With a DC line the loss can be figured to be due to conductor resistance. A back of the envelope calculation shows that to get 3.5% loss per 1000km would require each pole to have ~5,000mcm of aluminum conductor. At 600kV, it would be a good idea to use a bundle of 4 conductors to reduce corona loss, so each conductor would need to be ~1,250mcm of aluminum, which is a common size for ACSR conductors.
1.1% loss per 100km sounds more like a 230kV AC line.
Um, 131I has a half life of 8 days, you may have been thinking of 129I with a half life of 16 million years. 90Sr has a half life of 28.8 years, so it will be pretty much gone in a few hundred years. 137Cs has a half life of 30 years and as with 90Sr, will be pretty much one in a few hundred years - figure the radioactivity declining by a factor of 10 for every century.
Considering that King Tut's tomb lay undisturbed for ~3,000 years, it doesn't seem to be too much of an effort to keep spent fuel isolated for a few thousand years.
The pilot for LIS, which lacked both the robot and Dr Smith, was very promising. Guy Williams stood out very well in the pilot and was grossly underutilized in the series. I would go so far as to say the pilot for LIS was better than the original pilot for Star Trek (the one with Christopher Pike).
I could go either with respect to Dr Smith in a new series - the pilot had a hokey run-in with "asteroids" causing the Jupiter II to go off course, which was part of the plot for an episode in the third season - the one where Dr Smith does time travel and DOESN'T board the Jupiter II, which leads to the J2 being destroed when hitting uncharted asteroids.
Such as when the center engine of a DC-10 goes "bang", cutting off the hydraulics and the only control is from adjusting the throttles of the remaining two good engines?
And for atrophied skills, consider Air France 330 (IIRC) from 2009, which was flown in a controlled stall into the Atlantic Ocean because the co-pilot forgot that recovery from a stall requires the nose to be pushed down. Original cause was autopilot decoupling when the pitot tube got iced up.
Main problem with computer control is trusting that the people writing the software properly anticipated all of the situations that could be encountered. The quality of most code leaves me with a bad feeling about this. An example, an Airbus on a demonstration flight crashed because the software countermanded the pilot's attempt to pull out of a dive, the software was trying to prevent excessive g-loads but the programmer didn't consider that hitting the ground would be worse than bending the airframe.
Try September 18, 1931 for the start of the hostilities that began WW2 - this is when Japan invaded Manchuria. First US casualties from that fracas were in 1937.
I'm partial to Jerry Pournelle's calling WW1, the ETO of WW2 and the ETO of the Cold War as the 70 year war.
FWW, Motif was an HP development where a fair amount of effort was put into making a more or less intuitive Window manager that was a bit better looking than what M$-Windows looked like at the time (ca 1990). Visual User Environment was built on top of Motif, and that morphed into CDE in the mid 1990's.
There have been a few open source apps built on motif, Nedit and Xephem come to mind. Tcl/Tk was first built on Motif.
Solaris had been running on x86 since about 1990. One motivation for running on two different processors is that the porting process uncovered a fair number of bugs, I would go so far as to say the reputation of the open source UNIX software from the late 1980's and early 1990's was due to the process of porting to the various flavors of UNIX.
Sun was in the process of migrating away from CDE when Oracle bought them, so implementing a desktop was more a matter of porting GNOME and KDE to run on Solaris. The Firefox ports to Solaris were done by a Sun's software group in China and Sun was paying Adobe to support Acroread and Flash on Solaris.
God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.