Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×


FP (-1, Troll)

Metrollica (552191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926234)

And I am logged in too!

Re:FP (-1, Flamebait)

AssNose (551820) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926253)


Hidden goatse disscussions on slashdot? []

Re:FP (-1)

returnofthe_spork (552824) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926327)

Congrats on that excellent FP!

This troll is for Cathy Rogers. I'll only watch this show if she hosts.

Posting in case the GWB admin hides this nasty bit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926410)

While the White House insists that details of its talks with Enron officials remain secret, a memo outlining those discussions reveals the extent to which the Houston energy giant lobbied to influence government policy.

The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Chronicle, was handed by former Enron Chairman Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney last April when the two met to discuss the administration's response to California's energy crisis.

The White House acknowledged last night that aspects of the memo resembled elements of Cheney's energy plan, but it refused to say whether the document was included in notes that Cheney now refuses to divulge to congressional investigators.

The General Accounting Office is threatening to sue the administration if it doesn't disclose details of its talks with Enron officials.

The three-page document contains eight points spelling out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing price caps or other measures sought by California officials to stabilize runaway electricity prices.

A number of the positions in the memo subsequently made it into Cheney's energy plan or were reflected in comments by senior administration officials.

"Events in California and in other parts of the country demonstrated that the benefits of competition have yet to be realized and have not yet reached consumers," the memo argues.

"The following actions need to be taken," it continues, outlining positions on a series of matters. Some of the topics, such as equal access to transmission grids and interconnection of power networks, are largely technical in nature.


The key point as far as California was concerned was whether soaring wholesale power prices should be limited or whether such prices were merely a reflection of normal supply-and-demand dynamics.

"The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power," the memo says.

It adds that even temporary price restrictions "will be detrimental to power markets and will discourage private investment."

The memo blames California officials for having made only "limited progress" in tackling the state's power woes. It says that if the administration were to follow all of Enron's recommendations, the measures "would mitigate this crisis."

An Enron spokesman confirmed that the memo had been given by Lay to Cheney during their one-on-one talks.

Mary Matalin, an adviser to the vice president, said Cheney's energy plan included input from many sources. "Just because some of the things (in the memo) are included in the plan doesn't mean they were from the talks" between Cheney and Lay, she said.


Still, as far as price caps go, the administration was quick to fall into lockstep with Enron's opposition to any federal regulatory moves. "We think that's a mistake," Cheney said just weeks after his meeting with Lay.

Nevertheless, federal regulators finally imposed price limits in June based on the cost of the least-efficient, and thus most expensive, generating plant. Democrats in Washington had threatened to act on their own if the regulators did not come up with a remedy for California's troubles.

Cheney also echoed Enron's position on the culpability of California's leaders in exacerbating the state's energy problems.

"When the problem became obvious last year, over a year ago, they didn't respond," he said in May.

Noting that California had experienced rolling blackouts and the bankruptcy of its biggest utility, he also said, "I don't think that's a sterling record of leadership, I would guess, on their part."


To be sure, Cheney, Lay and President Bush, as well as other industry players, shared a belief in deregulation well before the lights went out in California. But the memo underscores the broad kinship between Enron and the administration in drafting official policy.

Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said it came as no surprise that Enron had substantial clout in formation of the Bush administration's stance on California's difficulties.

"What the federal government did during the energy crisis was pretend that the problem didn't exist and say that the markets can solve everything, and that's the same thing Ken Lay told the governor," Maviglio said.

He added that "the administration was espousing what Enron was espousing -- that the markets should fix themselves."

Whatever else, it's extraordinary for a private company, particularly one accused by California officials of having gouged the state with wildly inflated energy prices, to have played such a prominent role in the White House's response to the crisis.


"If the administration was allowing Enron to guide its policy during the California energy crisis, consumers should be outraged," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union in Austin, Texas.

"It's not unusual for a company to hand policymakers their ideas for what should be done," she added. "Things break down when policymakers refuse to admit that they used what was brought to them by industry."

Cheney's argument, as he told an interviewer Sunday, is that revealing details of his talks with Enron would undermine "the ability of the president and the vice president to solicit advice from anybody they want in confidence."

Bush echoed this sentiment a day later, saying that confidential talks are necessary to "get good, sound opinions." He reiterated that stance yesterday in a meeting with congressional leaders.

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group, called it laughable for the administration to cast its secrecy as a defense of high-minded principle.

"All they're fighting for is to keep the wraps on how much clout Enron had over Dick Cheney's energy plan," he said.

Speaking of George W. Bush (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926425)

How much longer can we tolerate George W Bush's ignominious pranks before the whole country collectively throws up? What exactly is Bush trying to hide? And where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that Bush is blinded by greed? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to hold Bush responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. Here's a quick review: Bush's materialistic conclusions represent heaven as hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise. Bush then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
There is an implicit assumption here that I could go on in this same vein for hours. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples. What is his current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:
to keep us hypnotized so we don't reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his rantings,
to create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats, and
to jawbone aimlessly.
One could truthfully say that failure to define our terms more clearly will lead to a deluge of complaints by Bush's sycophants. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he is entirely mistaken if he believes that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Bush is mongering. We need to drive off and disperse the unpatriotic yobbos who increase people's stress and aggression.
It will be objected, to be sure, that he doesn't honestly want to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of self-indulgent sybarites. At first glance, this may seem to be true, but when you think about it further, you'll sincerely conclude that he needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that even his lieutenants are afraid that he will marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion as soon as our backs are turned. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Bush has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. His expositors probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, Bush argues that the laws of nature don't apply to him. To maintain this thesis, Bush naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. More concretely, of all of Bush's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Racism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong.
While these incidents may seem minor, if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. If the only way to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Bush because they saw no other options for change is for me to leave the country, then so be it. It would indisputably be worth it, because we can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to arraign him at the tribunal of public opinion. Just because I understand his hastily mounted campaigns doesn't mean I agree with them. Bush's factotums are often caught trying to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Of course, they deny this, but we all know full well that the last time I told Bush's trucklers that I want to answer the scurrilous low-lifes who squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies, they declared in response, "But censorship could benefit us." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Bush should not create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. Not now, not ever.
Now, I'm no fan of Bush's, but still, Bush wants all of us to believe that we ought to worship dissolute, illogical pissants as folk heroes. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. There is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the worst sorts of nefarious, cocky cretins there are, but the hope that makes you eager to delegitimize him. Bush's actions may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that I recently informed Bush that his apologists deprive individuals of the right to give parents the means to protect their children. Bush said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, Bush's supporters are united through boosterism, blackguardism, and teetotalism. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Moreover, he shouldn't declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions assuage the hungers of Bush's subordinates with servings of fresh scapegoats.
Just don't expect consistency from a man who is totally and unequivocally lethargic. (Yes, these classes of hidebound euphuists should be dealt with immediately, but that's a different story.) Given what I know about headlong hermits, I can say with confidence that we should give Bush a rhadamanthine warning not to turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a shallow vat of clericalism. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)
It's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. Bush should pay a price for his snippy prevarications. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Bush, however, is more likely to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models.
What he does in private is none of my business. But when Bush tries to tell everyone else what to do, I object. There are some simple truths in this world. First, he is deliberately manipulating the facts. Second, his commentaries will undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of crapulous conspiracies quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "pharmacodynamic". And finally, I have one itsy-bitsy problem with his activities. Namely, they make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society. And that's saying nothing about how he believes that his whinges prevent smallpox. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Bush and his scornful, grungy vassals. Bush is up to no good. Enough said.
To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "What we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of gutless traits in Bush's ebullitions." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that every time Bush gets caught trying to terrorize our youngsters, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his lapdogs always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they claim, the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to use organized violence to suppress opposition. Although he is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, he sometimes uses the word "honorificabilitudinity" when describing his op-ed pieces. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. Although the Gospel According to Bush says that Bush can change his untrustworthy ways, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, think that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to deal stiffly with yellow-bellied, power-drunk hedonists who bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that when Bush says that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that if Bush can one day fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. According to the laws of probability, if you read between the lines of his perorations, you'll really find that if my memory serves me correctly, he has been trying for some time to convince people that things have never been better. Don't believe his hype! Bush has just been offering that line as a means to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold.
Bush believes that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Bush could have made the same prediction. Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a complete surprise that George W Bush's commitment to vigilantism is only part of the story. However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. I am referring, of course, to the likes of George W Bush.

Re:Speaking of George W. Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926485)

You know, you would be so much more effective if you made ANY FUCKING SENSE!

Death? (5, Funny)

Kallahar (227430) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926240)

"Each week, three teams enter the arena but only one team lives to fight another day."

Wow, that is ultimate.

Two questions ... (5, Funny)

Ldir (411548) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926299)

1. Are there any restrictions on weaponry? The FAQ doesn't mention this.

2. Will an M1 Abrams fit in an 8'x8'x20' container?

Can't wait, should be a wild show.

Re:Two questions ... (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926379)

> 1. Are there any restrictions on weaponry? The FAQ doesn't mention this.

If the answer here is "No"...

> 2. Will an M1 Abrams fit in an 8'x8'x20' container?

...then the answer here is "Yes - but only after my robot's finished with it" ;-)

read this offtopic post (-1, Offtopic)

kilgore_47 (262118) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926474)

For God's sake, do not kill us! We surrender!

quoting from rw [] : Before dawn in Afghanistan last Thursday, US Green Berets launched a surprise attack on their unarmed allies, storming a disarmament depot with indiscriminate fire, then rounding up survivors only to tie their hands behind their backs with plastic bands and execute them. This according to that America-hating, propaganda-strewn leftist rag, The New York Times [] . God bless America.

(yes, I'm very much abusing my 50 karma account and spamming this message all over the place with a +1 bonus. People need to read it, ok? Read the fucking nytimes link. Thanks for your time.)

Re:Death? (4, Funny)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926322)

If this IS to the death, I'd like to see contestants from Tempation Island and Survivor apply.

Re:Death? (-1)

IAgreeWithThisPost (550896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926333)

Personally, in the case of death, I'd like to see as many linux zealot geeks as possible apply. Oh, and don't forget to run your death machine on linux! then you can type in overly long command sequences with archaic options to do things like turn the vehicle.

Re:Death? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926385)

then you can type in overly long command sequences with archaic options to do things like turn the vehicle.

The Linux way:
~$ turn -d 45

The Windows way:
Double click on turn, drag the direction widget until it is set to 45 degrees, click on OK, and then click on Yes in the verification prompt.

Which would you rather use?

Re:Death? (3, Funny)

swordboy (472941) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926403)

If this IS to the death, I'd like to see contestants from Tempation Island and Survivor apply.

Temptation Bots? Survivor Wars?

You have to admit - this is the best of Battle Bots *and* JYW...

Re:Death? (5, Funny)

fobbman (131816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926330)

This just BEGS for a celebrity version, if it is truly to the death.

I vote Carrot Top on his own team.

Re:Death? (2)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926366)

Say what you want about Carrot Top, but he must have a HELL of an agent. How does this guy get work?? He either has robo-agent, or a huge investigative staff to dig up dirt on potential clients.

Maybe someone could sneak up on him sometime and shave off all the hair. Maybe like Samson he will lose all his career power if the hair is gone.

Re:Death? (4, Funny)

daeley (126313) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926407)

Say what you want about Carrot Top, but he must have a HELL of an agent. How does this guy get work??

I think you answered your own question. He *does* have a HELL [] of an agent.

Re:Death? (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926429)

Touche... I think you hit on it. The only explanation.

New Show (4, Funny)

narcosis (31249) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926452)

The makers of Junkyard Wars are starting up a new series called Clock Speed Wars. 2 dorks each build an "ultimate computing device" to battle in a "secret porn downloading race". This is attracting fellow pocket-protector devotees of all genres, including my local Taped Glasses Club

Looks like somebody (1)

satsuke (263225) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926249)

Looks like somebody got a huge budget increase.

Or a large pile of good junk

One problem... (4, Insightful)

SGDarkKnight (253157) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926256)

I'm all for junkyeard wars and all, but i don't think they should let people spend more on the machine that what they are allocated. This just means that someone will probably go and get some rich sponsor to give them a wack load of money, then hire some nasa engineers to design and build the machine.

On the other hand, I can't wait to see the competition, should be really intresting.

But an unlimited budget? (1)

Nijika (525558) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926261)

Imagine what they could come up with! I'd love to see that.

Re:But an unlimited budget? (2)

Leven Valera (127099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926291)

Doesn't say unlimited, says they'll give you some cash. And as for combat, from reading the article, I don't think it's combat ala Robotica + Battlebots, but more demolition derby sort of thing.


Re:But an unlimited budget? (1)

DevNull Ogre (256715) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926457)

It is unlimited. From the FAQ [] :

Q: Can I spend some of my own money on my vehicle?

Yes - you may spend as much as you like. You don't have to spend anything since we will provide enough money for a basic vehicle and bear in mind that your finished vehicle may not survive the competition.

(my emphasis in bold)

would be interesting anyhow... (2)

sterno (16320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926422)

Actually I'd be fascinated to see how an over-engineered ultra-expensive bot would fair against somebody sticking to the budget. Having watched much Battlebots, it's always hilarious to see some bot with sponsors, get it's butt handed to it by some 12 year old who built their bot as a science project for school.

They mention that the arena is "secret". I'm wondering if the contestants know what they are getting into before they show up. Will they be able to customize the vehicle to the environment or will they have to build something fairly adaptable to handle an unknown situation. It would suck to show up with racing slicks on some low slung fast vehicle to find out that you have to deal with a mud bog, etc.

cool..but (3, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926260)

Will they get the idiots from Comedy Central to do "insightful" interviews like on Battle bots?

Interviewer: "So, what possessed you to build this thing?"

Interviewee: "Carmen Electra. I am a geek, and there's no chance of me getting close to her otherwise."

Speaking of Carmen Electra...ahhh..nevermind, I'm finished ;)

Re:cool..but (5, Interesting)

Cutriss (262920) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926319)

Just as long as they don't get that asshole from "Robotica" to do it.

Robotica is *okay* on its own merits, but if he hosted Battlebots or Junkyard Wars, that'd totally ruin the show by itself.

Re:cool..but (3, Funny)

Pastor Fluff (555255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926370)

Seeing as Kryten has a Junk 'em show (Scrapheap Challenge) and Lister has a Bot show (Robot Wars UK)...

I've got it!!! Cat!!!!

Re:cool..but (5, Insightful)

daeley (126313) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926389)

Yeah, Carmen is cool to look at, but she doesn't hold a candle to the beautiful, brainy, and British Cathy Rogers [] .

Re:cool..but (3, Insightful)

UberOogie (464002) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926478)

Carmen Electra has ruined BattleBots.

Sure, she looks nice in a generic and souless kind of way, but at least the other BattleBot bimbos they had in previous seasons could fake enthusiasm in a somewhat believable way. Electra just stands there, stock still, with the microphone in the spokesmodel position, and then whores herself out monotone. You can tell she is just doing it for the money and hates being there.

And now, the show has become Carmen Electra & Battlebots. She is in every segment. They talk about her, get her to do interviews, or cut to her in the stands so she can say one line, and then cut back to the booth so they can make some sexual innuendo about her one line.


Okay, I'm done now.

Yeah, we're OT at this point, but I'm capped. Go crazy.

Jesus Sez: (-1)

Troll4Jesus (552528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926263)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

Dangerous? (5, Insightful)

Geeyzus (99967) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926267)

I am assuming, since this is coming from the Junkyard Wars standpoint and not necessarily Battlebots, are these vehicles manned?

And if so, there have to be some pretty strict regulations. Is this going to be a demolition derby or a large-scale battlebots war with pneumatic spikes and huge sawblades ripping cars apart? Obviously any humans in the ring would be in serious danger. So I have to imagine these things are unmanned.

This is probably then 1 of 3 possibilities:
  • Manned cars, but the safety regulations will turn this into a glorified demolition derby... *yawn*
  • Unmanned cars, so a huge-scale battlebots thing.... pretty cool, and very expensive... cool to watch I'm sure. But I doubt this is the format.
  • Unmanned, small remote control cars.... so, Battlebots. But why would they re-do Battlebots???
My thoughts are, that this will be a really cool, dangerous show, or a boring Battlebots ripoff... hard to tell from the website.


Re:Dangerous? (5, Insightful)

EricWright (16803) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926301)

Well, the FAQ says the vehicle must accomodate a roll cage. Pretty useless unless someone is going to be *in* the thing.


Re:Dangerous? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926302)

Well it does mention that you are required to have one member with racing experience. So yea, I'm thinking demolition derby.

Re:Dangerous? (2, Informative)

debiansierra (550297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926315)

if you RTFA (which apparently you did with a lack of attention) you'd know that it's gonna be manned because your three man team requires a person with diving/racing skills/experience.

Re:Dangerous? (1)

TMLink (177732) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926371)

Did you see Junkyard Mega Wars? There were 3 teams that built machines in 2 days to race against each other in 3 races: a speed race, a hill climbing race, and a water race. From the FAQ itself (whoops, forgot to actually read again, huh?), they do a comparison to that show. Of course, my hope would be that the courses are a lot tougher or just completely different than they were for that show...but that's probably a direction they're going for.

Though, it would be pretty cool to turn this into some kind of Mad Max deathmatch...but I guess we can't always get what we want.

Pro-Wrasslin' for Geeks (5, Interesting)

Bonker (243350) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926268)

Although I don't watch them very often... once or twice a month... I really like shows like Battlebots, Robotica, and Junkyard wars because they trigger the same emotional response in children as pro-sports, and even faux-sports like Professional Wrestling.

Rather than be encouraged to spend all their time getting their bodies in peak/steroid-enhanced condition for the sport of their choice and then being completely burned out and unable to pursue any other line of work by the time they're an adult, kids are encouraged to learn mechanics, engineering, coding, and other tech skills that will benifit them later in life in professional or technical careers.

Re:Pro-Wrasslin' for Geeks (2)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926290)

I assure you, watching a team saw a Land Rover in half triggers an entirely different response than watching a bunch of greased-up steroid cases yell at each other.

Re:Pro-Wrasslin' for Geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926439)

Cutting a fine machine like a Land Rover in half would make me cry. Now, if it was some POS Chevy Suburban, then I just wouldn't care.

Junk (3, Interesting)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926271)

Bah, it'd be a lot more cool if they have ten hours to build the machine in the junkyard.

Low-speed collisions? (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926278)

From their FAQ:

your vehicle has to be able to...survive numerous low-speed collisions...

I know the perect testing grounds for that...any of the many parking lots here in South Florida! Any vehicle that survives those are a testament to its integrity and driver skill!

Re:Low-speed collisions? (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926343)

is that because of FL's :

(a) large old jew population
(b) large smelly illegal cuban population
(c) large redneck trash population
(d) all of the above
(e) other

Re:Low-speed collisions? (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926352)

The only answer is d, my friend.

Re:Low-speed collisions? (-1)

Ralph JewHater Nader (450769) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926395)

I would have instinctively picked (a).

EMP, the ultimate feature (5, Funny)

iiii (541004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926279)

I'd love to see a "fighting vehicle" with EMP capabilities. WHAM, all computer components and electronics, like fuel injection, in the other vehicles are disabled. I win. Well, it would probably be silent, not WHAM. And it wouldn't make for great tv viewing, since it would melt all the equipment recording the scene. Still, that would rock. Wonder if the rules specifically prohibit such genius.

Re:EMP, the ultimate feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926323)

If it is robotic or remote controled, your vehicle will be disabled as well. Not to mention you'll knock out all the video cameras as well. Even if you win, they won't ask you to come back. Might as well make a big bomb on wheels.

Re:EMP, the ultimate feature (1)

iiii (541004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926339)

If you're building a EMP weapon you know to shield all of your own electronics, so they'd survive just fine. No one else would have shielded electronics.

Re:EMP, the ultimate feature (3, Informative)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926345)

That's a pretty tall order.

The EMP assemblies I've seen take up a lot of space for relatively poor performace -- the entire cargo area of a minibus in exchange for making some monitors flicker. I'm sure this could be miniturized, but I think you'd need something pretty serious to cook a car's electronics.

If the arena's fairly small, you could use a couple of tanks of halon to give anyone using a gasoline engine a nasty shock -- suffocate the engine. Otherwise, I've seen a device in testing by the police that fires a contact under the chassis of a fleeing vehicle to make contact, hitting 'em with a jolt of juice. Car taser.

Re:EMP, the ultimate feature (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926419)

I saw a demonstration of an EMP device that was no larger then a pipe-bomb. It worked for about a 25 foot radius, certianly large enough to take out a competing vehical. And it did go WHAM. actually is was more like BANG, but you get the pisture, I just need to ramble to get past the 20 sec thing.

Carbuerators... (2)

sterno (16320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926449)

What would be even more hilarious is to have them step into the arena thinking they are going to demolish the other team with their EMP. Then they find out about 5 seconds later that the competitor is all old school. Then Mr. Old School drives them into the ground thanks to all that money they wasted.

Also, any effective EMP device would likely piss off TLC. You know how expensive those cameras are? :)

At last ... (2, Funny)

Terao (22771) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926280)

A docusoap for techies. :-)

Interesting (1)

debiansierra (550297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926282)

I'm thinking a Hummer would be pretty devastating if equipped with armor, tire protection, and.... exploding stuff (imagine outward-blasting charges that detonate on impact). they don't limit you on how you can "attack" the opposition. Is it like demolition derby in a pit or demolition derby on a track? Also, is it real? They want your info and they offer no privacy policy. I'll bet that track has water and mud so an amphibious vehicle with the equivalent of armored fender skirts could be a real winner. Damn, i'd love to go see the show, but i'll bet it's expensive since they actually finance the "vehicles".

Re:Interesting (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926363)

Damn, i'd love to go see the show, but i'll bet it's expensive since they actually finance the "vehicles".

I think the point of the show is that you are given only limited finances to build this vehicle. They aren't giving you enough to go out and buy a brand new landrover or an armored assault vehicle.

Think along the lines of Trading Spaces (I don't watch it but my girlfriend is obsessed). They give you $1,000 to redecorate the room.

Re:Interesting (1)

debiansierra (550297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926442)

27 contesting vehicles. Wonder what kind of budget you get? I'm thinking ~$2000. But, anyway, you CAN supplement their contribution. Soooo, if you've got a spare hummer laying around they'll be helping you deck it out. :)

Re:Interesting (1)

Sarcazmo (555312) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926440)

Hummer would be pretty devastating

It sure was for Clinton's career.

Deadline past (2, Informative)

Alrocket (191107) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926283)

This program is really cool, has been running this side of the pond for years.

The deadline for sending in applications is Monday 28th January 2002.

That's unfortunate timing, need to /. these things quicker in future :)

Maybe if you can get enough /.ers interested and write to them (quickly) you might be able to extend it a week or so.


14622 Ventura Blvd. #1017
Sherman Oaks CA, 91403

The application procedure [] is pretty cool :-)


Re:Deadline past (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926336)

Uhh, by the time our letters got there, it would be nearly a week from now. Pretty useless to write them snail mail and ask that.

Re:Deadline past (4, Informative)

pmcneill (146350) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926373)

That address and deadline is for Junkyard Wars (which has been running on both sides of the pond for years). The new program, Ultimate Machine Combat, has a Fed 15 application deadline and is a brand new show.

Re:Deadline past (February 15th - read the FAQ) (2)

swordboy (472941) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926473)

Read the FAQ [] .

Q: What's the deadline?

February 15th, 2002 is the last possible date we will accept applications (but aim for earlier!)

Look what i just got in the mail (w/ my comments) (-1)

IAgreeWithThisPost (550896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926287)

If you haven't done so already, we recommend you make the switch to Microsoft Windows 2000 Server. And here are a few reasons why:

* Windows 2000 Server has up to 99.999% availability. That's about as good as it gets, in our eyes.(ed. up to could mean anywhere from 0% to 99.999%. I guess their eyes haven't seen a netware or *nix box lately)

* Active Directory allows you to manage your networks from a central location. So you can customize your security settings and grant access to different parts of your network with a single sign-in. Plus, it's completely scalable. (ed. Don't forget to mention you stole the idea from Novell)

* Windows 2000 Server's integrated Web technologies are based entirely on Internet standards, which makes writing enterprise-level, directory-enabled application a snap. (ed. someone point me to the Active-x standards please?)

* You get a unified file and print infrastructure for sharing and publishing information. (ed. also included: free exploits!)

* Windows 2000 Server supports more than 4,000 third-party applications (ed. most poorly made in a 3rd world VB programming sweat shop)

Please mod me up +1, MS Sucks. Thank You.

security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them

Five 9 availability... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926365)

...only applies to the Datacenter Edition. To get any kind of guarantee from MS, the installer is VERY restricted to which apps go on the box.

You are not even allowed to install the OS yourself. Only approved installers set up you box for you.

Enough wimpy stuff.. (3, Funny)

Mean_Nishka (543399) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926288)

I want missiles, explosives, and all out warfare! Hopefully as this mechanized destruction genre grows, we'll start seeing some extreme versions with projectiles, high explosives and pleny of gasoline.

Enough of this panzy safety stuff :).

Re:Enough wimpy stuff.. (-1)

IAgreeWithThisPost (550896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926348)

move to afghanistan next door to junis. You'll get plenty of explosions.

Re:Enough wimpy stuff.. (2)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926350)

Yeah, and maybe we could get some lions and Christians, and we would really be set!

I'm surprised no one has though of this before!


Re:Enough wimpy stuff.. (2)

2Bits (167227) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926454)

Oh yeah, dude. Can I have all these on my car too? I'd like to throw some to those fucking drivers who cut you off on highway, so close that the tail of their car almost touches your car headlight, and without even signalling.

Or does anyone have the recipe for that two-color gum in the movie Mission Impossible? That'll do too.

Might I suggest... (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926459)

Signing up for Al Qaeda? I hear they've been seeing lots of projectiles, and high explosives lately :)

Must fit in cargo container. (2)

killthiskid (197397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926289)

My first thought was to use the body of an M113 APC, but the vehicle must fit in a 8 x 8 x 20 cargo container for shipment to England. The vehicle can be disassembled for transport, but it has to be able to be put back together in under four hours. Damn!

I drove APC for 5 years... and they can do some amazing things.

Including... (3, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926306)

Sink like a rock. If some damn fool forgets to put the drain plugs back in before the river crossing.

nothing is foolproof - for fools are ingenious (3, Funny)

augros (513862) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926292)

maybe i'll submit my stone vehicle with no moving parts. it's virtually indestructable!

Mad pr0pz to Metrollica on his FP!!! (-1)

CmderTaco (533794) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926305)

2Lameness has filtered me!


Desecration of the whole idea! (2)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926310)

I don't like this having the 'junkyard wars' name attached to it. It should have the 'battlebots' name attached. The joy of junkyard wars is that each week is a different scenario, with a different goal!

You are already introducing the goal to everyone way ahead of time. Now you're just going to get the basic 'battlebot' type constructs (ie: ramp, buzzsaw, etc...).

Way to take something creative and make it something repetitive...

Re:Desecration of the whole idea! (1)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926472)

> I don't like this having the 'junkyard wars' name attached to it

Aside from the /. headline, the only "attachment" appears to be that it is the same producers. The name is 'Ultimate Machine Combat' and it doesn't seem to borrow/lean on the junkyard concept much at all, at least from the info on the website.

Your team builds offsite, no apparent requirement to use scrap at all. I agree that this is closer to a battlebot concept. I've always though CC focused too much on the 'sports arena' aspect of the competition. I've wanted to see a little more on how the bots are designed and built, less on Bill Dwyer's witty comments and the Taco Bell instant replays of the action.

I think this show might give me what I'm interested in. Show me the teams designing their machines, building them, interacting to overcome unexpected problems and *then* go to the competition.

Course, there is a big difference too in that these appear to be manned vehicles that will be engaging in some kind of all-terain test, rather than remote-controlled machines that are pitted against each other.

What I want to know (2, Insightful)

anti-snot (555305) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926311)

Are they still doing the silly thing with an audience? Shows of this nature *should* be filmed in the wilderness with the (few) required cameramen in bunkers and the human combatants safely sealed away... then they can get rid of those silly safety rules. Like explosives, adhesives, electrics, liquids...

gundam? (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926312)

i mean seriously,
look at how far we have come.. it is a ebventualty that we will have mobile suits, that is probably one of the best disigns too.. the advancements being made in the field of bipedal motion and robotics and processor power of a chip will all contribute to this... the fact that people are willing to spend good money to do this is also very good.
More money for science... is always good

Re:gundam? (1)

Aexia (517457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926356)

Maybe if it ends up something like G Gundam, and leadership of the free world was decided by the outcome of the fight.

High Power Weaponry (3, Interesting)

don_carnage (145494) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926314)

Why is it when anyone mentions robots fighting, they always think of sawblades and pneumatic spikes? I want to see .50 caliber machine guns, napalm and mines. I mean come on a metal ball on a spike spinning at 3000rpm? How about a 1/2" slug of steel traveling at 1500fps?


Better yet (2)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926332)

20 mm depleted uranium slugs at a rate of 5000 rounds/minute.

Re:Better yet (2)

don_carnage (145494) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926413)

Mmmmmm....A10 Warthog -- capable of destroying a tank in 1.7 seconds.

Re:High Power Weaponry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926349)

You wouldn't really be able to have people attend the event and watch close up, now would you?

Re:High Power Weaponry (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926444)

1500fps! thats some killer framerate dude!

1/2 inch slug travelling at 1500fps is easy to stop, if you prepare for it, which they would if it was allowed.
how about a pony nuke?

Local jeep club (4, Funny)

Chundra (189402) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926318)

It seems like if you stick the average soccer mom behind the wheel of a jeep grand cherokee, give her some eye makeup, a cell phone, and a few boxes of mcnuggets she would destroy the competition.

Re:Local jeep club (1, Insightful)

debiansierra (550297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926460)

this is funny? +3 funny? you lost me there, while humorous, did it deserve a modding of any caliber? oh, yeah, this must be flamebait, mod away. (Amazing cynicism from someone who has yet to be modded down but is still disgusted at the apparent idiocy of MOST mods)

Very cool! (0)

ookla_the_mok (461741) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926321)

This reminded me a similar challenge (without the combat and mayhem of course:) The GRM $2002 motorsports challenge []

Rules are you buy, build and race a car for under $2002.00. The Challenge consists of a drag race, autocross and a concours competition.

stage it at Gitmo (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926331)

They can have machines versus detainees - sort of a Running Man-theme. But chop off the detainees legs first.

what up w/ threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926337)

Ehhh, the unlimited budget is bogus.

"What kind of machine is yours?"
"A tank"
"Really, how did you build it?"
"I didn't, bought it from the army and added some extra 'stuff'. Btw, used your money to buy a month of beer while I waited for you to fly me out"
"We need to change our rules"

For the sake of Patriotism (4, Funny)

fobbman (131816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926353)

For the sake of Patriotism I say that Colin Powell should enter. The rules did state that they will allow you to spend MORE than the money that they give you, and nothing would be greater than to see the looks on the MIT entrants faces when the Area 51 entry enters the arena.

Why does it always have to be robot combat? (2, Interesting)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926384)

Let's face it, the worst thing about those robot shows is the combat. It's never particularly destructive, and it's not very exciting to watch. The announcers scream like it's a gladatorial fight to the death, but in reality there's a little chipped paint and maybe some smoke from a burned out motor. Oh, and sometimes things fall off. The safety rules prevent anything really cool from happening. This is why the best of the robot shows is Robotica, they seem to understand that obstacles and problem solving are the true tests of engineering prowess, though that duel at the end is the worst part of the show. With this new show the combat will probably be even worse. It seems to involve human piloting, so the safety regs will be pretty strict. No more fun there. Seems like it'll be little more than demolition derby with custom cars. And what's with the unlimited budget? Everyone should be limited to the cash they give you and no more. Building it at home is pretty boring too. The design and build process, especially under a tight deadline with ad hoc equipment, is the most interesting part. Of course, since you're allowed effectively unlimited time and money, you can just buy a victory once the ideal design has been established. It's not like there's a dearth or research on fighting vehicles.

The problem solving with limited time and equipment of Junkyard Wars is what makes it one of the best shows out there. Sure, I suppose you could say Battlebots is "problem solving," but it's hardly a new and unique problem with new approaches. And you can build your bot at home with just about anything you want. At this point the effectiveness of the various robot designs have pretty much been settled and it's down to the small differences. Did you know there's even at least one book on breaking into the robot competition business? Yeah, business. It's becoming about as exciting as NASCAR. What it comes down to is Battlebots is about form, Junkyard Wars is about function. To put it in Slashdot terms, Battlebots is for MCSEs and Junkyard Wars is for Linux geeks.

Junkyward wars will never be popular (1)

sinserve (455889) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926391)

Until FOX takes over it: Then it will change to a
reality-TV/dating/contraversial/engineering beast.

If I know the FOX producers well, this will be their format:

A group of hunky and petite boys and girls will be
sent to the wilderness, equiped with an entire
garage of tools, and bathing suits.

The group ("tribe" from now onwards) will contain
people of conflicting personalities and culture:
There will be Kevin the KKK wannabe, Debbie the dyke,
a token black man, and a dozen or so undecided suburban
kids who just walk around semi naked .. in winter!

For those who didn't bother to read the page (4, Informative)

RebornData (25811) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926399)

For better or for worse, this doesn't sound like a battlebots-style "destroy the competition" demolition derby. Rather, it's a massive obstacle course (details to be disclosed), although the vehicle is supposed to be able to survive small collisions. The idea is not to build a massively destructive machine, but rather one that is as versatile as possible with respect to handling terrain, towing things, etc...

Rubber-tired backhoe? (1)

eli173 (125690) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926406)

I think the versatility of a rubber-tired backhoe would provide an _excellent_ starting point for this competition...
The hydrolics can get you out of some deep holes.
I can see it now:
"To win, you have to get across this stream."
Ok, boys, dam it. Or divert it around us.

The name 'Ultimate Machine Combat'... (1)

devross (524605) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926409)

Sort of brought to mind something a little more destructive. Maybe the show should be called 'Ultimate Machine Obsticle Course and Demolition Derby'.

Well I hope they get one thing straight: (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926412)

We want to see hot hosts. Junkyard wars had some obnoxious hosts, and neither were hot, one was even male. Battlebots is fun to watch at times, and then greatly annoying while the male announcers are jawing off. My reccomendation: have two Carmen-Electraesque hosts dressed in thong bikinis and let them ask simple questions like "how's it going" to the builders. That way, we'll hear from people we want to hear from, and we'll see what we want to see.

Like this, no battle...Engineers Challenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926415)

I always thought a Engineers Challenge would be a good show. Just like Junkyard Wars, but instead of using scrap parts they could actually design and use new parts.

Give them a month (or something like that) to prepare for a challege and they can build whatever they want, however they want to. The final design is then tested just like they do in Junkyard Wars.

Who knows what ideas someone might come up with that might revolutionize some industry.

Now lets move to the next step. (2)

Restil (31903) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926424)

The robots used in these games are little more than glorified RC cars. Next stage would be to get the bots completely computer controlled. Of course, that could be rather dangerous. The simple directive, "Kill anything that moves" could have hazardous consequences if the arena boundaries are somehow blurred.


The best of Battle Bots and JYWs (2)

swordboy (472941) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926432)

Junk Yard Bots!

I'd like to see them turn loose the guys from Battle Bots into a junk yard full of Futaba equipped rubble...

An observation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926437)

When was the last time you found an entire working car in a junkyard? How many times has that happened on junkyard wars? Wouldn't that be great if once..just once..they put together something with an engine only to find out the engine didnt work? How real is junkyard wars?

Survival Research Laboratories (5, Informative)

vtweb (132332) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926465)

These people at have
been building massive destructive machines
since 1978, staging large outdoor events
generally involving shows akin to "let's shake them in a jar, and see if they'll fight".
Flames, jet engines, crushers, all the things this new program would want.

ARRGGH!! NOOOO!!! Not ANOTHER one! (4, Interesting)

bani (467531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2926469)

The LAST thing we need on TV is another faux-WWF show. Gah!!!

Come on, we already have Battlebots, Robotica, etc...


We need more CONSTRUCTIVE shows like Junkyard Wars / Scrapheap Challenge.

We don't need another idiot 'bang contestants machines against each other till the audience falls asleep from utter boredom'.

I can see it now. A scantily clad cathy rogers draping herself over the contestants machines while robert llewelyn growls and grunts like an idiot white trash WWF announcer.

kind of dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2926482)

its like battle bots but with the high mortality rate. you know i will watching. or as don king would say "only in america"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account