Slashdot Mirror


Gliding Into the Stratosphere

iAlex writes "Apparently flying around the world in a balloon isn't enough for Steve Fossett. Currently he is attempting to exceed the sailplane altitude record of 49,000 feet. The intention is to fly a two seat glider into the stratosphere on a mountain wave while wearing a pressure suit. Later on the intention is to exceed 100,000 feet in a pressurized glider. There is also a Wired article." Here's a nutshell description of the plan and a primer on mountain waves.

170 comments

  1. Minor typo in article by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 3, Funny

    That last line should read:
    Here's a description of the nutcase's plan

    1. Re:Minor typo in article by Bearpaw · · Score: 2

      If we can send one rich nutcase into the stratosphere, why can't we send them all there?

    2. Re:Minor typo in article by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      The real question should be why we can't send a bunch of envious socialists into the stratosphere. Or at least find a way to stop them from hating those who find success.

  2. Don't mean to troll... by SkipToMyLou · · Score: 0, Troll

    Doesn't it seem like Fosset has *way* too much time and money on his hands? First the ballon, which is understandable, but now this? I can use some of your money Mr. Fosset. :-)

  3. I'm a rich bastard! by Bonker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm so rich that I think I'm going to blow my money on breaking records for my personal glory rather than trying to help people in need or advancing technology to help everyone.

    Seriously, I can't help but think that Mister Fosset could get significantly more head-rush for his money by doing something like sky-diving than building vast, record-breaking projects that have very little effect on advancing technology. Imagine for a second that, rather than attempting to circle the globe in a baloon eight or nine times, he had held back a few years, used the money to improve his balloon technology, and tried again with better technology than the same technology over and over again.

    I'm a very firm beleiver that throwing money at problems doesn't make them go away, but if he had spent *half* the funds from his balloon venture on something like inner-city literacy campaigns or AIDS research, I can't help but feel like the world would be a better place.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he could've just bought a lot of cocaine, and gotten a rush that way. That's what other rich people do!

    2. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by nucal · · Score: 3, Interesting
      From: A Question of Fairness Millionaire Indulges in Pricey Adventures -- Could It Be Better Used?

      That's because each one of these round-the-world balloon trips, according to press reports, is estimated to have cost at least $300,000 a pop. Fossett representative Stuart Radnofsky told ABCNEWS, "We don't discuss costs."

      ...

      Charities like the Red Cross, World Vision and UNICEF declined to comment on what they thought about Fossett's spending habits -- but $300,000 could certainly do plenty to help them.

      For $300,000, UNICEF said it could immunize nearly 20,000 children for life against the top six childhood killer diseases, or provide 120,000 children with basic school supplies.

      The World Vision Web site says $30 can send a child in Uganda to school for a year, or help a family in the Dominican Republic plant 10 fruit trees. So that's 10,000 Ugandan children or Dominican families who are going without for a balloon flight.

      The Red Cross says $350 can cover the costs of providing food and shelter for 50 disaster victims for one day. So $300,000 could cover the cost of providing food and shelter for that same group for more than two years.

      ....

      "You can find people who criticize people about anything," said Radnofsky -- but some Australians think they have a case for their vitriol toward Fossett, especially after the 1998 trip that nearly killed him.

      That's because after Fossett went down, he was saved by Australian search-and-rescue teams at an estimated cost of nearly $300,000, according to AusSAR official Ben Mitchell (no relation to Jim Mitchell). And despite his considerable fortune, Fossett has never paid them back, Mitchell said.

    3. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 1

      It's not like he's setting the money on fire. It's going to go *somewhere* and thus stimulate some part of the economy.
      Would you rather he sit on his ass and hoard his money?

    4. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Maniakes · · Score: 1

      Would you rather he sit on his ass and hoard his money?

      If by "hoard", you mean invest, then that money is still in the economy. When you buy a stock or a bond, you buy it from someone. That someone then either buys another stock or bond, or they spend the money.

      Even if he were to keep all his money in a big pile and roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck, he'd be taking the money out of circulation so the Federal Reserve could print the same amount of money and lend it out into the economy.

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    5. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Valacar · · Score: 1

      Who are you to tell him how to spend the money he earned? I'm sure that if he had spent half of his balloon funds on inner-city literacy campaigns or AIDS research inner-city children still wouldn't give a shit about reading and everyone that has AIDS now would still have it.

      At least he is spending HIS money to do something that nobody has ever done before and that may serve to inspire someone somewhere.

      --
      Play no games, say no names
    6. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the money he spends goes. I don't think his balloon runs by burning greenbacks.

    7. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone can get even a bit of happines thru hard earned money (and thats what it usually is) he deserves it. Money is something that is for you to decide how to spend, not some person on slashdot.. Why don't all slashdot readers start donating 1$/month or something? Whine to the one who has worked alot or just gotten lucky.. yeah right.

    8. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by wsherman · · Score: 1
      While some problems can be solved by funding the development of new technology, an awful lot of problems could also be solved if people would quit beating on each other.

      For example, in most cases where people are starving, the problem is less that there isn't the technology to produce enough food and more that someone else (eg. a country that's at war with them) wants them to starve. At least with Fosset's effort someone else isn't spending a lot of money trying to shoot him down.

      On the other hand, I take that view that if Bill Gates really wanted to do something useful with his money, he would promote Free Software rather than mucking about with trying to shape policy in less developed countries.

    9. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      I'm so rich that I think I'm going to blow my money on breaking records for my personal glory rather than trying to help people

      Yeah well, when I get rich I'm going to spend a lot of the money on loose women and wild parties, and the rest I'm just going to blow.

    10. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by SheldonYoung · · Score: 2

      Have you ever bought a car? A house? An overpriced coffee from Starbucks? You jerk, that money could have gone to help someone else! If you spent half of what you did for dinner tonight you could have fed three needy.

      What kind of value do you put on proving something can be done or chasing a dream? Often it's those actions that do more for humanity than feeding the hungry.

    11. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by topham · · Score: 2

      Somehow I don't see your problem. I mean, if what you say is true (it isn't), then there is no difference whether he spends his money to do this, or hoards it. The net effect is to put the money back into the economy...

      An individual hoarding money doesn't allow the federal reserve to start printing more...

    12. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > rather than trying to help people in need or advancing technology to help everyone.

      I am sure that many said much the same about the Wright brothers or Lindberg, yet it is only because of them (and many others) that famine relief can be flown into remote areas unreachable by other means.

    13. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by sielwolf · · Score: 2

      Ok this is probably going to get me flamed to hell so I'll try to be as untroll-like as possible: I think it is wrong to think ill of someone who is rich and not automatically a humanitarian.

      The key difference between democracy and socialism is that the first asks what to do with your money, the second commands you. In the democracy Money is Free as in free to do with it what ever the hell you want.

      Ok, so he didn't give it to Third World Debt relief or Cancer research. Fine, then I guess he won't be on your Christmas card list. But then I know guys who look down at you if you don't give money to their religous charities or missionary funds to convert the backwoods of some country to Religon X by telling them how ungodly they are. Just as it is their (and your) choice to give to the funds you so wish, it is anyone else's to decline.

      That is the beauty and blemish of Democracy.

      --
      What is music when you despise all sound?
    14. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > I'm so rich that I think I'm going to blow my money on breaking records for my personal glory rather than trying to help people in need or advancing technology to help everyone.

      "I'm a greedy l33ch! I'm so greedy that I'm not only content to spend my money on inner-city literacy and AIDS research and other things I think are important, I want to spend Steve's money too!"

      > I can't help but think that Mister Fosset could get significantly more head-rush for his money by doing something like sky-diving than building vast, record-breaking projects that have very little effect on advancing technology. Imagine for a second that, rather than attempting to circle the globe in a baloon eight or nine times, he had held back a few years, used the money to improve his balloon technology, and tried again with better technology than the same technology over and over again. [ ... ] if he had spent *half* the funds from his balloon venture on something like inner-city literacy campaigns or AIDS research, I can't help but feel like the world would be a better place

      If Steve could get "more headrush for his money" by indulging in the inexpensive sport of sky-diving, building a cheaper balloon, and funding your pet social causes with the balance of his funds, I suspect he would do so.

      Which leaves me curious - how is it that you know Steve so well that you know (even better than he knows!) how he can get more bang for his hard-earned head-rush budget? Are you, like, his psychiatrist or something? Can you get me his autograph?

    15. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by e2d2 · · Score: 2

      -- flame on --

      For all those that talk of the wasted money: If NASA did it for research it would be a worthy scientific endeavor using US tax dollars, but If a man wants to spend his own money he is "wasting it"? I don't get it. I agree that this money could be used to feed needy children, to improve the ecology, etc ,etc. BUT the same could be said of all the tax dollars given to NASA. Why are we sending people into space when there are poor children starving all over the world?

      I bet most of you talking about wasted money are sitting in front of your computer(s) in your home with two cars out front. You could have not bought that computer and instead helped someone eat. But you didn't did you? Take a good look at all the money you've spent on pure crap and tell me it couldn't have been used to help others. Get a grip.

    16. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Quixote · · Score: 2
      While I understand your passion, think about this: there are 1000s of "rich bastards" wasting a ton of money on self-gratification each and every day.
      For example: consider Mark Cuban (the Broadcast.com guy). He spent millions on buying the Dallas Mavericks, and a private jet for himself. I'm sure the cost of Fossett's adventures pales in comparison to that. But at least Fossett's adventures have some scientific value (he's pushing the boundaries of endurance, or helping develop new technology to achieve his goals).

      Consider horse racing (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont). I'm sure the owners spends way more than $300K on their prized horses.

      You can probably spend days listing how the overly-rich waste^H^H^H^H^Hspend their money. But who am I to tell them what to do with it? Isn't that the point of making money: freedom to do as you please with it?

    17. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the combined effect of millions of small
      donations by the not-so-wealthy would more than make
      up for anything a wealthy person can contribute.
      Any of you bleeding heart liberal morons bought a
      gallon of ice cream lately??
      ZING--- straight to hell with you. YOU have just spent
      discretionary money on a luxury that could have gone
      to a charity.
      Any of you bleeding heart liberal idiots drinking
      that fancy Corona beer instead of Old Milwaukee??
      ZAP- deus ex machina- straight to hell with you. That
      money could have gone to Zimbabwe to pay for a dozen
      condoms.
      Spare us the diatribe. EVERY luxury in the modern world
      could be argued to be money that would have been
      better spent. So any of you "redistributors" out there
      sitting by your air conditioners, ZIPPANG-- straight
      to hell with you. YOU have just denied the children of
      Zaire the chance to get a doctor into their villages.

    18. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      I've seen far worse uses of large quantities of money.

      Daikatana, for one.

      Seriously, I actually envy the guy, unlike the majority of idle wealthy who use their wealth to confirm their status, make themselves feel better than everyone else, jack up prices for land, and do far worse. Fosset is having fun, in a way that hurts no one and may benefit some. More power to him - and I say this as someone who doesn't really like the wealthy.

    19. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 1

      People like you disgust me. Nobody says ANYTHING about how much he already gives to charity (let's face it... with THAT much money, he's GOT to have every tax shelter he can find). All you can do is whine about how much he spends on his other pursuits.
      If he's making that much money, he's also creating wealth for others who have jobs because of him.
      Yes, he's a grandstanding bastard. Like you, I'm probably a bit envious of his success. But, I'm not going to waste my time whining because he has it and i dont: I'm going out and getting my own!

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    20. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hoarding money and hoarding software are conceptually the same. That is what GNU is fighting. Remember who wrote Emacs, don't you? That's right -- your friend and mine Richard Stallman. He is a very brilliant man.

      Stallman is a programmer, but not just any programmer. Probably more than anyone else, he created the foundation for a software genre--and a movement--that is one of the last buttresses against the monopolists who want to capture perfect control of the technology business and the money that flows through it.

      His creation became known as 'free software,' the notion that users of computers need and deserve the ability to freely use and modify the crucial programs which make these machines work. Proprietary software abridges those freedoms.

      Stallman's GNU project helped spark the Finnish software genius, Linus Torvalds, to create a crucial piece, the crucial component, of what is now called the Linux operating system. Stallman calls it GNU/Linux. He has a point.

    21. Re:I'm a rich bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize that people in the US spend more on
      their pets in 1 year than they give to charities?
      People are actually buying health insurance for their
      pets in this stupid country.
      millions and millions of dollars on dogs, cats, birds,
      snakes, and hamsters. What a laugh.
      Put that in your bong and smoke it.

  4. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol some1 emal me warez 4 windows xp k thx skaterd00dlol@aol.com

  5. multimillionaires... by bowronch · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anybody who has as much money as he does, and can't find anything better to do with it, doesnt deserve it...

    I could find a lot of ways on the ground to burn through millions of dollars... and they would be a lot more fun than this...

    --
    My Stuff: pspChess and foobar2000 plugins
    1. Re:multimillionaires... by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      *shrug*

      Fun is highly subjective -- maybe he /really/ likes this sort of deal, and probably isn't too averse to the media attention either.

      In any event, he's spending it, which to some degree is better for other people than merely hoarding it (putting money back into the economy -- it's not like inflation is the biggest concern right now).

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:multimillionaires... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems pretty generous to me . .
      http://www.holry.org/reflv8n3.html#anchor1745151

  6. I wish by tcd004 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Mountain Waves" had something to do with mountains attending sporting events. That would be sweet.

    Read Justin Timberlake's "I banged Britney" homepage

    tcd004

    1. Re:I wish by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      I picture a bunch of Thek riding the waves in on Ballybran. Nice wind, large sea, nearly immortal hunks of rock...

      Alternatly, a Brikar on Akkalla... although, I don't know if they checked out the surf there.

      (2pts to anybody who can name all references, 200 if you don't use Google).

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:I wish by Zekat · · Score: 1

      How about 100 points for half of the references without using google? :)
      Thek: Anne McCaffrey (sp?) Sassinak/Death of Sleep immortal rock creatures that grow to the size of M-class planets
      Ballybran: Anne McCaffrey Crystal Singer series
      (I'm ashamed I can't remember for sure how to spell "McCaffrey"... but I haven't read any of those fine books since I learned html in 96. Waitaminute... this is slashdot; nobody can spell :P)

      --
      Mmm, donuts.
  7. Money... by GearheadX · · Score: 2

    I think that this is a reasonably good demonstration of how money can't really buy you real sense of satisfaction or common sense for that matter. I'm astounded that anyone can have either that much time on their hands, money to waste or lack of a sense of self-preservation.

    Death is a Bad Thing, umkay?

    1. Re:Money... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I wonder how many people said that about the Queen of Spain when Chris asked her for money?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Money... by GearheadX · · Score: 2

      There's a slight difference between Chris and this guy. Chris was looking for a new route for Spain to get to China so they could get filthy, stinking rich. Contrary to popular belief, people didn't think the world was flat in his time.

      Something tells me that there's no immediate profit in some random rich guy blowing money for thrills.

      Unless you're betting on or against him, of course.

    3. Re:Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is much less risky than things people do every day.

      I mean, this really isn't anything spectactular. It is very hard, yes, but not that dangerous.

    4. Re:Money... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > [Columbus went around the world 'cuz he thought he could get rich by finding a way to China, not because he wanted to explore for the hell of it].
      >
      > Something tells me that there's no immediate profit in some random rich guy blowing money for thrills.

      Depends on how rich and what the thrill is.

      If I had the wealth of Bill Gates, I'd fund a Zubrinesque Mars Direct mission leading to a semi-permanent manned Martian outpost, with the condition that I be on the first flight. Out of technical necessity, I'd have to start that project by funding the development of a cheap heavy-lift vehicle.

      And if I had Bill's wealth, and I started today, I might even live long enough to set foot on Mars.

      No profit for me at all (beyond one very expensive "cheap thrill") in doing that. But there'd probably be one hell of a long-term benefit for in technological progress for the rest of the species.

      I wouldn't be doing it for the good of the species. I just wanna go to Mars. The benefit to the rest of the species is just a lucky accident.

    5. Re:Money... by bellings · · Score: 2

      I'm astounded that anyone can have either that much time on their hands, money to waste or lack of a sense of self-preservation.

      True. That rich asshole should be posting to slashdot at 3 in the morning, rather than trying to fly a fucking glider. Or, maybe he should be sitting in a bar someplace, drinking $4 glasses of booze and trying to mac on the ladies. At least then he wouldn't be wasting his life, like he is now.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
  8. His vendors are conspiring against him by Chairboy · · Score: 2

    According to:

    http://www.avpress.com/n/frsty2.hts

    One of the companies providing components for him has been indicted for fraud. Turns out they were giving the Air Force some parts that were supposed to be clean room O2 grade components, eg, no waste that could react w/ pure Oxygen.

    It seems they gave the parts an alcohol bath before delivery, then tried to fib their way out of it.

    Whoops....

    Hope his glider doesn't explode. That'd be ironic.

    1. Re:His vendors are conspiring against him by TibbonZero · · Score: 2

      Seems like nothing in comparision to multi billion dollar screwups by Enron and Worldcom though eh?

      --
      Tibbon
      tibbon.com
  9. Gliding Where? by Random+Luck · · Score: 1

    This guy reminds me of a comment I heard a long time ago, "He has more money then brains." Ever hear of collecting art or cars?

    --
    I'm a BBS orphan in a blogging world.
    1. Re:Gliding Where? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Give it a break. Some people aren't fond of the idea of dying in bed at the age of 93. It doesn't mean they're stupid.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  10. I hope he succeeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Records are made to be broken. I wonder if he can do it before someone else does? I personally would be spending my spare money on something else but if he wants to do it, so be it.

  11. Breaking Records... by FortKnox · · Score: 2

    Some record breaking events are wonderful for the human race (first to fly across the ocean, first in space, first on the moon, breaking the sound barrier, etc...). These records open up science to a new realm that all of society will eventually benefit from.

    Ballooning across the world (quick rant: honestly, it wasn't "across the world", because he did it on a very southern part of the globe. I can go to the south pole, walk in a circle, and claim I walked around the world!)? Having the highest flying glider?

    Surely there's better things that can be done with that money...

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  12. Here's an idea. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny
    I bet that we could setup a laser array that could heat the air (what little of it there is) under this things wings so he would go up high enough to be unable to get back down. Then he'd stop doing this kind of pointless crap.

    I know its not doable due to basic physics. Still, a geek can dream.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Here's an idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, you could just shoot him down and get ir over with.

    2. Re:Here's an idea. by TibbonZero · · Score: 2

      Or just use a high enough powered laser to shoot him out of the sky... Or just depressurize his bubble...

      --
      Tibbon
      tibbon.com
    3. Re:Here's an idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's something he can ride on....pffffft.

  13. He will probably die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid he will die.

  14. NASA is paying him to do this. by Jonsey · · Score: 1

    NASA, being hesitant to waste any of their very very expensive space & upper atmosphere craft have secretly brought on a contractor to test what would happen if an aircraft made of very expensive materials lost pressure in the stratosphere and plummeted to the earth.

    The competeing schools of thought have theorized many possibilites, but there remains only one way to test it... to crash such an aircraft

    In unrelated news, NASA's experiment dropping a pressurized balloon cabin from high altitudes failed when a $5 blow-bolt froze, and would not release the heated cabin. No sources have yet come forth to find out what manner of monitoring NASA will have onboard these "crash tests"

    - Jones

    --
    I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
  15. 2-for-1? by buzzdecafe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe he'll run into Rocketguy Brian Walker, and it'll be a 2-for-1 Darwin Award.

  16. Envy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats up with all this class warfare? Do I sense a little envy here at slashdot? Its his money, let him decide what to do with it. None of you are in a position to criticise him for how he chooses to spend *his* money.

    1. Re:Envy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I sense a little envy here at slashdot?

      If they didn't give away their code for free, they might be able to afford things.

    2. Re:Envy? by simetra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed.
      Just think... if you worked hard to make millions of dollars, how would you like it if those who didn't kept telling you how to spend your money? Really, isn't the point of becoming wealthy; to do what you want with your wealth? If we made it such that anyone who becomes wealthy must give their wealth to others, would anyone choose to become wealthy? Isn't that the root of capitalism and freedom?

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    3. Re:Envy? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > If we made it such that anyone who becomes wealthy must give their wealth to others, would anyone choose to become wealthy? Isn't that the root of capitalism and freedom?

      This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard; its a shame I hear it so often.

      We are not saying, "Okay, you made your money, and now you can't spend a cent of it." We're saying, "Spend away, and spend it on something that makes you feel good, but see if you can find something that makes you feel that that *also* helps other people."

      Nobody said anything about not being able to spend your wealth, and if you think the only motivation for getting wealthy is being able to spend your money on *ANYTHING*, thats .. well, you obviously dont think too highly of your fellow humans' ability to compromise with the general will of society and desire to live a fairly socially frictionless life.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:Envy? by sphealey · · Score: 2
      We are not saying, "Okay, you made your money, and now you can't spend a cent of it." We're saying, "Spend away, and spend it on something that makes you feel good, but see if you can find something that makes you feel that that *also* helps other people."
      What I would say is a little different: Go ahead and try for your record. In fact, on these adventures you do end up spending some of your money in remote 3rd world locations, which helps them out a bit. But PLEASE STOP BUYING YOURSELF ALL THAT PUBLICITY BEFORE YOU SET THE RECORD. Go ahead and set it, THEN call the aviation and general press. You will be praised by the former and perhaps noticed by the latter. But please stop stoking your ego in public prior to accomplishing anything.

      That's what I would say.

      sPh

    5. Re:Envy? by topham · · Score: 2

      Quit buying Nintendo games then.

    6. Re:Envy? by errxn · · Score: 1

      This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard...

      Really? Why? Look how wonderfully the idea of institutionalized redistribution of wealth worked for the former Soviet Union, or any other number of their Eastern Bloc satellites.

      Really, the *most* idiotic thing ever is that good old Socialist^H^H^HLiberal ideal that wealth is "distributed", not earned. Were that to be true, I certainly would have a lot less incentive to actually work a decent-paying job.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    7. Re:Envy? by andrew_0812 · · Score: 1

      You know, I think that it would be nice for him to spend some of his money on philanthropic persuits as well, but it is his money and his decision. How smart would he be if he decided to base his spending habits on the advice of people who haven't managed to save any of their own money. Kinda stupid. Besides, I think that a lot of people put too much attention on trying to make the rich give their money to the poor. Most of the time, if they wanted to do that, they would have been doing it all along and therefore wouldn't be as rich, and you would leave them alone. The attention needs to be on the average people. It isn't going to do a lot of good if every multi-billionaire gave a couple of million dollars to the needy, but what if 100 million average people gave 50 bucks? I like the post that someone had earlier to have every slashdotter donate $1, then we wouldn't need his money.

    8. Re:Envy? by sphealey · · Score: 2
      How smart would he be if he decided to base his spending habits on the advice of people who haven't managed to save any of their own money.
      Fosset made his fortune trading financial instruments. It is pretty clear that success in that arena is due to two factors: (a) connections, usually provided by one's father, to get started (b) lots of luck. Financial traders are not a bunch of Thomas Edisons or even Bill Gateses, dragging new wealth from barren ground. They just skim a bit off other peoples' money.

      sPh

    9. Re:Envy? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Yeah well, if you can show me a just planet, I'll admit we're earning our wealth.

      Until you can prove that reality mirrors the idealistic mechanics of a perfectly capitalist free market system, I will continue to battle against the broken pieces of capitalism.

      You have a 'just world' view, but get over it. The world ain't fair, and thus even tho wealth is 'earned', its not neccessarily earned as a result of the mechanics of pure capitalism and free market economics.

      Thanks for reducing me to a label. I'm simply against extremes. I'm against communism, and I'm against capitalism run amok. There's a reason why 'everything in moderation' tends to be a truism in the physical world.

      OH, BY THE WAY:

      Institutionalized distribution of weath implies wealth distributed by a central state. If you understood my point, it was that if a PUBLIC, ie, lots of people who are *not* centrally organized make a stand on the weight of the distribution of wealth within a society , thats about as far from institutionalized distribution of wealth as you can get.

      Of course, it seems the only way people can think about any alternative to laissez faire economics is to pull a McCarthy and start coughing *communist*. Open your brain and start thinking about who drives what parts of the economy - if its a small boat of people who are really successful at capitalism, their influence on the market begins to *become* exactly that of institutionlized distribution of wealth. That is, a small centralized group of people determining how the wealth trickles about the economy. I'd feel sorry for your limited viewpoint on what sorts of systems are available out there except for I understand that pity tends to make people more stubborn and more prone to self-censorship.

      Thusly, I will congratulate you on understanding that institutionalized distribution of wealth tends not to work, but also offer the suggestion that you read up on other types of economies that are possible (you might start with Polyani?). Please just keep reminding yourself that once certain entities in a free-market become powerful enough, they essentially become a centralized institutionalized method of the distribution of weath - nearly indistinguishable from communism, but with the 'carrot' offered in front of your nose saying, 'hey, one day you might get this powerful, so its not really communism, is it?'

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    10. Re:Envy? by errxn · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, if you can show me a just planet, I'll admit we're earning our wealth.

      You are absolutely correct-we are not earning our wealth. Well, not all of us, anyway. Some of us would rather depend on the generosity of the state to sustain themselves. Unfortunate, but true.

      Until you can prove that reality mirrors the idealistic mechanics of a perfectly capitalist free market system, I will continue to battle against the broken pieces of capitalism.


      No, capitalism isn't perfect. I have never claimed that it was. However, the flaws of capitalism are not arguments for socialism. We could play this quixotic game all day long, but it won't get anyone anywhere.

      Thanks for reducing me to a label. I'm simply against extremes. I'm against communism, and I'm against capitalism run amok. There's a reason why 'everything in moderation' tends to be a truism in the physical world.

      Good for you. Seriously. Sorry if you felt that you were personally being reduced to a label. My intent was to condemn the ideal itself, not the idealist.

      Institutionalized distribution of weath implies wealth distributed by a central state. If you understood....thats about as far from institutionalized distribution of wealth as you can get.

      OK, I'm listening. What's the point here, exactly? What does 'making a stand' entail? That they can suggest to people how they can spend their money? Well, certainly, they can do that. It's just that a lot of the time, the "suggestions" turn to "preaching", if you know what I mean.

      Open your brain...I'd feel sorry for your limited viewpoint...I understand that pity tends to make people more stubborn and more prone to self-censorship.

      Exactly how is attempting to insult my intelligence/condescending tone/etc. supposed to bolster your argument? Bad move. Fire away to your heart's content, but it'll get you nowhere.

      And finally.... ...once certain entities in a free-market become powerful enough, they essentially become a centralized institutionalized method of the distribution of weath - nearly indistinguishable from communism, but with the 'carrot' offered in front of your nose saying, 'hey, one day you might get this powerful, so its not really communism, is it?'

      This is debatable, to say the least. Examples that refute it are too numerous to mention-Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy's) comes to mind immediately.

      As for the "carrot" analogy, I suppose the socialist "remedy" would be 'hey, it's just the proverbial carrot, you probably can't get it, so why don't we just do you a favor and remove any chance you might have had?'

      I'll take my chances in the garden, thanks.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    11. Re:Envy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > PLEASE STOP BUYING YOURSELF ALL THAT PUBLICITY BEFORE YOU SET THE RECORD

      That must one of the most clueless comments in this whole generally clue free item.

      The news press do not publish items because they are paid to but because doing so causes more people to buy/watch the publication.

      Can you show _anywhere_ where Fosset paid for any publicity ?

    12. Re:Envy? by andrew_0812 · · Score: 1

      Ok, then. If that is the case then why would you expect him to show any logic in his spending habits. If the only reason that he is rich is because he was a lucky sob with a silver spoon in his mouth, then who would fault him for spending it on $200 screwdrivers or whatever his whims tell him.

      Either way, whether he earned his money or it was handed to him (BS), its his to spend/waste as he sees fit.

  17. Whats worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know whats worse. This guy blowing all that money doing stupid stuff, or just the fact that slashdot keeps posting the crap.

  18. What do you expect? by taloobie · · Score: 2, Funny

    What else do we expect from wealthy people seeking meaning and excitement nowadays?

    Haven't all the great philanthropic quests been completed by Bill Gates?

  19. And he keeps dragging Wash U into it as well... by sphealey · · Score: 2
    And of course the marketing geniuses at Wash U keep thinking they are tailing on to something great by providing this bozo assistance for these stunts. Whereas they just make the university look bozo'ish as well.

    sPh

  20. Real men don't wear pressure suits. by maeka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love the speculation in the last paragraphs of the Wired article "The Omarama attempt may also yield new scientific information. . . " Reminds me a great deal of the stories about John Glenn's "mission" on the space shuttle, and all the "science" they would gather from sending an older man into space.
    I think it'd be a blast to ride the glider, and if I had the money and the skill I'd try it too, but to sell one man's stratospheric ego trip as an important mission of science is just silly.

    1. Re:Real men don't wear pressure suits. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Reminds...John Glenn's "mission" on the space shuttle, and all the "science" they would gather from sending an older man into space....I think it'd be a blast to ride.....but to sell one man's stratospheric ego trip as an important mission of science is just silly.

      Not exactly true. If John Glenn had a heart attack, it would be the first heart attack ever monitored in space. It is the things that go *wrong* that often give the best science.

      BTW, do dentures stay in at zero G? :-)

    2. Re:Real men don't wear pressure suits. by sphealey · · Score: 2
      Reminds me a great deal of the stories about John Glenn's "mission" on the space shuttle, and all the "science" they would gather from sending an older man into space.
      Following John Glenn's successful orbital flight, he was deemed by NASA to be a "national treasure" too valuable to risk on later flights. Sorry buddy - no moon ride for you. Which was a bit of a nasty way to repay all that training and risk. The shuttle flight was an attempt to make up for how they treated him in the 60s.

      And it actually didn't hurt to get some data on how old people react to space flight. There is nothing that says that all space travellers will forever be 30-something athletes.

      sPh

    3. Re:Real men don't wear pressure suits. by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > And it actually didn't hurt to get some data on how old people react to space flight. There is nothing that says that all space travellers will forever be 30-something athletes.

      Oh yeah? Whaddya think NASA's dedicated to ensuring? ;-)

    4. Re:Real men don't wear pressure suits. by netringer · · Score: 2
      Reminds me a great deal of the stories about John Glenn's "mission" on the space shuttle, and all the "science" they would gather from sending an older man into space. Following John Glenn's successful orbital flight, he was deemed by NASA to be a "national treasure" too valuable to risk on later flights. Sorry buddy - no moon ride for you. Which was a bit of a nasty way to repay all that training and risk. The shuttle flight was an attempt to make up for how they treated him in the 60s.
      But NASA let Alan Shepard connive his way into a walk on the moon. All he did take the first manned ride into space on a U.S. rocket.

      John Glenn was hailed as great hero at the time. but I think a lot of that was the due to the great P.R. asset that was "Mr. Clean Marine."

      See/read "The Right Stuff" for the story. One thing that's in the book but subtle in the movie was that Glenn was a shoo-in to make the frist ride. Then NASA let the astronauts themselves vote. They resented "Mr. Clean" so they voted for Al.

      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
  21. Some should tell Steve Fosset by teetam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone should tell Steve Fosset about an invention called the "aeroplane". For a fraction of the cost he is incurring now, he can fly around the world as many times as he wants. And what's more, he will get complimentary peanuts too!!!

    --
    All your favorite sites in one place!
    1. Re:Some should tell Steve Fosset by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny
      And what's more, he will get complimentary peanuts too!

      Ya know, I always hear about these complimentary snacks, but whenever I fly my peanuts never say a damn thing, good or bad.

    2. Re:Some should tell Steve Fosset by teetam · · Score: 2

      Really? My peanuts always say - "Howdy, sucker! Did you know that everyone else on this plane paid less for the ticket than you did?"

      --
      All your favorite sites in one place!
  22. wipo!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The WIPO Troll lives?!

  23. Unfair post by sphealey · · Score: 2
    And of course the marketing geniuses at Wash U [wustl.edu] keep thinking they are tailing on to something great by providing this bozo assistance for these stunts. Whereas they just make the university look bozo'ish as well.
    You know, re-reading my post I realize that it is unfair. Having grown up in Chicago, I should have remembered that the real Bozo the Clown had both entertainment and educational value for young children. Mr. "Too Much Money" Fosset has neither.

    Bob Bell - I apologize.

    sPh

  24. The only record he will break... by jsonmez · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man falls from highest recorded height wearing a blue pressurized jumpsuit.

  25. Friendly reminder. by papasui · · Score: 2

    See kids? When you do not get enough oxygen to your brain it destroys living cells and makes it difficult to think normally. It's much cheaper to huff a can of spray paint then to float at the edge of the atmosphere.
    (Note to mods this is a joke not a troll).

    1. Re:Friendly reminder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Note to mods this is a joke not a troll).

      If you have to tell me it's a joke, then it's not a joke.

  26. Epiphany by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1

    I've figured it out:

    He's trying to commit suicide, but in a way that will get him noticed.

    The balloon attempt failed when the original charted course over hostile SAM sites was foiled by adverse winds.

    However, this time he's got some control.
    And even if -this- fails, he's got plans to take a satellite with him.

    --
    With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
  27. Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty lame by DearSlashdot · · Score: 1
    Check out a map of his balloon route "around the world".

    Personally, I don't think this should qualify as circumnavigating the globe. Magellan's route almost 1500 years ago is a heck of a lot more impressive.

    --

    "Why should we leave America to go to America Junior?" - H. Simpson, on visiting Canada
  28. inappropriate use of funds, imho by abe_is_fun · · Score: 1

    I think this glory-seeking, self-congratulatory stunting is really inappropriate.

    If he had a societal concience he would take the zillions of dollars he is spending on this show-boating and give back to his community, in the form of a scholarship trust fund, or a new health care clinic, etc.

    When I see this guy on the front page of the newspaper, it makes me really angry. I mean, who really cares if some rich guy goes high up into the atmosphere?

    --
    I don't want to be here.
    1. Re:inappropriate use of funds, imho by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      How much did you give to charity last year?

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  29. science?!? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1

    Why in the world was this posted under 'science' ? I see nothing related to research, scientific advancement or academia in this story.

    1. Re:science?!? by Valacar · · Score: 1

      "Today's flight objectives are mostly NASA/data collection equipment-related - testing both the precision high rate data system ,plut UV sensors designed to take ozone hold releated measurements in the polar vortex"

      Sounds legitimate to me.

      --
      Play no games, say no names
  30. You are sooo wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, you THINK money falling out of your ass would be great, but believe me, it's not! I can't leave the house for more than an hour, because my pants fill up with dollar bills and the coins! The coins, oh boy, passing those bad boys is a literal pain in the ass. Sure, pennies, dimes, etc are pretty easy, but those dollar coins! Ouch! And the Susan B. Anthony's! WOAH! And, then, of course, there's the money laundering that's necessary. Sigh...

    Moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for.

    1. Re:You are sooo wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be glad that Eisenhower dollars aren't still in circulation ....

  31. Trolling at 100,000 ft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goatse from space!

  32. The Real Record by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1

    Why is the media so on about this millionaire and his 'adventures'? I think the real record he's going for is the highest newspaper column inches to importance ratio.

    1. Re:The Real Record by Stonehand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because he's a rich celebrity, that's why. Rich people are, apparently, so important that some people even read or listen to commentaries on whoever provided their suits and dresses at whatever parties they attended. If you want vapid and "unimportant", go watch the Oscars / Emmys / People's Choice / other awards ceremony de-jour -- hours and hours of self-congratulations for being "entertainers".

      I reckon that more people recognize, say, the name of Robert Blake and what he's alleged to have done, versus, say, Hun Sen versus the UN on the subject of trials for the (surviving) Khmer Rouge leaders a few years ago. Hell, Torricelli seems to get far less coverage than Trafficant, while arguably the former's case is much more severe due to Torricelli's standing and influence among his peers and the Democratic Party -- it's just that Trafficant habitually plays the Village Idiot and thus provides sillier quotes.

      Celebrity attracts coverage, because vapid, superficial viewers like that sort of thing, and there are an /awful/ lot of them around.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re: The Real Record by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > I think the real record he's going for is the highest newspaper column inches to importance ratio.

      Probably a different ratio; one suspects that he's trying to compensate for having been born with something shorter than expected.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  33. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Almost" 1500 years ago? Yeah, as in the almost being "well... just a bit over a thousand years short of"...

  34. absurd by tps12 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe people take this stuff seriously. For those who flunked physics (apparently the entire Slashdot readership), I'll spell it out for you.

    Gliders cannot fly. Airplanes only go up because their jet engines push off the atmosphere. The wings allow them to glide to conserve fuel. In a pure glider (i.e., a plane with no engines), you can pretty much just slow down your descent, and maneuver a little bit on the way down. Trying to get a sailplane into the stratosphere is going to be about as successful as trying to throw a paper airplane into orbit.

    It's basic conservation of energy. The higher you go, the more gravitational potential energy you have. The difference has to come from somewhere, and gliding ain't it.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:absurd by sphealey · · Score: 2
      This is a troll, right? You are aware of thermal lift, jet streams, mountain waves, and other atmospheric phenomena which a good glider pilot can use to gain energy and go higher?

      sPh

    2. Re:absurd by Bearpaw · · Score: 2

      Wow. Your post gave me a flashback to an old New York Times editorial. (See bottom of linked article.) The difference, in the case of a glider, can come from rising air currents. Hence, using the "mountain wave".

    3. Re:absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's basic conservation of energy. The higher you go, the more gravitational potential energy you have. The difference has to come from somewhere, and gliding ain't it.

      You appear to be quite clueless about mechanisms that exist in the atmosphere.

      There are several records that have been set in those mountains (which are the same ones as were used to film LOTR). Unpowered Glider world records include distance of 2400 Km (about 1500 miles) and height of nearly 15000 metre (about 45000 feet).

      If you don't understand how this can be then do please go read a book and learn something.

    4. Re:absurd by Smitedogg · · Score: 1
      ....The wings allow them to glide to conserve fuel. In a pure glider you can pretty much just slow down your descent, and maneuver a little bit on the way down.

      Oh, I thought the wings created lift. Silly me.....wait, in a pure glider all you can do is slow your descent? Does that mean that the wings create drag? Then they don't exist to conserve fuel!

    5. Re:absurd by kcelery · · Score: 1
      U see, this guy will not quit. Find something interesting, a little challenging and hit the headline as well. He will bite.

      If you want to get rich, make a few prototypes that will not work properly. You have seen how many times he went down to sea or hit the great wall.

      Going to the stratosphere is no fun at all. Hold up a blank A4, and you will experience what he sees up there. But wait, to get the feel, better put on my sister's diving goggle.

  35. Wave Soaring is the best by batmanuel · · Score: 1

    Sigh. You just had to give the wave tutorial link showing the single-engine aircraft thrashing about in the nasty turbulence of a rotor cloud. Try this link from a soaring perspective instead. Wave is the best type of lift and can only really be appreciated in a sailplane.

    An issue for Fossett will be the aircraft's stall speed increasing as his altitude increases (thin air up high). I don't know the specs on his DG505 sailplane, but I'd guess at >50K' the stall speed gets darn close to Vne (max. not to exceed true airspeed).

    1. Re:Wave Soaring is the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > An issue for Fossett will be the aircraft's stall speed increasing as his altitude increases (thin air up high). I don't know the specs on his DG505 sailplane, but I'd guess at >50K' the stall speed gets darn close to Vne (max. not to exceed true airspeed).

      Yep. This is basically the same issue that high-flying U2 pilots had to worry about - their 'coffin corner' between stall and Vne was about one knot. You had to be a very, VERY steady-handed pilot to avoid having a sudden, Bad Day at altitude. If he gets that 505 up to the heights he wants to, he'd better have a calm hand on the stick. Or a good autopilot.

  36. Superman by southpolesammy · · Score: 2

    In the spirit of Marvel comics, let's hope that Mr. Fosset finally succeeds in going "up, up, and away..."

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Superman by krinsh · · Score: 1

      I'm going to nitpick...! Superman is a DC comic ;)

      I love to read about people exploring new frontiers; be they above or below sea level. More power to Mr. Fossett and let us only hope that his projects *DO* further advance high-altitude and space travel.

      I hope NASA is keeping an eye on this guy with all the sub-orbital airplane things I've hear/read about.

      --
      I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
    2. Re:Superman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moderation: -1 dumb

  37. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by Maniakes · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of similarity in the two paths, except that they are plotted on different map projections. The only major difference I see is that Magellan had to go south from spain to get to the short-distance-cause-its-near-the-pole route.

    Also note that Fosset did it without stopping. I count at least eight places where Magellan's expedition went to shore.

    --
    A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
  38. This is what happens... by BlackMesaResearchFac · · Score: 1

    Steve Fossett is an example of what happens when rich people aren't smart enough to create their own (evil?) empire with their resources cou(GATES)gh!! but have an ego that requires them to put their name on something (e.g. record books) that will last longer than their meager existence.

    That said, it is his money. Who am I to complain?

    --
    -- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
    1. Re:This is what happens... by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      That said, it is his money. Who am I to complain?

      Ah, if only you (and many other Slashdot posters) had started here and left out the first paragraph.

  39. Human spirit by saphena · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reading the posts so far, I notice a lot of what I can only describe as 'sour grapes'. (see Aesop's fables)

    Most of us spend drab, dreary, lives merely trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over our heads. If we had double our income we'd go on holiday more, buy a better car, move to a nicer neighbourhood, etc.

    If we had ten times our income, we'd do pretty much the same, perhaps with a little empire building or nut squirrelling on the side.

    If we had a thousand times our income then of course we'd be made but we'd have to start finding imaginative uses for the cash.

    We could address world poverty, couldn't actually achieve very much in that area but we could make ourselves feel better by donating a couple of million each year.

    Steve Fosset is in a position nowhere near good enough to fix world poverty but plenty good enough to achieve ambitions that many of us would have if only we weren't so busy merely staying alive.

    He gives us something to look forward to, something to admire, something that will probably still be being commented on in a thousand years.

    Don't knock it, how do you know that you wouldn't do the same thing in his shoes.

  40. Let me think for a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I don't think your forefathers would have phrased the roots of freedom quite in those words.

    1. Re:Let me think for a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrased to roots of freedom as the rights to "life, liberty, and hte pursuit of happiness". Sounds like he is exercising two of those freedoms: the liberty to spend his money on whatever he wants, and he is pursuing happiness.

    2. Re:Let me think for a second.... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      >the pursuit of happiness

      Not at the cost of others' happiness. If you want to get technical and say that him masturbating his money away shouldn't make other people unhappy, I suggest you do some reading on physcology - not having access to basic needs while others' cavhort playfully around the atmosphere significantly reduces the happiness and morale of the have-nots much more than the happiness provided to the have-it.

      I'm sure there are shitloads of other things he'd love to do, and if you can't make a *reasonable* compromise (and I do believe its a reasonable request given sufficient public support were he asked to contribute back into the economy in more meaningful, progress-inducing way) with society at large, you have no right to defence when the mob shows up with pitch forks and torches. I'm assuming that you agree that it is the role of government to protect his right to his wealth (the only true function of government in a pure capitalist system) .. so if that's right, and the government is supposedly held accountable to the public in a democracy, isn't it hypocritical to suggest that the public has no place in determining what kind of weath receives protection?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:Let me think for a second.... by monkeydo · · Score: 1, Interesting


      I suggest you read Marx's Communist Manifesto. You'll love it!

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    4. Re:Let me think for a second.... by topham · · Score: 2

      I humbly disagree. First, I think the guy is an idiot. Bar-none, waste of time, blah blah.

      But, the people I know without money to meet basic needs don't give a shit about this guy in the least. They are too busy trying to get their basic needs met. The only people bitching about it are the ones trying to find ways to spend money they can't afford to spend.

      The difference is, their needs are met and they resent not being able to do the same damn things as him.

    5. Re:Let me think for a second.... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      There is a big difference between stiving for perfect equality (which I'm not) and striving for less inequality (which I happy admit) at the cost of whatever happens to 'motivate' the latest multimillionaire.

      Man, being against wealth run amok and being told you might be communist is like telling a non christian that they are obviously Satanists.

      There are alternatives; you don't have to relegate yourself to only offering the extreme ends of the scale as the only possible solutions, thank you very much.

      Course, maybe you were just baiting me. :P

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:Let me think for a second.... by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      Don't kid yourself. Either you believe that a person has a right to acquire and spend wealth as they see fit (barring causing injury to others) or you believe society should tell them how to spend it.

      If you believe that you have the right to tell anyone how they should spend any of their wealth, why would you stop until they've spent it all on "humanitarian" causes? Where do you draw the line? Are people allowed to be 50-60-70% wealthier than the median family? Once you start redistributing the wealth were would you draw the line?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    7. Re:Let me think for a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People gave their life in a fight for life, liberty and the persuit of happyness I think had it in their mind more that they are fighting for the right of people not to be slaves, or not to ruled by a king on the other side of the ocean, and not for the right of a single person to find interesting ways to waste his money while almost getting himself killed. Well, I don't exactly know what they thought, but I personally would have passed on that fight.

  41. There are many good reasons to do this by AB3A · · Score: 3, Interesting
    First, it's unusual to get anything to fly above Flight Level 600 (barometric altitude of 60,000 feet), powered or not.

    Second, this is as good a reason as any to develop new light weight space suits for space travel.

    Third, there is still a hell of a lot of meterology that remains unknown at those altitudes. Sailplanes have made it up to roughly Flight level 450, but they had to stop climbing because the pilots weren't equipped to go much higher. Nobody really knows how high mountain waves can take us.

    This is a better exploration for Steve Fossett than his balloon stunts. If he's successful not only will he have made new discoveries, but he may also have found a way to get humans in to orbit very inexpensively.

    When you think about all the stupid things people waste their money on, I think one can excuse Steve Fossett for actually planning and executing an aviation Nerd's fantasy trip.

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    1. Re:There are many good reasons to do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is a better exploration for Steve Fossett than his balloon stunts. If he's successful not only will he have made new discoveries, but he may also have found a way to get humans in to orbit very inexpensively.

      I doubt it would be all that inexpensive. Wave flying to these kinds of altitudes takes a Lot of planning, and a LOT of weather-related luck. You can't just pick a day and go, you get to try and try and try and try again, until allll the conditions align and up you go. Not a very good plan if you want to try and schedule a launch.

    2. Re:There are many good reasons to do this by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Funding the design and construction of a compact, light weight pressure suit is not going to be cheep

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    3. Re:There are many good reasons to do this by AB3A · · Score: 1
      Wave flying to these kinds of altitudes takes a Lot of planning, and a LOT of weather-related luck. You can't just pick a day and go, you get to try and try and try and try again, until allll the conditions align and up you go. Not a very good plan if you want to try and schedule a launch.
      Compared to what? The space shuttle? "Oops, found a cracked fuel line, we'll have to try again next month."

      In any case, mountain wave behavior is well known at least to Flight Level 400. Beyond that, we don't have much data because nobody's willing to develop better gear and take the risks proving that it can work.

      Steve Fossett's exploration may prove the viability of that approach. And it may also turn out to be a complete boondoggle. We'll never know until he tries.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
  42. Ignorant bastard by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    I have flown a glider gaining altitude with out redusing speed, which in your over simplified view is imposible.

    The air you mentioned passing over his wings moves (wind) at many altitudes, sometimes up and down. The way you fly a sailplane up, is to circle in air that is rising faster than you are falling relative to the air.

    BTW the best (clear) days for glider flight, are the worst for powered flight. All that rising air generates that choppy ride that all those wimps who need engines hate.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  43. Jack's a dull boy I guess. by JustAnOtherCodeSerf · · Score: 1

    A long time ago, the spirit of adventure pushed man to attempt the seemingly impossible. Surfing to the freakin stratosphere without an engine isn't exactly what I'd call an easy task.

    I guess all we care about these days is ROI.
    All work and...???

    --
    -=sig=-
    1. Re:Jack's a dull boy I guess. by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Soaring isn't really that hard, it just takes a while to get higher, and you have to know where to find lift. The 6,000 foot tow is unnecssary, but it'll make his job a bit easier ( 1000' > 6000' off a mountain is a fairly easy task )

    2. Re:Jack's a dull boy I guess. by JustAnOtherCodeSerf · · Score: 1

      >Soaring isn't really that hard
      I'll remember that the next time I get flushed out to the LZ ;)

      >1000' > 6000' off a mountain is a fairly easy task
      Yeah, but it's the 6,000'->100,000' part that gets a little tricky. Lemme know the next time you're in the stratosphere.

      --
      -=sig=-
  44. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by DearSlashdot · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I meant almost 500 years ago.

    --

    "Why should we leave America to go to America Junior?" - H. Simpson, on visiting Canada
  45. Oracle Big Brother by Naatach · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this one will do him in and the Oracle Big Brother he's developing for the government will never see the light of day.

    --
    There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
  46. Why are you giving publicity to this asshole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why slashdot would waste bandwidth giving this self obsessed glory hound more publicity. It's bad enough that the mass media reports on his acts of folly, but I never expected to see a slashdot article about him.

    I hope someone mistakes his stupid glider for a U2 spyplane and shoots it down. I've been rooting for this fucker to go down in flames from the very first time that I heard about his stupid attempts at breaking some silly ballooning record.

    I think he can do whatever the hell he wants to with his money, but I don't think his attempts at "records" should be reported as though they mean anything to anyone other than Fosset and other ballooning goofballs, or in this case glider enthusiasts. I mean, how many people give a fuck about ballooning or gliders? Why is this bullshit always covered by the media as though it has some real inportance?

  47. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by DearSlashdot · · Score: 1

    True, but he was following the ocean because he that was the only way to sail. Fossett didn't have that restriction - his balloon sails over land just as well as sea. Now I will admit that he was at the mercy of the air currents, but I guess I'm not willing to say just because the air currents took him on a short route that it qualifies.

    --

    "Why should we leave America to go to America Junior?" - H. Simpson, on visiting Canada
  48. Why are stupid billionaires and millionaires news? by jdcook · · Score: 2
    Most of the comments seem to be rehashing the social consciousness / libertarian arguments. But who cares. Yes, surely, he's free to spend the money he earned (or acquired or what-have-you) and yes, surely, there are an almost infinite number of ways that the money could be better spent. I myself come down on the "pressurized-gliders-indicate-insufficient-taxatio n" side of the equation. But again, who cares?

    What I want to know is why is it news when somebody rich does something? I remember all those stupid balloon stunts by Richard Branson and his ilk. Finally somebody soloed around the world and I thought the madness would stop. But no. Now we are treated to the escapades of millionaire morons in gliders or space capsules. If they want to flush their money, let 'em. But stop giving them airtime for pointless records. Let them set new speed or new fuel efficiency records in a commercially useful aircraft, or new cargo dirigible records or something that is of use to the world. Then give them press. But these "accomplishments" don't need to be celebrated. Or even noted.

    And can somebody tell me why there's a space between the "o" and the "n" in "taxation" in the first paragraph? At least it shows up that way in the preview and I don't get it.

    --

    Ceci n'est pas un sig.

    --
    Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
  49. If I could only have that kind of $$$ by gato_mato · · Score: 0

    It must be nice to have that kind of dough where he can do whatever his pea size brain might think of...

    1. Re:If I could only have that kind of $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you could do something with your pea sized brain?

  50. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by ashitaka · · Score: 2

    He was following the rules.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  51. Weird bunch of people on this website... by tgd · · Score: 2

    It never ceases to amaze me at the things the /. collective can come up with.

    Here's a guy who is risking his life doing something no one has ever done before, being busted on because he isn't sending 10,000 children in Africa to school, or because he gets all sort of publicity hyped up about his attemps.

    And yet, people on here will praise the next dork who comes along and cuts a hole in his computer's case. Oooo, maybe he's got a neon light in it. Thats really innovative, nothing like the boring, redundant attempt to fly an unpowered machine higher than virtually any human alive will ever go.

    Maybe I should repent because I burned through $300 worth of brake pads and $200 worth of gas a couple weeks ago driving my car around on a race track. Thats, God, twelve or thirteen children I could've sent to school. Shame on me.

    1. Re:Weird bunch of people on this website... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > boring, redundant attempt to fly an unpowered machine higher than virtually any human alive will ever go

      Boring it won't be. Those are the mountains where they filmed LOTR, I find them wonderous when I fly near them at 35000 feet and only see a part of them.

      In the 1920s and 30s many lost their lives in getting aircraft to fly above 20000 feet, now twice this height is routine.

      If the current tests with SCRAM jets being done in Australia lead to commercial results it may eventually become routine to fly at the edge of space.

  52. Re:Why are stupid billionaires and millionaires ne by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
    I was very happy when he finally made it around the world. I yelled, "We don't have to hear about this jerk again!" Then Slashdot covers his next planned attempt. He hasn't even done anything yet. Too bad kill files don't work for TV, radio, and Slashdot.

    The "taxatio n" problem is cause by an attempt to fix an annoying problem. Some people type really long phrases without spaces. These phrases can't be word wrapped on IE. Some friends of the first posters post words 500 characters long. It can make reading comments almost impossible.

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  53. An addendum by sielwolf · · Score: 2

    And if "they" can tell one of the richest men in the world what to do with his money, "they" sure as hell can do it to any one of us.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  54. Wouldn't the space shuttle hold this record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean it's a glider and it was in space, ....

    1. Re:Wouldn't the space shuttle hold this record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that it didn't get to altitude unpowered.

      Now, if it had gotten there via a RRREEAAALLLLYYYY strong wave system, ... :-)

  55. Similar technology... by TheLocustNMI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I fly RC aircraft, mainly small sailplanes, etc. This talk of mountain waves reminds me of dynamic soaring, which is a technique birds (and sailplaners) use to increase speed -- without flapping wings.

    In fact, sailplanes can often reach 150 MPH using this technique. And thats with no propellor. Needless to say, it's fast and exciting. Also, for those of us who like it when things go "boom", a critical failure at 150 MPH is always fun :)

    big 'ol realplayer dynamic soaring video

  56. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

    "Obviously we can't go around the equator"

    Why the hell not - it seems the ideal. Ability to stay on the equator due to winds etc, the equator should be the goal, not explained away with the words "obviously not" ...

  57. Flame me all you want, but..... by hanakj · · Score: 0

    ....this guy must have one hell of a small wanger, if he has to keep spending such ridiculous amount of money on what amounts to little more than creating memories for himself.

  58. Re:Why are stupid billionaires and millionaires ne by jdcook · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the tip on the trollbusting. I knew about that particular troll but didn't think about the solution.

    --
    Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
  59. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by DearSlashdot · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the link. Seems he played by the rules. So I guess I'm not all that impressed by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules themselves. Maybe they know best, but I think someone who follows a true great circle deserves recognition.

    --

    "Why should we leave America to go to America Junior?" - H. Simpson, on visiting Canada
  60. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't imagine you'll have much lift as you get to the stratosphere...

  61. Be careful about wormholes by allanj · · Score: 2

    He should be really careful about hitting a wormhole up there. It happened to a guy named Crichton, and he got shot into a strange place with aliens.

    What? Farscape ISN'T real? Bummer...

    --
    Black holes are where God divided by zero
  62. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by sphealey · · Score: 2
    "Obviously we can't go around the equator"
    Why the hell not - it seems the ideal. Ability to stay on the equator due to winds etc, the equator should be the goal, not explained away with the words "obviously not".
    Two problems: lack of wind at the equator. And too many countries along the equator which shoot down flying objects that they classify as "threats" - e.g. the PRC. He was not able to get permission to fly over all the countries along the equator, plus he would have come close to some hot spots. And I don't mean 38 deg.C.

    sPh

  63. Wright Brothers by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

    Those greedy SOB's. They could help hundreds of people, but instead they wasted their time and money trying to fly. Humans aren't supposed fly, if we were we've have wings!

  64. No Envy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should he be able to do what he wants with his wealth? Sure. It is his money, after all. If it was me, I might do "stupid" stuff with my money, too, but I'd like to believe that I'd have some social responsibility about it at the same time. I would truly admire a person who held the world record for both the longest balloon ride and personally teaching the most people to read in a life time.

  65. thousand feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When some measurement in feet is large, we use the *mile* which equals 5280 feet. If you sick people are going to measure heights in "kilofeet", you might as well use the metric system altogether.

  66. Re:Why are stupid billionaires and millionaires ne by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    > But again, who cares?

    Thanks. I was starting to think I'm the only person bored 5417less with the incessant media coverage of how some rich fart pisses off his money.

    I eagerly awaited the completion of his balloon trip, but only because I thought that would be the last I heard of him.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  67. Re:Slightly OT: His circumnavigation was pretty la by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    A small correction; Magellan's expedition was around 1500, i.e. about 500 years ago.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  68. I'm a glider pilot..... and I say "bravo" by SwedishChef · · Score: 3, Informative

    I received my license flying at Minden, Nevada... which is, I think, the home of the current altitude record. The 49,000 foot record was flown without a pressure suit but with oxygen; anything above about 13,000 feet MSL is done on oxygen.

    Flying a sailplane (glider) is one of the most intense things I've ever done. Few /. posters have any idea of the concentration required just to keep a glider aloft for longer than it would normally take to glide back to earth. It's not at all unusual to get a sailplane above 13,000 feet (which is why virtually all sailplanes come equipped with an oxygen system... unlike most powered planes).

    Glider pilots fly for the personal satisfaction of pitting their skills against gravity and nature. It's non-polluting except for the ten minutes or so it takes to get the glider to 3,000 feet above ground level, it's relatively inexpensive (my sailplane - with a 39:1 glide ratio cost me $12,000 including trailer and instrumentation).

    But an altitude record which now requires pressure suits and/or pressurized aircraft takes more money than most of us have available. This guy is truly risking his life for a project that, in my mind, is valuable if only for the fact that its challenging. The collection of data on using the atmosphere to perhaps save fuel on future airliners is even more incentive.

    So hell, I say "bravo" to anyone willing to go try it.

    PS: My other hobby is white water kayaking... and I'll be 60 years old next March.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  69. Prim's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algorithm

  70. Democracy is not Capitalism!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times must this be said, democracy is a system in which the people are allowed to direct the actions of the government. There is no contradiction between democracy and socialism or communism for that matter. Canada is a democracy because their citizens were able to choose to how to run their medical system, they chose a socialised medical system,(which works better than ours by the way). China has a large free market now, but they are not a democracy because citizens aren't allowed to make meaningful decisions about how to run the government. Further more, America (and Canada too I suppose) is not a democracy exactly, more of a republic, just to get the terminology correct, because we elect representatives who direct the government on our behalf.

  71. You're the one who needs a physics lesson! by phliar · · Score: 2
    Gliders cannot fly. ... In a pure glider (i.e., a plane with no engines), you can pretty much just slow down your descent, and maneuver a little bit on the way down.
    Funny. Glider pilots (including me) just hallucinate, I suppose? They've stopped counting max endurance among glider records because in good wave conditions there is no limit to how long you can stay up.

    Simple explanation: there are vertical currents in the atmosphere, just like there are horizontal ones (we call those winds). All a glider pilot has to do is to stay out of sink, and find lift. The lift can be thermal (warm air rises), slope (wind blowing against a ridge goes up) or wave (stronger winds across long mountain ranges generate standing waves on their lee side extending upwards to many times the height of the mountain).

    How do you think the current glider altitude record of 50,000 feet was achieved?

    --
    Unlimited growth == Cancer.
  72. Piper Tomahawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, the only time I got any decent rate of climb out of a Piper Tomahawk trainer was when I took it into thermals.

    The Tomahawk can also hover -- just take it down to min airspeed with enough headwind.