Ray guns have been exclusive to science fiction for quite some time now. So far, hurling bits of metal is pretty effective, but it seems so barbaric. Even Tasers aren't wireless. Here are just a few examples of some impressive directed energy weapons that are getting close to becoming actual tools of war.

• The Russians are working on electromagnetic radiation guns that can attack a target's organs or central nervous system. Such electromagnetic weapons could burn people's skin from a distance or lobotomize crowds of people with a sweeping zap. [url]
• Boeing and the US Air Force have tested a high power microwave weapon that can fry electronics and disable the electrical systems of an entire building. This weapon wouldn't kill anyone directly, but it could be useful for knocking out infrastructure in a prelude to a conventional military attack. [url]
• A Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) can direct an artificial bolt of lightning at a conductive target. A laser pulse shot directed at a bad guy can zap him by creating plasma from the air that is synchronized with extremely high voltage. But what if the enemy has a lightning rod? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

NASA's space shuttle program is winding down, but it seems like there's some growing interest in going to space. SpaceShipOne won the $10 million Ansari X Prize in 2004, and even though it only touches the edge of space, it's still a pretty remarkable achievement. But it's about 6 years later, and trips to space aren't exactly tickets you can buy on Orbitz (or Priceline or Expedia, etc). Here are a few interesting links on space travel and traveling in the future (not *to* the future).

• According to WikiLeaks, Turkey apparently tried to get a Turkish astronaut on the space shuttle -- in exchange for buying some Boeing planes. Is having a national astronaut really that prestigious? International politics shouldn't be like winning Civ and getting to Alpha Centauri.... [url]
• Orbital Sciences Corp has proposed a space plane to replace NASA's shuttle for ferrying people and stuff to the ISS. Space plane versus capsule designs... I'd bet the capsules will win, but there's no denying the coolness factor of a winged spaceship. [url]
• In 2013, Russia is going to start selling space tourism tickets again. A 10-day trip to space for over $35M... "We could buy our own ship for that! But who's gonna fly it kid... you?" [url]
• NASA is also looking at some regular plane designs to make flying more efficient in 2025. Space is probably over-rated, anyway. [url]

Flying is a great mode of transportation. Technically, though, there are a few different kinds of flying. Gliding or soaring like a sparrow (African or European, it doesn't matter) is fine, but the capabilities of a helicopter are sometimes much more useful. Hovering and vertical take-offs are really neat tricks. Maybe not as neat as a Firefly "Crazy Ivan" -- but it's a bit unfair to compare fictional flying maneuvers to actual aerial feats. Anyway, here are a few cool robotic helicopters.

• Autonomous helicopters from the University of Pennsylvania can work together in teams to build simple structures. It would have been a bit creepier if the video demonstrated a honeycomb structure being built. [url]
• Artificial "samaras" are little flying helicopters -- modeled after the single-wing seeds that drop from maple trees. These robotic samaras can climb, hover and move in arbitrary flight paths -- and if there's a updraft, they can stay afloat while expending minimal energy. [url]
• Boeing's unmanned A160T Hummingbird can deliver cargo without endangering a helicopter pilot. And Skynet is just about to become self-aware.... [url]

One of the things that many conferences are struggling with these days is the question of how do you handle "press passes" for events. In the past, it was easy: there was press... and there was everyone else. But these days, when anyone can become a publisher of their own blog or other site, where do you draw the line? I know I've had discussions with conference organizers who fret over the issue, and generally decide on a rather ad hoc basis. But Glurbie alerts us to a story that takes the issue to an entirely different level. If you're a blogger... and you get a "press pass" to an industry (or competitor's) event as a blogger, rather than as an employee of your company, at what point is there an ethical lapse?

In this story, a spokesperson for Boeing, who also writes for a defense contractor blog, went to an industry event under a press pass for the blog, rather than being listed as a Boeing employee -- and then sat in on various presentations by competitors. That second link notes that this probably falls short of real corporate espionage (which the original link above raises), but does certainly raise some ethical questions. There is a suggestion that most people in the room probably already knew the guy worked for Boeing, but it still seems odd not to admit that fact.

While there's some effort to pose this story as a question about "blogging" (and Boeing is apparently reviewing its blogging efforts and thinking of shutting down the guy's blog), I'm really not sure it's a "blogging" issue at all. The real issue is one of disclosure. The guy didn't disclose who he worked for when that could have been rather relevant.

A ton of folks are all submitting different versions of this story this morning (from a variety of sources), but the original appears to be at Space Daily, where it discusses how satellite company SES Americom has to abandon a satellite that had a botched launch due to a ridiculous patent on the concept of a lunar flyby. Basically, what happened is that SES had a problem with a satellite launch, such that the satellite did not reach the proper orbit (it was intended to be a geostationary satellite used by Echostar). SES then figured out that it could get the satellite into a proper orbit by making use of a lunar flyby. That part is just basic physics. But, at that point, SES discovered that Boeing happens to own a patent on doing this sort of lunar flyby, despite the fact that you can't patent physics. As someone notes in the article, Boeing merely used some jargon to make basic physics appear as a "process." If that sounds familiar, you'll note that it's the same thing that many patent holders are doing to turn math into patents using software patents.

So, rather than just doing it and having to deal with patent infringement lawsuit, SES tried to play by the rules (no matter how ridiculous) and asked Boeing to license the patent. Unfortunately, the two companies are engaged in a separate legal matter that has SES suing Boeing for $50 million. Boeing took the opportunity to tell SES it would license the patent only if SES dropped the lawsuit. Apparently, SES figured that the $50 million was worth more than saving the satellite, and will instead try to collect the insurance for the botched launch, abandoning the satellite. This may get more interesting, as apparently a third party is interested in buying the satellite and potentially taking on Boeing (or maybe just licensing the very questionable patent). Also, the insurance company apparently was not aware of these alternatives and may push SES to take one of them. Either way, thanks to a patent on physics (which, last I checked, is not something "made by man") SES has felt the need to abandon a perfectly viable satellite. I'm sure that was exactly how the Founding Fathers expected the patent system to be used. Update: The patent in question is available here.

Wired is running an article about FAA concerns about the computer networks on Boeing's new 787. Apparently, the airplanes have been designed with a computer network in the passenger area that can give fliers internet access. That seems reasonable enough. However, somewhere along the way, someone at Boeing decided to connect that network to the plane's control, navigation and communication systems. It's hard to fathom how anyone would ever consider connecting a general passenger network on an airplane to critical systems that actually deal with issues related to keeping the airplane in the sky. Boeing's response is less than satisfactory as well. While it claims it's fixing some of the issues raised, it also says the report is overblown, noting: "There are places where the networks are not touching, and there are places where they are." That really doesn't matter. If the network is touching anywhere it should be seen as a fairly serious problem. There's simply no good reason to connect the two in any way, no matter how "secure." Glenn Fleishman is saying that this report is Wired making a mountain out of a molehill, and insists that the story is probably not a big deal at all. Yet, I'm still wondering why the two systems would ever touch each other.

One of the many modern tech myths seems to be the idea that in-flight internet access is guaranteed to be a success, even though this has proven not to be the case. The supposed demand for the service among travelers hasn't been enough to overcome the cost of the service, both for airlines and end users, and technical barriers, as highlighted by the failure of Boeing's much-hyped Connexion service. Now, however, one of the airlines that offered Connexion, Lufthansa, says it's working with T-Mobile to bring back in-flight internet access, while American has signed a deal with AirCell to offer its service to travelers on some planes. Lufthansa wants a system that supports WiFi, but also SMS and cellular data, though it won't allow cellular voice calls; American plans to test WiFi access on some transcontinental domestic flights before deciding whether to proceed. The American system will differ from Connexion in that it won't use satellites, but an air-to-ground radio system, explaining why it will only be available domestically. Hopefully this will translate into lower costs for consumers than the $30 per flight Connexion charged, otherwise the service will suffer the same fate. Lufthansa is reportedly looking at a satellite-based system for its long-haul flights, and unless it's figured out some way to slash the costs of such a system and pass the savings on to consumers, it's hard to see things working out any better this time around.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the experience of commercial flying -- like poor service from airlines, and delays from technical glitches and systemic failures. But a Computerworld columnist is all hot and bothered because people can't get online or use cell phones while they're on planes. Frankly, the piece is so bizarre that it would make more sense as a badly written parody. It claims "Providing low-cost WiFi access in-flight is perfectly doable. In fact, an extremely good service was painstakingly rolled out, then later killed because of a lack of interest and support from the airlines and the government." This isn't strictly true: Boeing shut down its Connexion service because it didn't attract very many users. People were reluctant to pay $30 per flight for WiFi; this made airlines hesitant to spend the $500,000 per plane to equip them with the system. Still, the writer claims that US airlines "failed everyone" -- despite evidence that the real demand for in-flight internet access is nowhere near as great as many people assume.

But things take an even more bizarre turn when the writer turns his rant towards the government ban on cell phones on planes. He focuses on the FAA's ban, which is in place for safety reasons, ignoring the FCC's ban, which is based on the contention that devices on planes could interfere with ground networks. He says that the FAA ban, purportedly on safety grounds, merely exists so that planes' avionics and other equipment don't have to be shielded from interference. His demand is that the ban be lifted, and airlines forced to install shielding -- then that cell phones be banned again, but this time because they'd be annoying to many passengers. That seems rather pointless, but his claim that the current ban is helping terrorists makes it really hard to take the guy seriously: "And terrorists love the ban, because it's another potential way to crash airplanes. The cell phone ban as a substitute for shielding is clearly unacceptable. It's a trivial task for terrorists to look up public information about which phones cause the most interference, then bring dozens of them onboard and turn them on during crucial phases of flight, such as takeoff." Um, yeah. The fact remains that the real demand for in-flight internet service hasn't lived up to the expectations. Regardless of how many people say they'd use such services, there hasn't been enough actual use to sustain their operations. It remains expensive to equip planes with the necessary equipment to offer in-flight net access; given the way things are going at many US airlines, the majority of customers would probably rather see that money spent on things that would help get them and their luggage to their destination on time.