will cost $12 million total... it's roughly 1000 miles, you guys aren't thinking just HOW FAR that is.

      --
      Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    2. Re:did you read the article? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I thought that too from the way the article was worded originally, but I think that is probably correct at $12m for the whole project. The majority of the snow is going to be fairly flat and smooth already. I would imagine that most of the work will be in the mountainous region and the occasional filling in of a crevice here and there.

  59. Pave the earth by hey · · Score: 1

    While they're at it why not pave the rest of the earth

  60. Anticipation... by GLowder · · Score: 1

    thehun is also making preparations, for the massive increase in traffic expected when access to pr0n finally arives for these lonely, stranded scientists.

    --
    I used to have a good sig...
  61. 30 days round trip? by Kojote · · Score: 1

    Who in thier right mind could sit cramed into a tractor or whatever for 30 days? Let alone in the middle of frozen hell, I forsee maddness setting in around the 7th day of the trip. But for all its worth I guess the maddness already set in before they came up with this idea in the first place eh?

    1. Re:30 days round trip? by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

      Dude. Seriously. What an interesting job. I wonder what type of Resume they are looking for for that position.

  62. Drive everywhere.. by alfadir · · Score: 1

    First the moon and now the south pole.
    Why does americans need to drive cars everywhere.. ?

  63. road trip by blingitybling · · Score: 1

    Now it's possible to run out of gas in south pole. Wow...How long till McDonalds opens up? Maybe worlds biggest snoball/snoman could be an attraction.

  64. Aw damn... by vsavatar · · Score: 1

    It's not going to be open to independent travellers! That sucks! Before I read the article I was about to ask for a couple weeks off to go on a really long road trip too.

    1. Re:Aw damn... by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I get the feeling that there won't be guard shacks every few miles to stop unwanted tourists. If you really wanted to do it, you could probably get away with it.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:Aw damn... by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      You couldn't get away with it.

      You'd first have to get a car to Antarctica.

      Then you'd have to get resources, at which point they'd find you there and you'd go home. Or you could skip the resources (fuel, food, shelter) and die.

  65. and it will end... by jmu1 · · Score: 1
    At the Mountains of Madness.

    Come on man! Read some Lovecraft before you go toying with reality! The Elders await...

  66. Sounds like an X-Files thing by westfirst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What do you be that there's something terribly secret down there that needs $250 million to develop. These weird "scientific explorations" are often just fascades for weird political operations. The Glomar Challenger, after all, was searching for Russian subs not manganese nodules or whatever the cover story said.

    1. Re:Sounds like an X-Files thing by calethix · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that too.. when the alien ship takes off, it's going to leave an awful big pot hole in the highway.

    2. Re:Sounds like an X-Files thing by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, that was the Glomar Explorer, Challenger's sister ship. And, proving that there is life after notoriety, both are now involved in deep-sea oil exploration..

    3. Re:Sounds like an X-Files thing by westfirst · · Score: 1

      both are now involved in deep-sea oil exploration..

      Wink...

  67. Re:this will be useful by isorox · · Score: 1

    no pavement?!? Where will the pedestrians walk?

  68. This is BAD by simong_oz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is bad, sad news. Antarctica is one of the last remaining great wilderness areas on the planet and they want to build a fucking highway? There must surely be other ways to accomplish this without impacting the environment so much?

    --
    "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
    1. Re:This is BAD by Luxury+P.+Yacht · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the article?

      Construction of the ice road involves clearing the route of snow, bulldozing rough ice and filling in crevasses

      Wow. Some snow gets pushed around. I think the arctic environment can handle that.

      Environmentalists appear relaxed about the scheme. The ice cap is a barren wilderness devoid of life.

      If the environmentalists haven't knotted their collective panties over this then why should you?

      --
      Bush should have died, not Reagan -- Morrissey
      Morrissey rides a cockhorse -- The Warlock Pinchers
    2. Re:This is BAD by simong_oz · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the article?

      Actually, yes I did. ...Wow. Some snow gets pushed around. I think the arctic environment can handle that.

      I accept that, but that's not the point. I'm sure the arctic environment can handle some snow being pushed around, but once you build a "highway" to the South Pole, what is that saying? I guess I just don't like the precedent this is setting.

      If the environmentalists haven't knotted their collective panties over this then why should you?

      Because I'm allowed to have an opinion?
      Because I happen to believe that there are some damn awesomely beautiful places in this world (Antarctica would definitely get on my list) that should be preserved simply because they exist.

      I'm no environmentalist, but Antarctica is a pretty special place.

      --
      "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
    3. Re:This is BAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously reading and comprehending are two different things. This isn't about putting in a 4-way highway so that tourists can drive to the south pole. This is about finding an alternate way to get supplies out to a scientific base that is already established at the South Pole. There is no vegetation or animals to be killed or damaged. It is actually better for the environment than flying planes back and forth.

      What is it that you expect will happen? Do you think that some company is going to put a factory down there to save money?

      Sometimes I think people like you just enjoy being outraged.

    4. Re:This is BAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Antarctica is so special, tell me about your last visit there?

      That's what I thought...until you start vacationing there, don't bitch about an itty bitty highway in the virtually unpopulated continent.

      Punk ass fool

    5. Re:This is BAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punk ass fool

      Ha! On first parse, this read more like a self-effacing sig than a witty parting shot.

      Love,
      Punk ass fool

  69. Who's footing the bill? by DMadCat · · Score: 1

    I just read an article that talks about the state of roads and bridges in Michigan. The article states, "Overall, the cost of repairing and maintaining southeast Michigan's roads, bridges, sewers, and water systems will exceed the money available to do the job by $60 billion" over the next quarter-century, the suburban alliance estimates. This is just in the State of Michigan alone. Maybe we should take care of our own country first before taking on a project like that? Oh, and who's footing the bill for this highway?

    1. Re:Who's footing the bill? by DMadCat · · Score: 1

      nevermind... I just RTFA...

  70. Re:this will be useful by Winterblink · · Score: 1

    Of course he didn't read the article, because if he had he would never have posted his idiotic opinion. It's also worth nothing, that other moron moderated his post to insightful obviously didn't read the article either. Where's that meta-moderator link...

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
  71. ..as the famous song says.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we're on the road to nowhere........"

  72. This is great for Linux! by bailout911 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now penguins can post to slashdot, but will we notice the difference?

    --
    --Stupid Sig Here--
  73. getting a head start... by acroyear · · Score: 1

    just think, in about 75 million years, Antarctica will have started moving away from the pole and headed back up north into warmer waters again. These guys are just getting a head start on the tourism trade with an early lead on Burger Kings and Gas Stations (McDonalds can't afford a new store right now). Heck, you can probably put a billboard on there for pennies a day! You won't get THAT price when the average temperature is 60deg again...

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
  74. This good be good by Moloch666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see this as being a good thing. For one I don't think this will lead to some kind of tourist attraction adding a bunch of vehicles and pollution. This is Antarctica we're talking about, nothing to see. The south pole is home to my interesting scientific experiments, whether it be astronomy related since the view into space from there I would imagine to be much clearer of radio signals and terrestrial light. They mentioned studying neutrinos and what little I know of this area, terrestrial radio noise plays a factor.

    It's not like they are going to be building a 6 lane highway. Probably won't be much than a gravel back road.

    --
    Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    1. Re:This good be good by ApheX · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ on the tourist thing. My sister and her husband both work for the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and are both currently stationed in Antarctica at this time. They are currently seeing quite a bit of tourist traffic, as much as 3 large boats a week of tourists, whom all want to take pictures and use the local Post Office (apparently people get a kick out of receiving mail with HRM on a stamp from Antarctica). Sadly some of these people take off and DO leave trash around, they have found penguins with plastic crap around their heads..etc. Also, keep in mind that each of these tourists that want to go to Antarctica have spent ~$10K for it. As it gets cheaper and cheaper more and more people will want to go down there. While there isn't much to see in the winter there (and much of its abandoned because of the temperatures/weather) when summer comes Antactica and its outlying islands have a lot to see.

      On the other hand, I am all for better connectivity down there. It is currently more reliable and quicker for my sister to get on the radio with a base on an outlying island and READ the email to me than it is to try and send anything out via satellite.

      --

      -
      aphex
      I Steal Music!
  75. rtfa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are not going to lay a highway, all they are going to do is smooth out some ice and snow and create a flat path without big snow drifts or crevases in the ice, also, the road is being funded by an american science institute so it would only make sense to go from mcmurdo to scott-admunson

  76. Not Fair!!!! by acherrington · · Score: 1

    Wait, they are laying a $250 million dollar fiber? Only the US would deploy fiber to the curb first to the South Pole.

    --


    Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
  77. Damn it missed a typo by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

    home to my interesting scientific experiments

    Should be...
    home to many interesting scientific experiments

    --
    Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
  78. bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i've been waiting for this road for a long time. we need a hardpack road to get the rickover reactors in place. we need the rickovers to melt the ice and run the pumps so that we can get down to bedrock. then, we can finally get the HE charges going and load all the rock into the grinders. gold gold gold!!! oh, and the rickovers will help us pump the cyanide water from the refinement process out too! yeeha! suck my grits hippie boy! i'll buy myself a nature preserve with the profits and post "KEEP OUT YOU HIPPIE FREAK" signs all around it!! woohoo!

  79. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminded me of the movie 'Evolutions' that I saw for the first time last night.

    Whenever the government(s) decide they need something now- it is done NOW. I mean, buildings, roads, weapons, you name it, it is done.
    But...whenever the government does a public work - not critical - they drag ass and feet on it until eventually, and over budget, the project is completed, and in need of repair.

    Imagine Hoover Dam..would it be done early and under budget if built in 2003? Nope.

    This road will be a huge money pit. As I recall, most of Antarctica is comprised of ice, snow and not rock and dirt. So...if things warm up, the road goes to shit, and the project is a waste. Stupid! Why not go for a light rail while they are at it? Why not build a few skyscrapers on the ice shelves, too?
    Spend the money on our economy, not Antarctica's- which at the moment, I am sure is below $1.

  80. What's next? by rnturn · · Score: 1, Funny

    A rest stop with a Stuckeys?

    I can see it now... ``Say that sign up ahead says `Exit 1A McMurdo' This is our turn. Better get into the right lane.''

    Or maybe ``Anyone got change for the tolls? Otherwise I have break a five.''

    (Oh you can tell it's Friday, eh?)

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  81. Re:this will be useful by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    $12 million for this Antarctic highway is an astronomically (heh) better investment than $45 billion or whatever it's supposed to be for a manned Mars mission.

  82. 3.33KPH???? by TechnoLust · · Score: 1

    You'd think they'd build a MAGLEV or other high speed train. I'd think it's great weather for superconductors down there. ;-)

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
  83. Re:this will be useful by MrLint · · Score: 1

    I know a guy who is a scientist who spends the 'summer' at the pole doing research. We have discussed this, Having a road will make it a lot cheaper and eaiser to supply/support the people down there. There is really a finite amount of time you can get things in by plane, the weather just doesn't permit it.

    The thing i still don't understand is that the glaciers there move and flow. The very best they canhope to accomplish is a standoff agsint the shifting landscape. But rember its very cold and quite *dry* down there. maintaing the roasd is gonna be intresting. as long as they dont put salt down on it ;)

  84. Re:rtfa ... rtft! by _shakib_ · · Score: 1

    rtft - the title of the article is "South Pole to Get Highway"

  85. Only Tractors??? by petepac · · Score: 1

    Convoys of tractors will be the only traffic on the road, bringing fuel and heavy equipment to the South Pole ...Until some race promoter comes up with the idea of the "Trans-Antarctic Rally 2XXX". Sounds like a good way to get funding for projects there.

    --
    >> Practice Safe Hex
  86. But which side to drive on? by AGMW · · Score: 1
    So, are the yanks going to enforce their minority ideas about driving on the wrong side of the road, or are they going to bow to the majority and drive on the left?

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
    1. Re:But which side to drive on? by Chaswell · · Score: 1

      I have been curious about this for a while. Does anyone have figures on the number of people that drive Yankee and those that drive British?

    2. Re:But which side to drive on? by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you are very wrong on this one. According to this site driving on the right side of the road is the majority both by population and by number of countries.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    3. Re:But which side to drive on? by AGMW · · Score: 1
      very wrong

      Blimey!

      OK ... hands up to that one! But I'd swear that China drove on the left? With China on not on the Dark Side, that'd make it kinda even then. Not so very wrong after all.

      Obviously not though I guess!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    4. Re:But which side to drive on? by XenonOfArcticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I was there (McMurdo) in '94/'95, the convention was to drive the 'American' way. Scott Base, a New Zealand facility, is right next to McMurdo, and shares a lot of its infrastructure: airstrips, ship docks, etc. I expect the American convention won out because the American station has a lot more vehicles than the Kiwis.

      I am curious about how they're going to lay fiber over the ice, and keep it intact. The ice does shift, and the conditions (wind and cold) are brutal.

      Currently all comms traffic leaves McMurdo for the unmanned earth station at Black Island, just to the southwest. (Black Island can see geosync birds over Mt Erebus, Erebus obscures the view from McMurdo itself.) The traffic to BI (telephony and data/internet) goes over a microwave link. When I was there we did helo and GPS surveys with NASA of areas closer to MacTown to try to find a place to build an earthstation that could be linked by fiber, for greater bandwidth. No one had yet figured out how to keep fiber alive atop shifting ice in those conditions.

      --
      -- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
    5. Re:But which side to drive on? by dhogaza · · Score: 1

      In Europe, at least, we have Napolean and Hitler to thank for this.

      For instance, Sweden didn't switch to driving on the right until the late 70s or early 80s. Why did they continue driving on the left while Norway had switched to driving on the right in the 1940s?

      Germany occupied Norway while Sweden managed to stay out of the War.

      New Scientist had a wonderful article about the whole left/right side driving issue many years ago. In France the switch took place after the French Revolution (why? figure it out yourself, with the following hint: it had to do with not wanting to appear wealthy).

      Then Napolean forcibly exported the habit to much of Europe, just as he exported the legal system developed in France while he ran the show.

    6. Re:But which side to drive on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mainland China drives on the right.
      HK drives on the left because of the Colonial occupation by Brits.

      Now shut the fuck up dick wad!

    7. Re:But which side to drive on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wondered... if you have two countries bordering each other... one drives on the right, the other on the left, what happens if a road continues from one country to the other. Is there an overpass to switch sides?

    8. Re:But which side to drive on? by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      No, there's a border checkpoint. The main switches are the PRC to Pakistan, and Pakistan to Afganistan. Obviously, you can't just drive right through either one of those borders, you have to stop for inspection. So switching sides of the road when you pull out of the checkpoint is trivial.

      However, there are individual roads within a given country where convention is reversed (apparently there's a highway in Canada with exits in the middle, and one in the US with a giant canyon in the middle), and for those there are overpasses.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    9. Re:But which side to drive on? by dastrike · · Score: 1

      Sweden switched over to right-hand traffic on 1967-09-03.
      Despite that 82.9% said no in the referendum about it in October 1955.

      --
      while true; do eject; eject -t; done
    10. Re:But which side to drive on? by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Now shut the fuck up dick wad!

      Read a lot of Wilde do you?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  87. Re:Watch Out Chile! (CIA in chile) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, why bomb Antarctica? When you can just send in the CIA to destroy the democratically elected Chilean government.. SEE: this news article

    Oh, that's right, Allende was a democratically elected _socialist_ president. Better dead then red, and if they try to take our ice, well, they know what to expect..

  88. Fiber Optic Cable?? by Parsa · · Score: 1

    The south pole, one of the most remote places in the world is getting a fiber optic connection? I live out in the country and the best I can hope for is a 32kbps connection on my v.92 modem. I always read about last mile possibilities but why are they tested in places that aren't last mile? J

    --
    Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
  89. No, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're actually searching for the second Earth stargate.

    They're pointedly attempting to avoid waking the Elders!

  90. And on a related note: by vought · · Score: 2, Funny
    The Antarctic City Council has just announced that Segway personal transporters will be banned from using the new road.

    Film at 11.

  91. Should be using RF transmission by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    I wonder why they decided to go with a physical cable, instead of RF transmission with repeaters?

    Using a cable in this situation has many inherent problems, not the least of which is the strain put on the cable as the ice moves under it. Using RF towers would eliminate that problem. Why would they choose to do it this way? Politics? Ice storms?

    1. Re:Should be using RF transmission by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Maybe RF towers need electricity? You can't use solar power when the night lasts all winter.

    2. Re:Should be using RF transmission by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And how would you power the RF towers?

      If you lay power lines, you might as well run fiber.

      As for local generation, there's not enough sunlight for solar ~6 months of the year (and somebody would have to regularly clear off the panels), diesel/gas engines don't work well in temperatures that cold, and I don't know about the wind situation. It's just cheaper to run a shielded cable containing everything you need alongside the path they're bulldozing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Should be using RF transmission by RayBender · · Score: 1
      RTGs!

      Radioisotope thermal generators - a favorite of the space program. The Soviets apparently used them for navigation buoys and similar...

      Just imagine the reaction from people who object to bulldozing ice when you mention RTGs.. :)

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    4. Re:Should be using RF transmission by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      Maybe RF towers need electricity? You can't use solar power when the night lasts all winter.I think it's more to the point that RF sucks in bad weather. We use RF and microwave on the Pipeline, did for decades. Few years ago, we installed fibre optics -- it's just more reliable.

      But the lack of electricity wouldn't be a problem for repeaters. Lots of little generation systems out there for that purpose. On the Pipeline, they use little propane fired hydro-turbine generators, siebeck effect generators, etcetera.... No solar required.

  92. Great by peterpi · · Score: 1

    So, will there be a McDonalds?

  93. Of course it's the US by asscroft · · Score: 2, Funny

    PAVE THE PLANET

    Fucking bullshit. You call this progress?

    Somedays I'm ashamed to be human.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:Of course it's the US by MullerMn · · Score: 1

      I'm ashamed that you're human too.

    2. Re:Of course it's the US by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Isn't antarctica non-US territory? Wasn't there an agreement not to exploit the ressources from anarctica? Wasn't this for protection of the environment? Then, wtf do the U.S. want to build a road here?

      It'll take not too long until this road will be used commercially, although they deny it now. :-(

    3. Re:Of course it's the US by gwizah · · Score: 1

      RTFA dipshit.

      They ARE NOT PAVING ANYTHING. It's just ice and snow and nobody cares since the only godammned thing that lives out there is tiny worms in ice cracks.

      Go back to your greenpeace meeting asshole.

      --

      There is no spork.
    4. Re:Of course it's the US by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, The "Let's Roll" Story...We know better, but we choose to believe.

      You don't believe the "Let's roll" story either?

    5. Re:Of course it's the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see the "Let's roll" story on Slashdot?

  94. You laugh now... by westies-from-hell · · Score: 1

    ...but wait until global warming makes Antartica the only comfortable place to live! Then that highway will look like the 405 at 4pm on a weekday....

    --
    "Just because you're a genius doesn't make you a smart guy!" -- Narrator, Powerpuff Girls
  95. Comic about similar highway trough the North Pole by P�l@Paris · · Score: 1

    A very nice comic takes place in a similar highway across the North Pole (Gipsy by Marini) :

    The C3C : The Cirumpolar 3-Continental.
    While the northern hemisphere, undergoing a small ice age, was stating its most northern regions getting colder every year, the south hemisphere was facing the terrible consequences of a huge whole southern of the ozone layer.

    Governments had to resign themselves to limitating strongly the world air traffic, fearing that entire populations would be decimated by skin cancer. In this context of great climatic and environmental anxiety that was born the Circumpolar 3-Continental (C3C), an immense highway able to serve all 3 continents - Eurasia, Africa and America - and to replace air freight by road freight.

    The C3C bypasses the arctic ocean and joins Paris to New York, via terrestrian road with connexions to Beijing and Rio of Janeiro. The three transsiberian branches of the Highway join in Zigansk, on the polar circle, in the heart of Siberia, left to anarchy and hunger for more than ten years.

    Look here for some images

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient& ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=c3C+gipsy

    My 2 cents...

  96. NB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "pavement" means the actual road surface in the USA.

    "pavement" means the sidewalk (where pedestrians walk) in the UK

  97. Sweet Plug! by squaretorus · · Score: 1

    Who says advertisements cant be +4, Informative???

  98. I remember by tetranz · · Score: 1

    A long time ago I knew someone who spent a winter at Scott Base which is the New Zealand base close to the US base at McMurdo. A funny thing he told me was that the biggest machine the americans had there was a diesel powered ice making machine for the bar.

    He also commented on how Scott Base was kept at 40 something deg F inside. People soon acclimatised to it. McMurdo was about 80F.

  99. Great Oppertunity by MikeyO · · Score: 1

    Awesome!! Now we have somewhere new to build more strip malls!!!

  100. Is it feasible? by zanderredux · · Score: 1

    Does not ice move around? If so, how can a road withstand such movements? Snowmobiles arent a better way for moving around instead of cars? Why? Why? Why?

    1. Re:Is it feasible? by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      1. Ice doesn't move around when it's frozen to the ground. Ice roads are NOT, NOT, NOT(!) NEW TECHNOLOGY! They're standard in the Arctic. The only cool thing about this one is the length of it.

      2. Snowmachines are not friendly when it's -60 to -80 with 80mph winds. People tend to die from exposure longer than a few minutes.

  101. one word by Anaplexian · · Score: 1

    Cool!

  102. Zamboni! by BMonger · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much the average Zamboni driver would get paid to drive down to the south pole and back to flatten out the ice road...

  103. 262 mil for a network? by peter_hagemeyer · · Score: 1

    That's a lotta clams to connect to the net. I wonder how many contractors they had bid for the job? For 5 mil and a few geeks I'd expect to see a 802.11.x connection to span the globe, encode packets on laser, or do something fantastically cool, heh and also be reasonably priced. No wonder our economy is in the toilet. IMHO $262 million could be spent much more wisely. But just think of all the new jobs it'll generate for ice road construction engineers!

  104. No, satellites would be very inconvenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can't park a geosynchronous satellite over the South Pole. Geosynchronous orbits are physically possible only over roughly equatorial sites.

    All major communications satellites (other than Iridium & it's cousins) are geosynchronous. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, go out and look at some satellite dishes... they all point roughly south, to points over the equator. From the Southern Hemisphere, they all point north.

    By the way, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bash NASA, because you don't seem to know shit about space. Where geosynchronous satellites are parked is one of the first things anybody learns about spacecraft. Your comment indicates that you are completely uneducated about space exploration, and only know the most trivial things from CNN and Slashdot headlines. So, I don't think that you are qualified to evaluate whether NASA has been effectively spending money or not.

  105. Why did the penguin cross the road? by Luxury+P.+Yacht · · Score: 1

    Sorry, no punch line. I just like being able to ask that question now.

    --
    Bush should have died, not Reagan -- Morrissey
    Morrissey rides a cockhorse -- The Warlock Pinchers
  106. Yes, war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things went really well last time Argentina went to war due to an international territorial dispute.

    1. Re:Yes, war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they didn't build their hulls out of magnesium like a certain opponent did. Ever seen a metal hull on fire? Very pretty.

  107. Wow...useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I live in Canada and have spent time way up north in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. Now there are actual people living there, working, etc, (close to 100,000 in all of Nunavut) and there are no roads in/out of there.

    A plane ticket from Winnipeg to Rankin Inlet is $1400 at the least (as compared with a ticket from Winnipeg to Vancouver - same distance - $99 most days). This is BECAUSE there are no roads, and flying is the only way to get there.

    If I was American, I would wholeheartedly oppose this utter waste of taxpayer's money.

    PS: I'm not a coward, I just don't feel like registering ;)

  108. I can just see the signs... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    Bridge ices before... aw heck...

  109. Roadside features? by LAI · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, and how long until the first Starbucks shows up on the transantarctic?

    "Okay, I'll have an iced cappuccino, an iced tea and an iced iced mocha..."

    --
    :eof
  110. "have to dig hundreds of feet to do that" by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    Several kilometers in places, actually. Not to mention most of the road is actually on the Ross Ice Shelf, which floats on the ocean. I doubt they'd want to dig through that.

  111. Not Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The link to the fiber article says,

    It would run from the South Pole to Concordia, a permanently-manned French station in a region called Dome C.

    That's not the same direction as this traverse.

  112. Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will make it MUCH easier for scientists, CIA agents, etc., to get to and from the immense alien spaceship buried there.

  113. Oh, come on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather annex Saudi Arabia and take their oil than try to hunt for it under a mile or two of ice. :) Even if exploration is successful, drilling and transportion would probably be prohibitively expensive. (The problems would be very differnt from those faced by drilling in Alaska or off shore.)

    If oil is detect in one of the rare ice-less parts of Antarctica, it might be much easier to exploit.

    (As far as I can tell, though, noone is trying to get oil from there, and the Antartica treaty is holding well.)

    1. Re:Oh, come on. by spiro_killglance · · Score: 1

      Thats the mistake all the anti war on iraq people
      make. Theres no need to take a country over for the oil. If they drill the oil and sell it to us, then we make stuff and sell it them, then we are
      just as well off as if we owned the oil in the
      first place. Thats economics. Of course you do
      have to be good at making something useful or wanted for it to work.

  114. Ironically... by BTWR · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    2 things...

    First off, snowmobiles are among the HIGHEST vehicle poluters on the market, so an SUV would be an IMPROVEMENT.

    Second, Antarctica is one of the very-useful and practical places where an SUV really would come in handy. Seriously, you expect someone to cross that area in a Camry? It's not likely they'd drive a Naviagator down there, and more likely they'd have a Dodge pickup truck or something.

  115. Just keep an eye out for ice!

  116. Here it comes... by ksph2 · · Score: 1

    ... another addition to George W(anker) Bush's new growing American Reich, whoops I mean Empire, whoops I mean... Oh fsck it.

  117. What's Really Sad by istartedi · · Score: 1

    What's really sad is that the South Pole will get a new highway and broadband before I get broadband, and before the Springfield Interchange is finished.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  118. Allright!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can visit Santa Clauses Evil Twin Brother, and get my evil gifts for all my pernicious evil schemes *Dr. Evil Laugh* Mwa hahaahaha...Mwahhaaaaaaaa..mwahhaaa...*/Dr. Evil Laugh*

  119. Ownership by InadequateCamel · · Score: 1

    Who owns the South Pole? Anyone? Or is the continent divided into a number of colonial regions?

    But of all the places to build a highway...who is going to clear/maintain it? I imagine there is a little bit of blowing snow at the South Pole, and I for one would not want to drive in zero visibility on a friggin iceberg.

    Ahh, the researchers are just getting all pissy because they have too high a ping to join in on the really good CT action:

    "Guard the door!"
    "With what?"
    "Your sniper rifle!"
    "MY PING IS 14,275! I can walk faster than that!"
    "Get Washington on the phone..."

    (Pardon me if this has been asked already)

  120. Re:this will be useful by smithmc · · Score: 1

    no pavement?!? Where will the pedestrians walk?

    Given that the road trains will be going something like 5 mph, I think the pedestrians would have plenty of time to get out of the way.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  121. This is about research, nothing else by NullProg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Antarctica is jointly managed by several countries. The purpose of this "road" is to move scientific equipment to the research station that cannot be moved by C-130. See the below links, we are building a telescope.

    The cost of any commercial interest in antartica would far exceed the gain. Why on earth would the USA dig for coal, minerals, etc. at the south pole when we can get it cheaper elsewhere?

    See:
    http://www.wisconline.com/UWMadisonNews/IceCube.ht ml
    or
    http://icecube.wisc.edu/

    Brought to you by the following countries:
    USA, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Sweden.

    Flame if you must,
    Enjoy.

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.
    1. Re:This is about research, nothing else by skwang · · Score: 1

      I have been told the US maintains a permanent presence at the South Pole for specifically that reason. Basically, although no country owns Antarctica, the resources there are free for grabs. Although inconceivable due to the expense, the US wants to maintain their claims on the resources in Antarctica, and the only way to do this is to have a permanent human presence.

      As a result the US, though the NSF, funds lots of scientific experiments at the pole. Some examples besides Ice Cube are:

      • DASI-Degree Angular Scale Interferometer
      • BOOMERANG-Balloon Observations Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation ANd Geophysics
      • TopHat

      (Note: BOOMERANG and TopHat are balloon experiments which are not located at the south pole, but are funded by NSF in Antarctica)

      Basically the pole is really good for cosmic background radiation (CMB) studies because the atmosphere is incredibly stable. This allows telescopes like DASI and balloons like BOOMERANG and TopHat to observe the sky without much atmospheric interference. IceCube involves drilling a hole in the ice and lowering a string of photomultiplier tubes(PMTs) down into the hole. After adding water, which freezes into very clear ice, the PMTs will look for neutrino interactions within the ice.

      So I've gotten a little off topic so I'll conclude by saying that if such a road could be built, it would greatly increase the capacity of the good that can be shipped down. Currently only C-130's equipped with skis and land at the pole, which is so dangerous that there is one fatal accident every year. Also the limit on the weight of the equipment that can be brought down is only about 25 tons; I seem to remember this number for some reason. So any increase in cargo capacity to the south pole would be welcome.

    2. Re:This is about research, nothing else by NullProg · · Score: 1

      Where are you from? I read spanish, and some (little/few) german and french. Write in your native language if you have to.

      The US, UK, Russia, etc. would have something to say about any company exploiting the South Pole. No one country could grab anything. Where is your proof? Is your statement just another anti-american belief because you don't like us?

      I hope to hear back from you.
      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  122. More Development, More People, More Trash... by Modern+Hamlet · · Score: 2, Informative

    Given that there are very strict rules for handling human impact in Antarctica, isn't this road, which will draw even more tourists and researchers, cause a real logistical nightmare? It's hard enough to haul the trash generated from shore, but if you start carrying truckloads of junk to the pole itself... you have to truck it out too. That's the trash collection job to end all trash collection jobs. From the McMurdo Station website for incoming Antarctic visitors:

    WASTE MANAGEMENT
    In 1990, McMurdo Station developed and implemented its first formal recycling program. Since then, Waste Management has continuously upgraded the program to maximize recycling efforts. During the 1993-94 season, the USAP recycled 70% of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The program stands as a model for other communities and is a point of pride for the USAP community.

    Except for human waste, all waste generated by the USAP is removed from Antarctica and returned to the United States for disposal. Because of strict Federal and State regulations on this process, it is crucial that waste be handled effectively.

    The key to McMurdo's recycling program is careful source segregation: as careless separation of waste in McMurdo can result in material being unfit for recycling, it is everyone's responsibility to separate waste effectively. You will be briefed on the details of McMurdo's recycling program. Please be sure you gain a thorough understanding of your part in the recycling process; make sure your questions are answered. With a little practice, you'll find the separation of waste materials into a myriad of containers will become second nature--a process you expect to continue when you return to the world.

  123. Great! but what's the speed limit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and who gets to enforce it? - AHP (Antarctic Highway Patrol)?

  124. Sort of like... by incom · · Score: 1

    what happened in "Antarctica" by Kim Stanley Robinson.

    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  125. Penguin mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now the penguins can send email and download penguin porn.

  126. zamboni by MentlFlos · · Score: 1

    I call dibs on driving the the zamboni! (sp?)

  127. See this? He's asking for it... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    See? Some people do ask to be slashdotted!

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  128. snow in Antarctica by squibix · · Score: 2, Informative

    Antarctica is actually a desert, with little annual accumulation.

    That's certainly true of the South Pole area itself, but from what I've read the edges of the continent get more than their fair share of snow. Reading the account of the Ross Sea party in Shackleton's book it certainly seemed like it snows there all the time!

    But you're right, I find, that the problem at the South Pole station isn't new snow falling; it's the drifts of existing snow that buried the dome.

  129. Mulder was right! The fix is in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap - this is obviously all a cover for the gigantic base they are *really* building to cooperate with the new round of aliens in preparation for the takeover of all human life forms in 2012...it's all true, the fake moon landing, "Signs", the William Shatner interview, quick, run for the hills folks!

  130. Re:this will be useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is really a finite amount of time you can get things in by plane, the weather just doesn't permit it

    So with this road, they'll have infinite time?!?!

  131. So now they can play even more Quake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A road so they can order pizza and mountain dew at thier all night (that would be what, 6 months in antartica) lan party! A nice fat $250m pipe to the net for excellent ping times. The ultmiate LPB on your tax dollars.

    Honestly what else could you do besides a lan party down there, scoop up penguin shit?

  132. Re:rtfa ... rtft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Slashdot titles are always accurate representation of the facts contained within the article. Sometimes I think it is better to ignore everything it says and just to find the link and click on it. The summaries are 65% innaccurate and 34% Flamebait. The last 1% is just typos.

  133. ice highway! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case this wasn't clear this is an ice highway no concrete or other materials will be used.

  134. I wanna move to Antartica by 2057 · · Score: 1

    imagine how nicely you could Over Clock a pc in the temps of the south pole, all they need is an Wal-mart and im there!

    --
    For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
  135. But then it's stupid... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The WHOLE POINT of putting a scientific base in the south pole is to access data you only find in remote places that are not affected by human activity (fresh ice that "keeps samples" of the earth's atmosphere in the air bubbles, etc etc). So if they start to trash the south pole with a road, heavy machinery (diesel engines) to build it and more supplies for the scientists to consume, then the whole point of the camp disappears. Otherwise, well, they'd just have set it up in New Jersey or something... But well; I guess they have a point with this fiber-optic internet connection stuff there: more porn for those solitary, frustrated south-pole-scientists! Yay!

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  136. Knee-jerk environmentalism, anyone? by Richard+Mills · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, if you had actually bothered to read the article, you'd see that they're not so much building what we would think of as a "road", just flattening out some ice, filling some crevasses, etc. The environmental impact of this is nil... even environmentalist groups familiar with the plan think so.

    Of course, I really can't blame you, given the ridiculous headline about a "highway" being constructed.

    1. Re:Knee-jerk environmentalism, anyone? by dubstop · · Score: 1

      I did bother to read the article.

      I don't happen to think that just because a place is 'devoid of life' it is not worth preserving. The simple fact is, that one of the last unviolated areas of the planet is going to be violated so that massive machines, pumping diesel fumes into a previously preserved environment, can transport large amounts of equipment and supplies to an area that itself, until this 'highway' was conceived, was relatively safe from violation.

      Basically, I think that scientists and engineers have a duty to ask of themselves, and each other, 'is this necessary?'. Maybe, and that's a very slim maybe, it is desirable, but I have no doubt that this fails the 'necessary' test.

      I'm not a knee-jerk environmentalist, I would just like a little bit of the planet left intact for my children to wonder at.

    2. Re:Knee-jerk environmentalism, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple fact is, that one of the last unviolated areas of the planet is going to be violated so that massive machines, pumping diesel fumes into a previously preserved environment, can transport large amounts of equipment and supplies to an area that itself, until this 'highway' was conceived, was relatively safe from violation.

      Great...can't wait to drive my gas guzzling SUV there.

    3. Re:Knee-jerk environmentalism, anyone? by dubstop · · Score: 1

      LOL!

    4. Re:Knee-jerk environmentalism, anyone? by Richard+Mills · · Score: 1

      I'm a nature enthusiast and a conservationist, and I agree wholeheartedly that areas devoid of life are worth preserving. Some of my favorite places on earth are alpine mountain summits, and there's certainly not much alive up there. But, honestly, the environmental impact of the proposed activities is just incredibly small. You must have some incredibly stringent standards for determining if something "violates" an area.

  137. When did they finish the bridge? by xmuskrat · · Score: 1

    I had no idea...

    --
    activestudios web design
  138. What we really need... by Dimwit · · Score: 1

    ...is $250M in crucifixes to surround the South Pole and contain that blight on the world - Anti-Santa!

    --
    ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
  139. one bad thing leads to another... by petsounds · · Score: 1
    Why is it that we have to encroach upon and destroy every piece of pristine land we come across?

    I don't think that "science" is an overriding reason to destroy one of the Earth's last untampered ecosystems. Sure, it's only a highway, but a constant stream of bulldozers can certainly disrupt that region's fragile ecosystem. And once we build a highway, what is next? Hotels? Restaurants? Casinos? We should leave well enough alone, before there are no reminders left of what we have lost in the name of technology and progress.

    1. Re:one bad thing leads to another... by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      And once we build a highway, what is next? Hotels? Restaurants? Casinos?

      Whine, whine, whine. We built roads here in Alaska, people said the same thing would happen. We have so little tourism of the Arctic, even with the one *real* road that runs there (Dalton Hwy). The Starbucks and Casinos, the McDonalds, etc., all show up where there are people. And few people go to inclimate places for fun (Ironically, most of our arctic tourism is from eco-fascists wanting to say they saw the "pristine environment")

    2. Re:one bad thing leads to another... by petsounds · · Score: 1
      Alaska is not the same as the Antarctic. The former is largely protected under U.S. environmental laws (although the Bush administration and the oil interests are dying to change that), while the latter is pretty much open territory that anyone can exploit.

      I don't necessarily think that it's going to become a resort area, but I do think that this big science project sets a precedent for further inhabitation by scientists in the Antarctic, and therefore the possibility of environmental contamination and adverse impact to the ecosystem.

    3. Re:one bad thing leads to another... by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      Adverse impact on the ecosystem? In Antarctica?! You do realize that "eco" means "life," right? That "ecosystem" and "environment" do not mean the same thing, right?

      But to the point of protection, Antarctica is protected by international treaty against development for any other purpose other than scientific research. It is not open to commercial development, and one freakin' ice road is not going to do anything but make hauling supplies for research a little easier.

    4. Re:one bad thing leads to another... by petsounds · · Score: 1

      You mean this ecosystem doesn't exist? Granted, there are no permanent land creatures there, but waste products, chemical runoff etc., can impact the marine ecosystem. It is more than "one freakin' ice road," as the road is only one facet of the high neutrino observatory project. This permanent presence will give a green light for other permanent observatories, which was my original point.

  140. The Punchline by Kalak · · Score: 1

    Love the article's ending:

    "And the road is unlikely to *pave* the way to exploitation of Antarctic natural resources, as this is banned under the Antarctic Treaty until 2041."

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  141. Re:262 mil for a network? by Alyeska · · Score: 1

    Costs are probably higher in Antarctica, but in Alaska the average ice road costs about $40K/mile.

  142. You forgot Chile, and other countries. by locoluis · · Score: 1

    Chile has Capitan Arturo Prat, General Bernardo O'Higgins, Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, and Profesor Julio Escudero as winter bases.

    We also have Las Estrellas Village, complete with a School and other services.

    List of winter bases in Antarctica, per country (sorry, country names are in Spanish, help yourself)

    And many countries have summer bases too, which aren't listed.

  143. Is it a ... by Shant3030 · · Score: 1

    Highway to Hell??

    Go ahead, mod me down...

    --
    100% Insightful
  144. Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [snip]
    Once completed the road is likely to become a permanent fixture
    [snip]

    Two words: Global Warming

    [snip]
    And the road is unlikely to pave the way to exploitation of Antarctic natural resources, as this is banned under the Antarctic Treaty until 2041
    [snip]

    The day equipment is moved to the Antarctic to drill for resources is the day I become an eco-activist.

    Anonymous
    (can anyone truely say that these days?)

    1. Re:Global Warming by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      The day equipment is moved to the Antarctic to drill for resources is the day I become an eco-activist.

      I'm with you there, bud. I mean, why drill in the middle of freakin' nowhere, where the environment is so inhospitable, when you could drill in, say, St. Louis. or maybe Denver. Some nice populated area....

  145. The Perfect McDonalds! by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    So, you open a McD's franchise at the South Pole once the new "highway" is done and the tourists start rolling in.

    "What a wise investment," you think to yourself. "Not only do I get all the usual perks of running a McDonalds... but I can use the old grease as a building material!"

  146. New Zealand road by oob · · Score: 1

    The road is entirely inside New Zealand territory, which makes it New Zeland property and of course it's creation must come with New Zealand approval.
    Given New Zealand's extreme commitment to protecting the environment, this road must have a very low environmental impact, or has the Kiwi government been induced to look the other way?

  147. wimps! by dbrower · · Score: 1
    taking the easy Shackleton/Scott route again. I'd be impressed if they ran it over the Amundsen route.

    --
    "It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
  148. YOUR ANTI-AMERICANISM IS SICKENING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  149. Penguin road kill by CLorox · · Score: 1

    In other news, the first penguin road kill cases have been reported at mile markers 1-300. Whoops splat.

    Guess its better than a moose.

  150. Let's get this right ... by infradead · · Score: 1

    I recently started working at a .gov establishment where this has been discussed *only* in response to numerous press queries recently (the place I'm working at is actively engaged in research in the Antarctic). The "highway" under discussion is the same as the ice runways built to land aircraft -- which means we're not talking 3 lanes each way, complete with asphalt and McDonalds. It's a way to get equipment to the pole without necessarily needing expensive aircraft. It doesn't even deserve to be called a highway, it's just a smooth piece of ice and it may not even be constructed.

  151. It's an unexplored continent. by sandgroper · · Score: 1

    It has not been covered in ice throughout geologic time.

    It's virtually certain there are sedimentary basins for hydrocarbons, and "hard rocks" for metals.

    All of this is from geo 1 level knowledge. I have not personally worked on Antarctica, although many geologists have, and their publications should be in the open literature.

    If it weren't for the treaty, IMHO, there would already be operating oil fields on or offshore Antarctica.

    (And slashdotters are worried about a buldozed ice road doing things to the environment?)

  152. Philly Public Transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's the public transporation infrastructure in Philadelphia area? Don't they have commuter rail lines? I've seen pictures of the streetcars (I mean trolleys -- I mean light rail!) in the city, there must be something for the poor suburban troglodytes!

  153. Ice Cube project by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  154. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Betcha the environmentalists are going to shit a brick. Of course, someone ought to make sure they clean up after the environmentalists do that sort of thing.

  155. Screw Iraq, let's take over Antartica! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Everyone whose seen Batman knows that the Penguins are dangerous! Bring out the Stealth bombers. Fire! Bomb! Pillage! Let Loose the Hounds of WAR!

    --
    This is my sig.
  156. wouldn't it be cheaper? by fore1337 · · Score: 1

    wouldn't it be cheaper to launch a satellite, or com derigible, microwave tower etc.?

  157. Necessary to whom? by LinuxGeek · · Score: 1
    Your 'is this necessary' question is without context. Given more information about the intended purpose:
    An initial purpose for the highway will be to help lay a $250-million fibre-optic cable to the Scott-Amundsen base. The cable, which should be completed within five years, will revolutionise communications at the Pole.

    Then, yes, the road is necessary. If you understand the research and observations that take place there, then you know that very useful environmental research is part of what they do. If you want to learn more, then try the links here , here, here, here and here.

    Your question actually prompted me to find out more about the south pole research. Thanks!
    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
  158. which side of the road though? by Giraldus · · Score: 1


    nobody mentioned the really crucial point of this
    issue: on which side of the road will these lorries
    be driving? I believe there is already some kind
    of road between the British and US bases there and
    the issue never was agreed upon...

  159. damn... by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

    I mean, I thought we had it bad around here for getting potholes fixed before, now the South Pole highway will probably take priority over us too!

  160. reason? by LittleBigLui · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Probably so the Death + X copyright limit just re-starts, innit?

    --
    Free as in mason.
  161. Great! by fmouse · · Score: 1

    Wonderful! Now we can have an Anticlaus theme park at the South Pole. Anticlaus - you know. This is the SOUTH pole we're talking about, isn't it?

    --
    "Everything works if you let it" - The Flying Mouse
  162. NOOOO by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1
    Please god no is nothing sacred?


    what's the motivation for building this, it must cost a phenomenal amount? What's the benefit to the military of building this?

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
  163. No news here... by dargaud · · Score: 1

    THe americans will only start doing what the russians have been doing for 40 years to reach Vostok (I have a picture here showing the route itself), and what the french have been doing for 13 years to reach Dome C / Concordia.
    The only difference is that until now the americans were rich enough to carry everything by plane and new experiments like the IceCube will require much more weight. Other countries not as rich have much more experience doing those 'traverses'. The term ice route is misleading, as other posters have pointed out. The route is nothing more than a list of GPS waypoint for reuse every year (it's easier to use the same track every year as the terrain is fairly soft outside of them).

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?