Paul Allen Confirmed as SpaceShipOne's Sponsor

Shafe writes "Space.com confirmed suspicions that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen was the secret investor in Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne, which completed a successful supersonic flight on the same day as the centennial of flight. Allen hopes Rutan's ship will win the $10 million X-Prize to help kickstart private manned space flight."

Comments

TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[the_2nd_coming]

I wonder if Paul Allen will want to be the first Private citizen into space with the first privately built space ship.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

I wonder if Paul Allen will want to be the first Private citizen into space with the first privately built space ship.

It is good to see people with his kind of wealth putting it to work for society. The benefits of a private space market will be....well more benefits than you could imagine. (sorry about the star wars thing) If his reason for doing this is just to get to be 'first inspace in a privately owned vehicle' well then, I wish him the best of luck!

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[TrueBuckeye]

I would certainly go in a heartbeat if I had the option, but I don't know of the payload capacity of SS1...can it hold passengers as well as crew?

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[KendyForTheState]

Finally, some Microsoft money being used for good rather than evil!

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[netringer]

would certainly go in a heartbeat if I had the option, but I don't know of the payload capacity of SS1...can it hold passengers as well as crew?

It holds three. The plan is that the passengers are the crew.The White Knight is designed to serve as a simulator for flying SpaceShipOne. Crews would be trained in the White Knight.

Rutan's space tourism plan always had the crew being trained to fly various phases of the flight, 1) launch/climb, 2) weighlessness, 3) landing.

Actually the idea was that 10 or so would buy a chance for a seat and be trained for week in the Carribean after which the two who fly will be chosen by lottery. One seat would be guaranteed and purchased for 10x the money.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[eln]

What about the Gates Foundation?

Granted, a lot of their "charity" work in the education sector is really just a thinly veiled attempt to get Microsoft-based computers in the public schools (the old "hook 'em young" strategy), but they also do a lot of good work involving bringing vital medications to third world countries and other such things.

Paul Allen likes to spend his money on more "visionary" pursuits, trying to further push the technology envelope, but Gates has certainly thrown plenty of money to good causes in his own right. It's just too bad he had to do that whole selling his soul to Satan and ruining the computer industry thing to get to that point.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[AKAImBatman]

Agreed. My wife and I have talked quite a bit about what could happen if Bill Gates turned an eye toward space travel. Unfortunately, the guy seems very good at collecting money (regardless of how he got it) and very poor at spending it.

I'm glad to see that Paul Allen is using his fortune to make it happen. :-)

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[October_30th]

I wouldn't call Bill Gates bad at spending his money for a good cause. He's well known for donating significant sums for charity which, I might add, is much more moral than contributing to an X-prize attempt.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Slack3r78]

Unfortunately, the guy seems very good at collecting money (regardless of how he got it) and very poor at spending it.

I'd have to disagree with you there. Have you seen his house? Or what about the fact that he (along with Paul) lobbied for (ie: bought) the new laws that allowed for the Porsche 959 to be federalized? Personally, I'd say Bill is just as good at spending his money as Paul is.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[SwissCheese]

Gates seems to be doing a good enough job spending his money in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to help search for an Aids cure as well as fund education iniatives.

Unless of course you are meaning to imply that private space travel is more important than these other causes.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[JPelorat]

"It is good to see people with his kind of wealth putting it to work for society."

They all do, it's just that most of it isn't high-profile or 'cool' stuff like space travel.

Wealthy people don't stuff their mattresses full of cash or have a Scrooge McDuck vault where they hoard coin and bill, or in any other way keep it totally removed from the economy.

No, instead what you find is that their money is socked away in investment portfolios, mutual funds, annuities, or their own businesses as capital investments. All that money gets invested somewhere in society, whether it's in government bonds, other companies, loans, etc etc etc.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Councilor Hart]

passengers are the crew.

Oh, the horor...
Would you trust yourself flying at such speeds and altitudes with only a week of training. Imagine all the things that could go wrong.
Would you trust your life with a complete stranger, who has a week worth of training.
Would you trust that person if (s)he never even have set a foot in an airplane.
Would you trust yourself with the lives of others with a week of training?
Would you trust yourself with the lives of the people living beneath your flightplan (or crashzone)?
Would the government trust you, a pilot with a week of training, flying over inhabited space?
Would you trust someone with a week of training flying overhead?

Now, if I had the chance to do this, I would. Either everything goes fine and it would be one heck of a kick. Or either something goes wrong, I crash and a few people including me are dead. Since I will be dead, I won't care about the others who died. A nice benefit of being an atheist.

But still, something tells me this is a horrible businessplan.
Or perhaps it is so heavily automated and safe that calling yourself a pilot is a mockery of the word.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Saganaga]

Sorry, but this is really an ignorant statement. Bill Gates has stated that he will give away 95% of his wealth. Check out this Salon.com article. Here is a quote from that article:

Gates may be a ruthless businessman, but he is giving away billions of his dollars in a dedicated effort to fight AIDS, develop vaccines for scores of deadly diseases, and improve educational and healthcare opportunities for millions of impoverished women and children. Yes, our right to have a choice in operating systems is important. But it is nothing compared to the right of a child in India or Uganda to live free of crippling disease. On the most important issue, Gates passes the test with flying colors.

Or take a look at this article from the Guardian. An interesting fact from this article is that Bill & Melinda Gates plan to only leave "several million dollars" to their kids. I think that's great. Kids who inherit huge sums of money very often end up becoming lazy spoiled brats without any sense of what it means to earn a living. Several million dollars is still a lot of money, but it's not enough to live on without working.

In short, kudos to the Gates for their attidutes toward their wealth. Sorry if this makes the average /.er's head explode.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[the_2nd_coming]

moving forward in technology and space travel is just as important as moving forward in medicine and food production.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[the_2nd_coming]

that is a bit disengenuous. he is going to give it to his Charity, the bill and malinda gates foundation. that foundation will be run by his kids. his kids, while not inheriting his wealth directly will still be able to set their incomes from the foundation, and as long as it gives away money, it will be legal.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Tackhead]

> I wouldn't call Bill Gates bad at spending his money for a good cause. He's well known for donating significant sums for charity which, I might add, is much more moral than contributing to an X-prize attempt.

Umm, "much more moral"? WTF d00d?

You have $10B. You wanna make the world a better place.

Scenario 1:: Give $10000 to 1,000,000 third-worlders. If you want that to last for 25-30 years, your million people will have $300-400 per year. They will have running water, but the vast majority of those million people will be living in mud huts and abject squalor. At the end of your 25 years, most will have reproduced at least once, leaving you with 2,000,000 people still living in squalor.

Number of lives improved: 1,000,000 for 25 years.
Funds remaining: $0.00

Choice 2: Drop $9B on a development programme to reduce lift costs to orbit from $10000/pound to $100/pound. Invest $1B in companies that have neat ideas, like doing science (which leads to more technology), strip-mining the moon or asteroids (reducing environmental loads on earth) for metals and silicon for solar cells. 25 years later, you've doubled your money (and can feed the 2,000,000 third-worlders that Mister Morality left behind if you so choose), and six billion people now have practically free electrical power and consequently, pure water as extracted from seawater through desalination plant, also becomes too cheap to meter.

Number of lives improved: 6,000,000,000 permanently improved.
Funds Remaining: Very probably more funds than you started with. So you can fund the next big thing, whatever that might be.

And as an added bonus: If you still wanna help 10000 third-worlders because they're somehow a very special bunch of third-worlders (as opposed to the other 2-3 billion of them), just build them their very own hollowed-out asteroid for $850M, and use $150M (10000 people * 150 pounds * $100/pound) to fly them to it.

Some of Gates' "charitable" actions are Good Things, such as his funding of medical research. Others are props for the monopoly, such as giving away free-as-in-beer Microsoft licenses to schools so that the kids never hear about penguins.

But to pretend that "charity" is somehow intrinsically more moral than funding the development of cool technology for private gain is utter and complete bunk.

Damn near every improvement in your quality of life over the past 100 years has come from people just trying to make a buck by building a better mousetrap.

You go, Paul Allen. And don't let the whining moralists get you down. Investing in private space development is one of the most moral acts a human being can perform.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[trentblase]

Several million dollars is still a lot of money, but it's not enough to live on without working

Sorry, but this is really an ignorant statement. You can easily live off the interest of a couple million dollars forever, even indexing for inflation. Check out annuity.com for examples.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[efflux]

On the most important issue, Gates passes the test with flying colors. .

Yes, certainly. I mean, we should not mind it when someone hoards money and distributes to various charities. Certainly they're the best people to decide how to distribute the money. Certainly it's best to withold money to those who need it just to give it to them in an "officious manner".

I was just talking about this with someone about Carnegie. It goes like this:

let's exploit the workers and make them live in miserable conditions. Then let's reap our profits from this exploitation. Now, after we've made thourough use of the power large sums of money affords, let's give it away and build museums. Now, we fill these museums full of art depicting the struggle/misery/plight of the downtrodden. Finally, we add insult to injury and call the whole process "edificaiton".

Man, fuck Gates and all the other fucks like them who think that they can exonerate themselves by giving away what they never should've had to begin with.

We should *always* be leary of an individual having that sort of power that Gates has because of the money he has. Franky, I don't trust him to decide what the pressing issues of the day are, nor to influence our politics as much as he certainly does.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[ScuzzMonkey]

Actually, my observation is that Gates is focused on addressing traditional charity problems and is more interested in putting out charitable money for its own sake, whereas Paul puts his funds into stuff that he thinks is cool. Some of that stuff has added benefits, which is great, and I am sure that's a factor for him--but I think mostly it's just because it's stuff that he has always wanted to do (and most likely that you or I would want to do) given a few billion dollars to throw around.

Bill invests in the Third World and putting computers in schools. Paul puts up EMP, renovates Cinerama, buys a few sports teams, and throws some cash at building better rocket ships. Which of these is someone going out and consciously adopting the 'charitable millionair' veneer and which is a regular guy that suddenly became fabulously wealthy doing the cool stuff he fantasized about before all that money?

I think they are both doing excellent things with their money, especially considering that there are so many tremendously wealthy people who don't. And it's great living in Seattle and reaping some of the benefits of Paul reliving his youth, too. ;)

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put it this way: It's better than people with his kind of wealth sitting on their laurels and doing nothing with it but passing it down to their offspring.

I mean, give the guy some credit; he's got the dosh, and he's blowing it on every geek's dream. It might be more 'beneficial' to blow it on Earthside problems first, but since space science is still young (and thus, to a degree, inherently nonproprietary/'open source'), this is more altruistic than some of what the Gates Foundation's wound up doing.

Hey, thanks, Paul! It almost makes up for your freakin' company. =)

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[AKAImBatman]

Umm... you do realize that he skimped on his mansion? He didn't want to pay to properly build the place, so he left most of it empty space and had a small bedroom with a closet sized bathroom. When he got married, his wife forced him to remodel the place so it would meet her high standards.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[fastidious edward]

1. $9bn will not "reduce lift costs to orbit from $10000/pound to $100/pound". NASA funding was ~$14bn in 2002 alone, and you can't increase efficiency that much, even in cuckoo land, unless you have a very good idea?

2. 1bn is way way way below the invested amounts in NASDAQ, even on IPO, full of tech companies that have neat ideas.

3. ...six billion people now have practically free electrical power and consequently, pure water as extracted from seawater through desalination plant. I'm sorry, but unless the electricity is beamed and desalinated water materialised you still need low level electricity distribution and water transportation. Production costs are low compared to costs of transportation.

I'm all for teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish, but although $10bn is obscene for an individual, is is small fish on the global investment scale of things. Cool technology is cool, but it is not a cure-all, it is a part of a means to an end, but only a part. Nor will space-travel/exploitation be a cure-all for world poverty et al, low level solutions need to be made, the UN needs more money, development charities need more money, developing countries need more money (or be freed from their debt, but this is another discussion). Bringing back trillions of tons of ore from asteriods will make no difference if the price of ore is immediately depressed and people from developing countries still have no direct water supply, still have no electricity pylons to their village, or still have inadequate access to education. Old fashion engineering and logistics are the only things that can solve this.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[AKAImBatman]

*sigh* His foundation is a (relatively) new thing. It has tremendous tax benefits for one. Secondly, it's really driven more by his wife.

That being said, my only point is that Gates doesn't put much money toward "cool ventures" that could potentially change the face of the planet. And I'm not saying he should. I'm only saying that a lot could happen if he did. Then again, I think Paul was always a bit more entrepreneurial than Bill.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[James in Iowa]

moving forward in technology and space travel is just as important as moving forward in medicine and food production.

You're kidding right? What percentage of Shuttle experiments have yielded results that were genuinely useful?

Contrast this with advances in Medicine; the average life span of someone born in an industrial nation is about 74 compared to what about 54 in 1903. Also advances in medicine will hopefully save a whole continent, Africa, from the catastrophe of AIDS.

Look at food production; a hundred years ago there was famine and starvation fears in industrial countries. Now the fears are obesity. Advances in food production have helped us support many more people then we previously could have.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I nominate Bill to be pilot #1 ?

"To infinity...and beyond!"

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does it cost to come up with absurdly optimistic scenarios?

just build them their very own hollowed-out asteroid for $850M

The new WTC is going to cost about $1.5 billion yet you can construct a livable environment in a hollowed-out asteroid for $850 million. Amazing!

and use $150M (10000 people * 150 pounds * $100/pound) to fly them to it.

And thank god shipping the food and supplies they'll need for the journey will be free!

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology, debatable. Space travel? You must be joking.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Licinius]

That's ridiculous, dude. Gates earned his fortune (it doesn't matter whether you think he did it fairly or not, that's business) and he can withold all of it that he wishes or give it away however he wishes.

let's exploit the workers and make them live in miserable conditions. Then let's reap our profits from this exploitation.

And, yeah, I bet most Microsoft employees have a nice cardboard box in a slummy alley somewhere to go home to after a hard day of exploitation. Give me a break. There's a bunch of people who would be happy to get a job at MS because they know they could make a good living working there.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Bill Gates DOES do some personal stuff in technology. A few years ago he was attempting to deploy hundreads of low-orbiting satellites. I wasn't tracking that so who knows what happened to that (I'm not even sure if it went off the ground given Motorola's Iridium failure).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[the_2nd_coming]

I said space travel, not shuttle experiments you bafoon.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[the_2nd_coming]

no, Im not. it is supremely important to our long term needs that we start exploiting our solar system's resources. we need to move forward into a type I civilization. we needs pace travel to do that.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Anonymous Coward]

let's exploit the workers

ROFLMAO. 5,000 Microsoft millionaires and counting. Please, somebody exploit me!

Fucking liberal asshat.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[lifebouy]

I don't even know whether to respond. Exellent troll. But so as not to leave you ignorant, 10billion could pretty much build a spaceship factory. China's entire space program costs less than putting the space shuttle in orbit and bringing it back down a couple times. That's NOT including how much the shuttle costs. Yet they are poised to take over the space race. What you seem to be confusing is that the price of getting into space is not equal to the price of getting a shuttle into space. Those damn things were designed by committee ala U.S. Senators and built by whoever could do it cheapest. The design technology is, what, 30-40 years old now. Think in computer terms alone. 20 years ago Atari was state of the art in computer gaming. 20 years before that, the shuttles were designed. Those are estimates, but the point is valid.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[ejito]

Those aren't the workers he's talking about. u r teh genus!

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[spike hay]

let's exploit the workers and make them live in miserable conditions. Then let's reap our profits from this exploitation. Now, after we've made thourough use of the power large sums of money affords, let's give it away and build museums. Now, we fill these museums full of art depicting the struggle/misery/plight of the downtrodden. Finally, we add insult to injury and call the whole process "edificaiton".

My dream is to allow Bill Gates to exploit me in his sweatshops at Redmond. Man, that would be the life. I could be a millionare too like my MS sweatshop-working cousin.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Braintrust]

Fuck dude... I wish I could mod you up to +7 Perfection...

That could not have been said better.

Here, here.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Tackhead]

> The new WTC is going to cost about $1.5 billion yet you can construct a livable environment in a hollowed-out asteroid for $850 million. Amazing!

After, not before, the development of a functioning space-based manufacturing sector. The necessary precondition for such a sector to develop is cheap heavy lift vehicles.

Given cheap heavy lift vehicles, you get asteroid and lunar mining. Given mining, you don't need anywhere near as much heavy lift to hollow out a half-mile asteroid. For all we know, maybe the best mining technique will involve building a small underground space in a nickel-iron "rock" and eating away at the asteroid from the inside out, producing hollow shells as a byproduct.

And a half-mile asteroid isn't that much bigger than the WTC Mk. II.

Perhaps ships would be a better analogy. Compare the cost and size of a modern cruise ship with the inflation-adjusted cost of a WW-I era ship such as the Lusitania.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[Moofie]

I don't care whether he did it fairly. He did it ILLEGALLY.

Therefore, I think his fortune should be forfeit.

Re:TechTV reported this last night on TechTV live.

[dalek_killer]

I'm not gooding to say which is the better way to spend money to improve the lives of thoughs that don't have everything they need in life. I don't think that there is really a single way in which to go about it.

As for NASA budgit, and how it was spent well but very little of the 14 bn was actually spent to developement of improved spacecrafts. most of it when to to other things like peoples paycheques.

Good for Paul!

[Guano_Jim]

This is not the first time Mr. Allen has contributed to the common good: google link

Good for him. If only more plutocrats thought the same way.

Turkey Guts,BTW.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Ralph Wiggam]

It's funny that most geeks really admire Paul Allen and Steve Wozniak but hate Gates and Jobs.

My favorite mega-rich guy is Marc Cuban (The Dallas Mavericks owner who wisely sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo for cold cash when everyone else at the time was selling for stock). He acts like I imagine I would if I had a billion dollars.

-B

Re:Good for Paul!

[haystor]

As I understand, he sold for stock too, but bought options as a hedge.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Groo Wanderer]

I do agree that his contributions are great. He throws his money around in some really cool ways, and everyone I know who knows him says he is a really nice guy. Cool so far.

Then there is MS and Ticketmaster. Sorry, but he gets modded down to negative numbers for Ticketmaster alone. Ticketmaster, time to go shower, I wonder if steel wool would get the stain off of my soul for simply mentioning that blight.

-Charlie

Re:Good for Paul!

[rnd()]

It may actually be for his own good (and that would be a good thing). As a wealthy guy, he is probably able to count on his fingers the millions of dollars of his own taxes that are invested in NASA. He sees little success coming from NASA and so he hedges his tax "investment" by helping private industry begin manned spaceflight, something that had heretofore been solely under the control of inefficient government agencies.

He's spending money now so that he can save it later in lower taxes once the public realizes that NASA is a waste of money. He may also make money if SpaceShipOne succeeds as a company.

Re:Good for Paul!

[mongbot]

It's funny that most geeks really admire Paul Allen and Steve Wozniak but hate Gates and Jobs.

You have a point.

Creating a spaceship is all well and good and will probably advance humanity in the long run. Kudos to Paul Allen for taking the initiative.

But, in purely monetary terms, Bill Gates is much more charitable. In fact, it could be argued that he's the most philanthrophic individual in history. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's true. I suppose it's a small consolation to think that some of the "Microsoft tax" goes towards charity.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

my favorite is the stuff he's doing with SETI - buying them a telescope so they don't have to beg time from others

Re:Good for Paul!

[Baldrson]

Yes, good for Paul.

However, if he really had philanthropy at heart he would have put up the money for the X-Prize. Indeed, men of his wealth are precisely the men who should be creating objective prize awards in all areas of critical technology development and scientific discovery. Others, of less means, should be competing to win those prizes.

Re:Good for Paul!

[borroff]

Interesting that you make that particular comparison. While it may have nothing to do with it, both Woz and Allen have faced life threatening situations, Woz's plane crash and Allen's bouts with Hodgkin's disease. Perhaps this has lead them to more closely examine their lives than Gates and Jobs have done.

Re:Good for Paul!

[blackmonday]

Excuse me, sir, but a lot of us on Slashdot not only don't hate Steve Jobs, we would pay good money to roll around in the leader's dirty underwear!

Re:Good for Paul!

[Thud457]

Jobs / Woz :: Gates / Allen

In each pair you've got the ambitious competitor and the introverted tinkerer.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with other examples of similar pairs that have founded successful tech companies.

Re:Good for Paul!

[lone_marauder]

In fact, it could be argued that he's the most philanthrophic individual in history.

Well, he could be following in Rockefeller and/or Carnegie's footsteps of trying to pay for a philantrophic legacy after a lifetime of general evil. Carnegie advocated the violent resistance of a strike at one of his steel plants, and Rockefeller's Standard Oil is the modern blueprint of antitrust law.

Whereas Palladium alone may well be the cultural equivalent of burning the library at Alexandria, I'd say Bill has more to pay for than anyone in human history - as pseudo-philantropist plutocrats go.

Re:Good for Paul!

[shoor]

Gates the most charitable guy in history? I was reading a book review of a biography of the first billionaire, John D. Rockefeller one time. As I recall, John D. gave 10 to 20% of his profits to charity every year from the time he was in his twenties.

Andrew Carnegie, one of his rivals as a billionaire also became famous for his charities, Carnegie Hall and numerous libraries. I believe he actually left only a small fraction of his wealth to his family when he passed away.

Re:Good for Paul!

[bwy]

Why is it that so many humans admire self-sacrafice above all other traits?

I can admire someone because they are smart/wealthy/etc and worked hard to get that way without taking handouts along the way or otherwise being a burden on society. Nothing else is required to earn my respect.

These people set a better lesson for society. Someone with billions who gives it all away just teaches people that handouts are readily available and personal achievement is meaningless.

There are few exceptions to this. One is helping children, especially when their parents have forgotten them. However, this is self-serving as well. If I help children it is because I know they are a part of our future and thus MY future. I have an interest in seeing that the future is a desirable place to exist.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't consider the Seahawks Stadium a contribution to the common good. I see it as a worthless tax increase. Still, he does better than most.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

No fucking shit sherlock! Now why don't you take your little PHI 101 book and go to a fucking philosophy website were you can annoy them with your, I'm smarter than you, self serving bullshit -- fucker. Fuck Fuck Fuck You!

Re:Good for Paul!

[macshit]

I think the basic feeling is that Gates didn't start giving until he needed to do so to improve his image. So while his money may do a lot of good, it doesn't really make him a cool guy; there's a suspicion that if all donations were completely anonymous, he wouldn't bother.

Paul Allen on the other hand, seems quite passionate about the causes he gives to.

Re:Good for Paul!

[WormholeFiend]

interesting comment...

is there a reason why /. geeks prefer beta males to alpha males?

Re:Good for Paul!

[datawar]

?? These people aren't giving out handouts, they're giving money to medical research, or to build public spaces (libraries, concert halls, etc.) Last time I checked buildings didn't build themselves.

Also, there's no "self-sacrifice" when very wealthy individuals give to charity -- you can be sure the money is not making the tiniest dent in their quality of life.

Re:Good for Paul!

[bwy]

there's no "self-sacrifice" when very wealthy individuals give to charity

Who is the judge of this? Can I say because someone makes 30K a year they cleary have enough to live in a cheap mobile home and give a few thousand to charity?

If you make 100K a year, how much is self sacrafice? Is it doing without food ? Is it doing without a vacation? Is doing with a BMW and instead buying a Kia? Do you see this differently now than you did when you were 16? Was a lot of money when you were 16 still a lot today?

You know what, if I want to use a library I'll pay to rent books the same way I pay to rent movies. I don't expect anybody regardless of how much money they have to fund building one just so my sorry ass can go get books for free.

Paul is doing a great thing here. This whole thing is an example of the power of the pursuit of achievement, from the lowest engineer to the primary capital contributor. These guys are in it to make money and thats why Space Ship One is going suborbital in 2004. It will be safe. Why? Because nobody would buy the rights to build duplicate spacecraft if the thing blows up. Are the folks who work for Scaled expected to work for free? To sacrafice themselves for the better good? Would they do as good of a job if they were? Would you rather fly in Space Ship One or a Habitat for Humanity Spacecraft? Would you prefer to fly in Space Ship One or a government contractor's ship who ended up being the lowest bidder in some sort of a crooked political deal to return a favor?

I don't know why everyone here is so anti-capitalist. Almost everything geeks like us enjoy are the results of capitalism. Even a lot of open source software is funded by companies who have an interest in making sure certain technologies stick around. Look how long the Soviet Union existed and how very little they contributed, comparatively. Sure they blasted a guy into space first but when the rubber hit the road they couldn't get to the moon. Silicon Valley would have been nothing, my friend, if its workers had guns to their heads. Same goes for the Japanese. Look what they've done Post WWII. They were destroyed but they rebuilt and built a government that didn't rule by fear.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Ralph Wiggam]

Jobs and Woz gave us a cool bit of geek lingo for when any two people start a business venture.

The ambitious competitor is the "suit". The introverted tinkerer is the "beard".

-B

Re:Good for Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

By dirty do you just mean used or do you mean befouled?

Re:Good for Paul!

[ejito]

Wow, giving a few percent of your income to charity while still maintaining dozens of billions of dollars! Wow, that makes him hell of a human being!

Re:Good for Paul!

[datawar]

You know what, if I want to use a library I'll pay to rent books the same way I pay to rent movies. I don't expect anybody regardless of how much money they have to fund building one just so my sorry ass can go get books for free.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. (a) Free access of public domain information (not just books, either) to anyone, regardless of income or social status is very much responsible for America's current superior economic state. (b) You can absolutely loan videos, DVDs, and other pieces of media from libraries or museums for free. Granted, those are often not as stocked with current, popular releases, but provide a wealth of information nonetheless.

Also, I have no idea why you assume I'm anti-capitalist. I simply think that, given a reasonable definition of "living well", a multi-millionare surpases that lifestyle whether she is worth one hundred million dollars or eighty million dollars (assuming an amazing 20% of worth donation). True, this is biased of me to say, but come on, this isn't a heavy philosophical debate.

Of course Paul is doing a great thing. I want to see affordable, safe, private space flight as much as the next guy (maybe more!), but Paul's contribution is neither a "handout" nor "self-sacrifice". He simply sort of has plenty of money to support interesting and/or humanitarian causes.

Re:Good for Paul!

[sonpal]

Mod parent up!

While I think that Bill is a good guy for his philanthropy, I've seen other people who give until it hurts. I was invited to a local chruch in a poor community and I was astonished to see how much money these people were giving... as a percentage, any of those church-goers beat Gates hands-down.

It's even incredible when you think about what it means to give when you're living below the poverty line... everything you give cuts directly into your needs whereas when Bill gives, it doesn't even cut into his wants.

Of course, I'm not a philanthropist by any means so I'm not really qualified to comment.

Re:Good for Paul!

[spike hay]

Andrew Carnegie, one of his rivals as a billionaire also became famous for his charities, Carnegie Hall and numerous libraries. I believe he actually left only a small fraction of his wealth to his family when he passed away.

Tell that to the exploited workers in his factories when they were beaten, arrested, and/or killed by police for striking. Sure he gave some of his money to charity, but you are mistaken if you think Carnegie was friendly towards the poor. He was a pure bastard, as was many of the 19th century industrialists. Bill Gates gives away billions of dollars to charity. And he sure as hell doesn't exploit his workers either.

Re:Good for Paul!

[dvdeug]

Someone with billions who gives it all away just teaches people that handouts are readily available and personal achievement is meaningless.

Right, because they can't look at the ex-coke addict, who got into Yale with an SAT score (1209) that will barely get you into most state universities, and is now President of the US, and realize that personal achivement is meaningless.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you spell the Leader with a lowercase L?! What an insult!

Re:Good for Paul!

[bwy]

You can absolutely loan videos, DVDs, and other pieces of media from libraries or museums for free

At who's expense? The taxpayer in most cases. Where does this stop? If every citizen has an inalienable right to rent books for free, does he also have a given right to health care? Does he have a right to the best doctors and medical facilities? How do we then decide who has access to the best facilities? A lottery? Where does this end? Look, if somebody wants to dump some of their wealth into building a library, it isn't any of my business. But when society raises this type of person and these qualities of self-sacrafice above all others, we have a problem. A couple generations go by and our kids all learn this and guess what? We have a socialist system.

Some clearly feel that self-sacrafice is the most admirable of all traits. Unfortunately many of these folks are in government and they have at their disposal the power to force us all sacrafice ourselves through excess taxation. Look, if I want to help someone, I will do it on my own. I decide who I help and why. Don't respect me just because I give money away though. Respect me because I give money away because I'm selfish. I just sent the Citizens Against Govenment Waste a charitable donation. Why? Because I want to see them lobby damn hard to get our contributions to the UN every year reduced to 0. Helping them is in MY interest. Getting a good job, working hard, buying things, demanding better products and services: these are all things that fuel our country. The best of human nature is selfishness. To spite the brainwashing that occurs in schools, churches, etc, selfishness is not an evil trait. Its vice, altruism, is the primary problem.

You see, the Constitution makes no provisions for free health care, public facilities like libraries, welfare payments, social security, etc. All these programs are driven by forced, excess taxation. Government has three (and only 3) obligations. 1. Provide national defense. 2. Provide a fair and just judicial system 3. Provide police protection.

The problem is, nobody protects the Constitution any more. Not Bush, not Clinton, not the other Bush, not Reagan, nobody. Yet nobody will come out and just say they think the Constitution sucks, nor do they even have the balls to admit that they choose not to protect it.

Re:Good for Paul!

[datawar]

At who's expense? The taxpayer in most cases. Where does this stop? If every citizen has an inalienable right to rent books for free, does he also have a given right to health care? Does he have a right to the best doctors and medical facilities? How do we then decide who has access to the best facilities? A lottery? Where does this end? Look, if somebody wants to dump some of their wealth into building a library, it isn't any of my business. But when society raises this type of person and these qualities of self-sacrafice above all others, we have a problem. A couple generations go by and our kids all learn this and guess what? We have a socialist system.

It stops where the taxpayers decide it ends. Libraries and healthcare for the elderly or poor don't spring out from the government fully-formed -- they are programs created by elected officials (or bureaurocrats appointed by them).


You see, the Constitution makes no provisions for free health care, public facilities like libraries, welfare payments, social security, etc. All these programs are driven by forced, excess taxation. Government has three (and only 3) obligations. 1. Provide national defense. 2. Provide a fair and just judicial system 3. Provide police protection.
You're just reading the Constitution is a living document that is constantly being reinterpreted to best fit our needs (or should be, were our government not a bunch of power-hungry idiots).

Your "every man for himself" just doesn't make sense. Some of the best things we currently have came from people helping each other. Sure, the USSR and the US reached space independently, but imagine what could have happened it we worked together, pooled our money and brainpower in an intelligent fashion, and had private investors and researchers tackle the problem, all working together?

Re:Good for Paul!

[datawar]

Errr: You're just reading the Constitution == You're just reading the Constitution in the strictest way possible. It is [a living document...]

Re:Good for Paul!

[jregel]

I'm no Microsoft apologist, but the parent post is utterly baseless. To say that Bill Gates probably wouldn't give to charitable causes if it didn't give him postive PR is cynical and insulting.

I don't know whether Gates would give money anonymously or not (he might do that for all we know), in the same way I don't know how much Slashdotters give to charity.

Blast and flame Microsoft for their monopolistic tendancies or their poor software, but give credit where credit is due. To do otherwise gives the impression that Slashdotters are a bunch of whining, immature teenagers.

(I never thought I'd see the day when I defended Bill Gates...)

Re:Good for Paul!

[bwy]

constantly being reinterpreted to best fit our needs

A good Constituion should never need to be rewritten. Our's is not perfect by any means but in general it is pretty solid especially after some intial bugs were worked out in early amendments.

The reason for this is that facts are facts. Reason is man absolute and always will be. Peoples hopes, dreams, wishes, pleas, or prayers do not change the facts. Man must always uphold his morals regardless of the situation. It will always be wrong to shoot someone dead on the street just because you feel like it. It will always be right to use force (deadly, if necessary) to protect your house and your family if someone has violated your rights and now threatens you....i.e. a burglar.

If our society grows to appeciate self-sacrafice and the greatest moral value, someone might have the bright idea to suggest that if the burglar is hungry and is just looking to take some things he can pawn for food, then his entry to your home is justifed. More on this in a sec.

I quote Jefferson,
"the natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield,"
... "no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

P.S. Do you see the immediate problem with religion? For example, taking "Thou shalt not kill" as a moral absolute. This just launches people into a complete mind-body dichotomy. They just killed a burglar to protect their kids and now look. They've got to pray for forgiveness for upholding a very high moral- protecting their own rights (and in this case their children.) The opposition would say that if the burglar is justified if he was only seeking to feed his own family. This will lead to nothing but madness: the total collapse of our civilization.

Doesn't man deserve a better philosophy to live by? Something that presents itself without contradiction? Something that doesn't launch moral, honest people into confusion and contradiction around every corner? Something that you can read and take "literally" without having to fabricate interpretations that make sense? Read through Leviticus. It says you shouldn't round the edges of your head or beard. And we're to take everything in this book seriously? Or just parts? Which parts? Who says which parts. Uh oh.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonk wonk wonk.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Moofie]

Ayn Rand was a fascist.

Get over it.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Moofie]

Baseless, except his giving started at about the same time he a) started getting into hot legal water and b) got married.

So I think there's a good argument to be made that he's not being wholly altruistic.

Which is, of course, his prerogative.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Moofie]

Because alpha males are fucking assholes. Just because it's primate dynamics doesn't mean I have to put up with it.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Moofie]

Lower taxes if NASA folds?

What color is the sky on your planet?

1) NASA's funding is miniscule. That is, teeny teeny teeny tiny. Your share of NASA's funding last year was probably less than a movie ticket. Get over it.

2) Your taxes NEVER decrease. They might change color, but you never get that money back. Anybody who tells you different wants to snow you.

Re:Good for Paul!

[randall_burns]

I think there is an excellent point here. I agree, Allen's money would have a lot more impact if awarded as a prize. Alan has enough money that he could easily afford a prize(or set of prizes) at a level that really would defray the development costs here. If Allen is really concerned with making more money, he could just say something like:

I will award $100 Million for each of the first three separate entries to achieve the XPrize goals in return for a 20% stake in the company in question.

The sounds to me like it might be a decent business proposition(I'm sure some MBA type would have something to say here)--but propertly formulated it could have some serious impact.

Somehow, it just seems that the new guys have lost their nerve compared to the megarich of 70-100 years ago.

Re:Good for Paul!

[rnd()]

You didn't read my comment. I said that Paul Allen's taxes would likely decrease. I am not as wealthy as he, and so your movie ticket analogy may very well be correct.

It's not only the direct cost of taxation, but the indirect cost in terms of what would have been done with the money if it hadn't been used to fund a monopoly system staffed by career burocrats.

Creating a strong, private alternative to NASA would put pressure on politicians to dismantle NASA. Unfortunately, though, it may take some time. The post office is an example of this.

Re:Good for Paul!

[Moofie]

I would be 100% in favor of dismantling NASA if and only if some other organization was chartered to perform the necessary, difficult, un-profitable basic research and development for new technologies.

Businesses are bad at this, if for no other reason than they like to patent the results and make sure nobody else gets to use them.

I fear that dismantling NASA will destroy whatever momentum we have for exploring and exploiting space, and I think that's a bad idea right now.

NASA is, however, run by career bureaucrats and is doing a massively sub-optimal job. My first choice would be to put some really good engineers in charge, back them up with some top-flight accountants to make the numbers work for the missions (rather than make the missions work for the numbers) and tell them "Get us a sustainable Mars base by 2030, with your current budget. All other objectives are secondary. Go."

Well that explains everything.

[mgs1000]

I guess he plans to blast the Trailblazers into space so they won't cause him anymore problems.

Re:Well that explains everything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or as we like to affectionately call them up here, the Jailblazers. :)

Re:Well that explains everything.

[geekoid]

"Ok, the next person who gets arrested is going to the moon, one way."

Re:Well that explains everything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I told myself I would spend my last mod point on whoever mentioned the Blazers in a post... but you are already a +5. Ah well.

Re:Well that explains everything.

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't know, i kind of like seeing headlines like "blazers: smoking up can be bad" or whatever it was.

more than one meaning -- i'd remember what that term is for it, if i weren't so into the blazers.

Thanks for providing a link

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't before heard of this Microsoft of which you speak.

Re:Thanks for providing a link

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly, thou doth come from a land free from the evil hands of the Dark Emperor? Thou must show me such a realm, for long have I labored in the Great Rebellion and wish to escape the gaze from the Evil Window.

No Linux funding for this now? shame on you arses

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't let the evil M$ have space all to itself now can you, oh wait they make money on products thats right.

That will teach

[geekoid]

id software to write games that run on non-MS platforms!

I kid.

Versioning

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Oh. Damn that's good to know. The Microsoft co-founder, eh?

If history is anything to go by, that contraption won't be worth a thing until SpaceShipThreePointOne is built.

Re:Versioning

[Anonymous Coward]

By then, some guy in Finland will have built an engine you can put in any container and outrun the Microsoft SpaceShip.

Re:Versioning

[WolfWithoutAClause]

If history is anything to go by, that contraption won't be worth a thing until SpaceShipThreePointOne is built.

You know, that's probably not an entirely silly thing to say. I mean this thing had only been up 15 minutes or so when it crashed. Scary looking pictures- I think it's not supposed to swerve off the runway like that :-)

Does this remind you of any particular Windows version? It kinda reminds me of Windows 95. :-)

Still, atleast they aren't selling seats to it yet.

Re:Versioning

[ncc74656]

If history is anything to go by, that contraption won't be worth a thing until SpaceShipThreePointOne is built.

You know, that's probably not an entirely silly thing to say. I mean this thing had only been up 15 minutes or so when it crashed. Scary looking pictures- I think it's not supposed to swerve off the runway like that :-)

Maybe they were operating under the belief that any landing from which you can walk away is a good landing. :-)

Re:Versioning

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Just wish more people had walked away from Windows 95 :-)

Re:Versioning

[leshert]

Of course, if you didn't know that he was the Microsoft co-founder, you probably also don't know that he pretty much rescued the SETI program when NASA cut funding, and that most of his contributions to Microsoft happened before they started producing really sad software.

If you know anything about Paul Allen (and I'm not claiming to be a personal friend or a biographer, although I have hoisted a couple of beers with him), this is about as shocking as finding out that Britney Spears released another album.

not necessarily a good indicator

[social]

Allen's sponsorship isn't necessarily a good indicator that the project will be any more successful, as he has had some major slip-ups in the past. His Experience Music Project in Seattle has thus far proven to be a financial wreck.

Re:not necessarily a good indicator

[dev0n]

Perhaps a financial wreck, but it's also an amazing place to visit. If you're a music fan, that is.

Re:not necessarily a good indicator

[cens0r]

I wouldn't call it a finacial wreck. I have quite a bit of experience with the place as my GF is a Museum Studies grad student at the UW and interned at the UW.

Basically, people are of the misconception that Paul Allen has something to do with the museum. Technically he doesn't. He built them a building, donated his entire collection of stuff to them, and gave them funding to get started; but then they became atonomous. They aren't doing real well right now, but what museum did well in this economy?

Re:not necessarily a good indicator

[Jenty]

i wonder what would you post if let's say SuSes co-founder would be sponsoring this program..

Re:not necessarily a good indicator

[tonydiesel]

Amen...

Easily one of the coolest places I've ever visited. The Hendrix stuff alone is worth it.

Don't forget Carmack

[PIPBoy3000]

I'm personally rooting for Armadillo Aerospace, which has John Carmack's involvement. He's got some great comments on his news page - feels much more open and less corporate than some of the other X-Prize contenders.

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[LiquidCoooled]

I dont think it matters which team succeeds, I'm glad they are all taking part and actually progressing as a whole.

I would practically give my right arm to go on any one of these trips.

I feel blessed to be born in an age where spaceflight is possible :)

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[fredrikj]

I would practically give my right arm to go on any one of these trips.

I'd happily go in the ship whose computer system was programmed by John Carmack.

The system sponsored by Paul Allen though, hmm...

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[Hieronymus Howard]

I would practically give my right arm to go on any one of these trips.

If you went on one of these trips there's a good chance that you'd end up giving a lot more of your body than your right arm.

HH
--

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[RobertB-DC]

I'm personally rooting for Armadillo Aerospace

Me too, because they're the local boys (and girl). But the SS1 folks are breaking the sound barrier while Armadillo is still working on their fuel mixture. It just doesn't look too good for Carmack & Co, at least not for the X-Prize.

Hopefully, though, they'll still be in the running for future commercial applications. Sometimes, it's better to be second or third...

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[Zog The Undeniable]

Whereas Paul Allen's spacecraft will have all kinds of gadgets you didn't think a spacecraft really needed (and won't really be safe to fly in until the first Service Pack), Carmack's craft will have guns. LOTS of guns.

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[Orne]

I think the one thing that history has taught us is that what matters most is not who does it first, but who markets the living hell out of the idea.

After all, we don't call people on the Elisha Grey Telephone (Bell), we don't listen to the Tesla Radio (Marconi), and we don't watch Farnsworth televisions (RCA).

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats you are hereby awarded a class A zealot license. You may proceed to spread your zealotry at will without any regard to truth. God speed, young zealot!

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[fredrikj]

Has nothing to to with zealotry. I'm simply thinking of the fact that all id Software games have had so bad looking explosions that there's just no way anything with Carmack involved could explode in reality.

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[jfx32]

The telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci not by Grey or Bell. He was simply to poor to patent his invention.

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[VanillaCoke420]

I'd bet my money on Canadian Arrow or Starchaser before Armadillo. I do believe Scaled will win. Except for these three teams, few are even close to space right now.

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[metachor]

> Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and the parent, both show your age. It is a John Belushi line in Animal House.

Re:Don't forget Carmack

[Zog The Undeniable]

I'll have to change my sig again...this started a thread yesterday...

Re:Space...

[Anonymous Coward]

sir_haxalot, is that you?

No anti-Microsoft statements yet?

[drowstar]

There were 5 posts so far and none of them was anti-Microsoft.
Come on guys, we can do better than this!

Re:No anti-Microsoft statements yet?

[mcc]

Microsoft... uh... sucks?

Obligatory joke

[JamesP]

This spaceship has encountered an error and will self-destruct now. Microsoft apologizes for the inconvenience...

Re:Obligatory joke

[rupert2000]

Space ship has encountered an error and will now shut down.
Options: Send report to Microsoft, Don't Send

Re:Obligatory joke

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

That gives a whole new meaning on the Blue Screen Of Death or a Fatal Error.

Windows in Space

[manganese4]

Well if they use windows on the operatoring system for the Microsoft MicroShip, when it gets hacked as an SMTP relay, it will give new meaning to Chuck Yeager's phrase for the mercury astronauts "Spam in a can"

It'll be tough to reboot ...

[wardomon]

when the MicroSoft spacecraft crashes.

Re:It'll be tough to reboot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... It did sort of crash on landing. The pilot kinda sorta forgot to slow down and the left MLG was ripped off during landing. Listening to his voice on the radio during the flight, he seemed to be having one hell of an adrenaline rush after he lit the rocket motor. Apparently, the rush persisted through final approach.

Hope it fares better than Transmetta

[glrotate]

That was another flop of his, along with the 'Blazers.

Alien Confirmed...

[SirChris]

I thought that it said Alien confirmed as sponsor. And that would have been good news.

windows or *nix

[Dreadlord]

I wonder whether SpaceShipOne project computers run Windows, it would be extremely ironic to have *nix computers in a project for M$ co-founder...

Re:windows or *nix

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are it uses a real time OS such as VxWorks, Windows could never be used for such a project.

Re:windows or *nix

[Kenja]

Why would that be ironic? Most people do not view their OS as a religon and use the best tool for the job.

Re:windows or *nix

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would that be ironic? Most people do not view their OS as a religon and use the best tool for the job.

But what good can a tool be that is not approved by god?

I for one have chosen the sanctified one under the kernels, just to be on the safe side!

Re:windows or *nix

[whovian]

Perhaps, but wouldn't opening Windows in space blow you out into the vacuum? ;)

Re:windows or *nix

[Beer_Smurf]

Rutans previous Boomerang twin was controlled by a PowerBook.

Re:windows or *nix

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but wouldn't opening Windows in space blow you out into the vacuum?

OK, that is the possibly the dumbest comment I've heard in a while.

Blow you out into the vacuum?

Please think about that statement, and then respond as to why it is idiotic and moronic.

Re:windows or *nix

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

But what good can a tool be that is not approved by god?

What would God know about tools? All he ever did was creating an universe and it didn't even has an edge.

Re:windows or *nix

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody missed the physics courses at troll school. Tsk tsk.

Re:windows or *nix

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA YOU ARE TEH FUNNAY

well

[theMerovingian]

Allen hopes Rutan's ship will win the $10 million X-Prize to help kickstart private manned space flight.

If he was that worried about it, he could cough up 10 million without too much trouble. Larry Ellison's yacht cost more than that.

Allen probably just likes being the patron saint of technology.

Re:well

[Pulzar]

It's not the $10M that will kick-start the private manned space flight, it is achieving the goals required by the X-Prize that will prove that private space flight is possible and will get things going in the right direction.

Re:well

[BigGerman]

Paul Allen bought Larry a yacht??
Now that _is_ an Interesting piece of gossip!

Re:well

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

He's already coughed up 10s of millions for this project. Even sub-orbital space flight is not cheap. This project not withstanding we are a long way from provate space exploration, the development is just too costly for there to be any chance of profit.

Re:well

[Bibbity]

Paul has spent a whole heck of a lot more than $10 million on this project and is expected to spend a lot more.

Rutan's team is the only one that has the financial backing which allows them to spend more than the prize money to win the XPRIZE. All other teams are working towards the same goal but with a drastically lower budget. Nevertheless, working with $30-$50 million to win $10 million is a lot better than simply failing, which several other companies in the past have done with higher budgets.

Though it would be nice to see the underdogs win, if Rutan and Allen win, it'll still be a good thing and definitely a move in the right direction.

Too Bad a Generation Had to Be Lost

[Baldrson]

Congratulations to Paul Allen for his support of one of the X-Prize team.

Too bad a generation of pioneer-heritage Americans had to be lost before releasing that culture to pursue space as a place.

Re:Too Bad a Generation Had to Be Lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonk wonk wonk..

ObMicrosoftTroll

[grub]

How did the plywood fare after hitting Mach 1?

Oh no! Blue screen of...

[Anonymous Coward]

...flash-frozen space corpse.

Nice web site...

[hungryfrog]

I hope their rocket design is better than their web skilz... Nice site with better than 1/2 the page (at 1024x768) taken up by a cheesy graphic and menu.

Re:Nice web site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it isn't. Rutan was heavily inspired by the archetypical 1950s futuristic rocketship designs, resulting in the construction of an ugly, hulking monstrosity with hundreds of ugly ass portholes in its hull. It's like Argos, the monster, not Argos the ship.

Fuck Rutan!

Second obligatory joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear they plan on giving a complementary box of boxcutters to every passenger travelling on the flights.

Re:Second obligatory joke

[clem]

Regrettably, they lacked the means to cut away the thick layers of packing tape that secured the box. A similar dilema occured with the complementary can of can openers.

Good to see it

[Chitlenz]

This has to be some kind of ideological statement by this guy. 10M is nothing, for gods sakes, he pays ALL of his Seattle Supersonics more than that every year, so it can't be the money.

Whatever his investment amount is, its good to see both noteriety and cash flow in to private space programs. Maybe we can set a trend where rich geeks get sick of waiting, and goto space on our own. If you think about it, it's kinda the way we (as in geeks as a whole) tend to act anyway (when we're at our best that is).

I forget who said it, but someone quoted that every good program begins as an itch that needs to be scratched by the programmer... maybe this one's his?

-chitlenz

Re:Good to see it

[cens0r]

The starbucks guy own the sonices... paul allen owns the seahawks though. I think he may have tried to buy the mariners when they were for sale, but nintendo got them instead.

Re:Good to see it

[Com2Kid]

Paul Allen is a Really Cool Guy(tm) who does a lot of Really Nice Things For The Community(tm).

Because Paul Allen owns most of Seattle I am required to say this.

c/o a Seattle resident (Property of Paul Allen)

X-Prize Redundant?

[N8F8]

The Russians are charging $20 mil per passenger for tourists. Doesn't take much for that to outcompete X-Prize for motivation.

Re:X-Prize Redundant?

[taniwha]

the X prize isn't about tourism - it's about creating alternates to the big govt controlled space programs and eventually getting the cost of space travell down so that you don't have to be a .com millionaire or pop star to be able to afford it

Re:X-Prize Redundant?

[N8F8]

But the carrot is the X-Prize and the prestige. OTOH, being the first civilian corp to put a tourist in space could be just as big a motivator, especially if no-one claims the X-Prize.

Re:X-Prize Redundant?

[neurojab]

I tend to think that the actual cost of launching one of these people is greater than what they pay to get on board. It's not a profitable model. The only reason it seems to work now is because the US is subsidising the russian space program. So if you live in the US, it's YOUR money that's getting N*Sync stars into space. The X-prize is about making PROFITABLE commericial space travel, which would be very cool indeed.

Re:X-Prize Redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the X prize may be about increasing access to space, but in the near-term that's going to take the form of tourism. If you read the web sites of the contestants, most say this is what they intend to do with their vehicles. It's not like you can use these things to launch satellites, and they don't stay up long enough to run much in the way of scientific experiments.

Until they start running commuter flights to the ISS, all space passengers will be tourists.

Third obligatory joke

[Anonymous Coward]

No ticket to ride will ever cost more than 640K.

For the benefit of Humanity

[sufehmi]

Let's hope the winner of X-prize and other participants won't patent their work like mad, to the point of disabling others to build similar machine.

If ship was patented to death for example, I don't think there would be that many ships on the ocean now.

I have high hopes for the future of humanity with X-prize and its participants, but then again I've yet to see the limit of human's ability to shoot itself on the foot.

Re:For the benefit of Humanity

[fgodfrey]

The Write Brothers patented the heck out of their airplane and it would seem that there are quite a few of those around. If I invested millions of dollars to develop a spacecraft, why shouldn't I get to build it myself? I can see where most software patents are pretty lame, but a civilian spacecraft has to have invented some pretty non-obvious technology.

In any case, the patent would expire in N years (20? I think?) and after that, everyone would have the design so it wouldn't destroy the future of humanity. At worst, it would make the next 20 years of spaceflight a bit more difficult.

Re:For the benefit of Humanity

[DerekLyons]

[quote]If ship was patented to death for example, I don't think there would be that many ships on the ocean now.[/quote]Fact is... Many features on ships were/are patented.

Re:For the benefit of Humanity

[JimPooley]

The Write Brothers...

You ignorant FUCK. There is no excuse for such ignorance.

The WRIGHT Brothers.
I'll show you again.
The WRIGHT Brothers.

Re:For the benefit of Humanity

[fgodfrey]

Do you randomly troll through old /. threads and swear at random people who make typos? Get a life, loser.

kick'em!

[ajaf]

Good! they're investing on ships so they're prepared when we kick'em from earth!

Submitter's thoughts

[freeweed]

Quick! Maybe we can Slashdot Microsoft!

And it wouldn't be possible...

[Zebra_X]

If paul allen hadn't made boat loads of cash working for M$. I don't see Linus financing the Nina and Pinta of the infant space age.

>:O

Re:And it wouldn't be possible...

[MagPulse]

Pff, if you buy Linus's audio book, you can hear him in his own voice whine on for about a minute about how expensive his new house in downtown LA or SF or wherever he moved to was. He's sitting there complaining to his interviewer who I'm sure lives in a house a tenth as nice, who actually does tell Linus he shouldn't be complaining, to which Linus just responds with more whining.

He might be a great coder but I'm glad he doesn't have any more money to throw away.

Re:And it wouldn't be possible...

[Zebra_X]

An expensive house is one thing, a space ship? that's a whole different ball game all together. :-)

Paul Allan is a JERK

[zulux]

Paul Allan bought a summer camp out from under the camp, kicked the kids off and built a multi-million dollar trophy home in it's place.

Kind of like a "Ernest Goes to Camp" without the happy ending.

more info here

Re:Paul Allan is a JERK

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for him. It's nice to see the wealthy throwing some weight around instead of constantly bowing to the ridiculous demands of the unwashed masses. It's almost like Gates, Allen et al are supposed to give away their hard-earned money.

Re:Paul Allan is a JERK

[HeghmoH]

I don't get it. Why did they sell it to him? You are not obligated to sell your property to anybody, no matter who it is or how much money they're offering.

Re:Paul Allan is a JERK

[zulux]

The camp was owned by a family that was a freind of the camp - they were in the process of selling the camp property at fair market value to the camp itself.

Then Paul came in with $BIGNUM and swiped the camp.

So, yes, someone sold out for $BIGNUM.

And yes, Paul Allan is still a JERK. Fucking with a summer-camp is just being an ass.

Re:Paul Allan is a JERK

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Because he is the first person on the face of this planet to do something like this! Maybe that camp had special meaning to him. Maybe he was beat up at it, molested, who knows. It could've been revenge as well. :)

Re:Paul Allan is a JERK

[spike hay]

The camp was owned by a family that was a freind of the camp - they were in the process of selling the camp property at fair market value to the camp itself.

Then Paul came in with $BIGNUM and swiped the camp.

So, yes, someone sold out for $BIGNUM.

And yes, Paul Allan is still a JERK. Fucking with a summer-camp is just being an ass.

Wow. Not only are you incoherent, but you are also completely incorrect. Paul Allen purchased the property. The camp was relocated. The camp still exists, but in a different location.

Even if the camp was demolished and the poor kiddies have to find another place to go over the summer, I don't fucking care. It is a free market economy. The owners of the property sold it fairly to Paul Allen. Both parties consented. I don't see the problem.

It is a fact of life that things often get demolished to put other things. It's just the way it is. Sure it sometimes is sad to see old buildings get demolished to put in new buildings, but that's just how things work.

Re:Paul Allan is a JERK

[zulux]

The camp was relocated. The camp still exists, but in a different location.

It's not the same camp. The're doing the best they can - but it's a shaddow of their former self.

Sure.. Paul and the owners can do what they did legally.

Just like Paul Allan got his rape accuser to shut up by settleing with her.

Just like OJ was decared innocent.

I don't fucking care. It is a free market economy

We'll I do. People like Paul are legal, but the're still assholes.

If I see him, I'll tell him.

Fourth obligatory joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"Linus, I am your father."

Re:Space...

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, didn't actually think I would get flamebait for it though. Damn, stupid me.......! Sorry man.

Nice going, Paul!

[Thagg]

It's kind of amazing, in the last two days we've had a couple of interesting space stories, both involving about the same sum. Two more 'space tourists' are going to fly to the ISS in Soyuz capsules, for $20MM. Paul Allen is revealed as the sponser of Rutan's effort -- total cost, about $20MM.

So, where one person gets to go into space, by himself, atop a converted Russian ICBM -- somebody with a little more sand kickstarts an entire private space industry. The tourists have only their memories, while Allen will have his own spaceship!

Very inspiring, Mr Allen.

thad

Re:Nice going, Paul!

[MarkLR]

There is a dramatic difference between a sub orbital flight and going to orbit and staying in space for days.

When a X-Prize craft can reach orbit that's interesting, until then these vehicles are really of little interest.

Re:Nice going, Paul!

[Bibbity]

Paul Allen is revealed as the sponser of Rutan's effort -- total cost, about $20MM

It is estimated that Paul Allen has spent at least $30million on Rutan's efforts thus far. It wouldn't be surprizing if at the end of the day $50million (or more) was spent towards Rutan's entire project.

Re:Damn...

[Lane.exe]

"Windows(R)(C)(TM) Spaceship(R)(C)(TM) has detected a General Radiation Protection Fault in Sector 129C. Preparing to eject all damaged material."

"CTRL ALT DELETE! CTRL ALT DELETE!"

Seattle Supersonics?

[egg troll]

Paul Allen owns the Portland Trailblazers. However, given the current standings in the Pacific Division, I'd want to own the Seattle Supersonics, too. :)

Microsoft in Space

[cheeseSource]

Okay bring on the jokes about usiing the MS operating system in space...

"I have no idea what happend - this blue screen appeared and the ship shut down on re-entry..."

Re:Microsoft in Space

[Odonian]

So BSOD == Blue Sky Of Death ?

Quite well ....

[taniwha]

I fly rockets thru mach all the time - ply does quite well for fins, and cardboard for airframes so long as you build well enough (lots of epoxy in the right places and of course glassing fins helps too) - and don't spent too long in the transition reason - otherwise fin flutter will kill you

Gates vs. Allen

[GuyMannDude]

Paul Allen likes to spend his money on more "visionary" pursuits, trying to further push the technology envelope, but Gates has certainly thrown plenty of money to good causes in his own right.

There are lots of ways to look at how Gates and Allen spend their money. You pointed out one distinction. However, I'd like to go a little deeper into that and ask why.

Here's my theory: Gates has convinced himself that he's a genius. That he's smarter than almost everyone. He feels that he's the elite. This explains his attempts to so fully dominate and control the future of computing. He certainly doesn't need the money. He's doing it because he honestly feels that he knows better than anyone else how computing should evolve.

But he's not entirely heartless. He sees the poor unfortunate masses who aren't as great as he is and feels like he should give them a few bucks. Kind of like royalty flinging coins out the windows of their buggies and at the miserable wretches in the crowd as they roll down the common street. It makes him feel good about himself and, quite frankly, those who are lucky enough to catch those coins he chucks out the window really do need the money so they are grateful.

Allen, on the other hand, has a much more modest view of his place in the world. Unlike Gates, he does not believe that he's one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. He can fully appreciate the fact that there are scores of other people out there with great ideas. Since he has the money, he funds their work in the hopes that they will be able to develop their ideas into fantastic technologies that advance the human race.

There's no right or wrong here. Both are doing what they feel is best.

GMD

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[Anonymous Coward]

i wish they'd make a gates vs. allen movie instead of alien vs. predator. i'd pay money to go see that.

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[Anonymous Coward]

and they are both better people than you, who sits on the sideline doing nothing but critisizing, and complaining.

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[kippy]

Dude, this is so wrong it isn't even funny. If you look at the cash breakdown here you'll see that more than half the money goes to researching desease. This is a noble cause no matter what you think about his opperating system. The Gates Founddation does wonderfull things even if I hate Clippy.

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[Anonymous Coward]

From reading on the subject... Gates has an interesting perspective, overall. Remember, for a long time, XENIX was the driving force behind the company... but they switched when it became obvious they couldn't take control of the UNIX standards.

In some ways, he's a geek's geek, and *does* have good ideas for the future of computing, but the execution's been lacking thus far. He's the guy who pushed for HPCs to retain keyboards, and for the 'convertible' keyboarded TabletPC form-factor to come back into vogue... but the price points are insane, and "Windows in your pocket" really didn't have the appeal of... Well, even DOS in your pocket. (Viz the Poqet, HP900LX, and even Psion's pre-EPOC and early EPOC machines.)

Right now, we're seeing that one of his main "architectural" drives is the idea that interfaces should be predictive -- with computers so ridiculously fast and sitting idle so often, let the machine guess what you want to do, so it might have it done before you figure it out yourself; the beauty of automation. Problem is, again, the execution is lacking (and that's a pretty hard, almost insoluble problem anyway) ... Windows reordering and hiding items in the Start Menu based on limited 'sensory' data just doesn't give you the feeling of efficiency and convenience he's hoped for (because now, what used to be a memorable reflex is suddenly unpredictable, until you disable the 'feature').

You have to feel bad for the guy, in a way... He's an okay integrator of others' ideas into new wholes... But you get the sense he's as (or more?) inarticulate as McNealy or anyone else when it comes to expressing his real thoughts to the developers, and content enough with his money pit that he doesn't really need to strive to improve.

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my theory: Gates has convinced himself that he's a genius. That he's smarter than almost everyone. He feels that he's the elite. This explains his attempts to so fully dominate and control the future of computing.
-- The sad part is that he can actually prove all of the above

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[Jonathan Platt]

"Gates has convinced himself that he's a genius"

So you must think pretty highly of yourself if you believe you are qualified to make such bold psychoanalyses of these guys.

Come on get off your own high horses. No matter how you look at it they have both had a greater impact on the world than you and there is no way of determining if their presence has made the world a better place (as we can not see alternative worlds). So when these guys give to any charities they should be respected for doing so and not have their motives judged.

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[altmel]

I suppose you have $50 billion to spend?

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[Anonymous Coward]

Allen, on the other hand, has a much more modest view of his place in the world. Unlike Gates, he does not believe that he's one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. He can fully appreciate the fact that there are scores of other people out there with great ideas.

That seems to be consistent with the application policies for their respective foundations:

http://www.pgafoundations.com/app_fr.asp?item=3

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants/Eligibilit yA ndGuidelines/

Re:Gates vs. Allen

[afeeney]

However, Gates and the Gates Foundation have been willing to change course, which would suggest a more modest worldview. The Foundation first started as an organization to bring technology to the developing world, but it wasn't long before it did two remarkable things:

1. Noticed that emphasizing technology didn't do that much in nations and communities where the basics of food, water, and medical care weren't available

2. Rethought its purpose and determined that the best thing to do to serve the communities was to provide for those basic needs.

Of course, just about every foundation goes through changes in its focuses, but it's downright remarkable for one to do so so early and so thoroughly, instead of grudgingly, after ignoring realities for quite a long while.

That said, both initiatives are full of vision, in their own ways, and bravo to them both!

Paul Allen is cool....

[The Lynxpro]

Why can't Bill Gates be more like Paul Allen and then more people would actually like him? Or maybe more like Sir Richard Branson... Just a thought...

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[frankthechicken]

Ahh, you mean like set up something like this?

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[Spacemannn]

or.... www.pgafoundations.org

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[The Lynxpro]

"Ahh, you mean like set up something like this?"

Uhm, no. Bill Gates did not participate in any philanthropic activities until Ted Turner started criticizing him. And a lot of it had to do with PR since Microsoft was taking a lot of flack over being a convicted monopolist. Aside from Corbis, Gates is almost completely focused on Microsoft; expanding Microsoft's monopoly. Allen funds whatever he thinks is interesting and/or can possibly make a profit. Allen is not concerned about expanding Microsoft's empire. Allen was the UNIX enthusiast at Microsoft when he was there, by the way. While its fine and dandy that Gates is paying for vaccinations, his company is also the organization that has the audacity to audit poorly funded schools and non-profits for licensing compliance on donated computers. Its much like Jack the Pumpkin King trying to take over Christmas, if you ask me...

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[reverendslappy]

And I thought I was a cynic.

"Gates is almost completely focused on ...expanding Microsoft's monopoly."

Yeah, I guess that little "almost" in there is the 6.2 BILLION DOLLARS in grants and donations. I guess this is what prevents him from being "completely" focused on Microsoft's monopoly, right?

I'm not exactly a Microsoft apologist, but for you to sit there an dismiss such a huge amount of philanthropy as a PR campaign or tantamount to billionaire one-upmanship angers the shit outta me -- regardless of who's in question.

Maybe I'll be more inclined listen to you bitch when you donate 13% of your net worth to charity.

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[The Lynxpro]

"Yeah, I guess that little "almost" in there is the 6.2 BILLION DOLLARS in grants and donations. I guess this is what prevents him from being "completely" focused on Microsoft's monopoly, right?"

Bill Gates does not run his foundation, his father does. So does his wife, the former manager of Microsoft "Bob".

"I'm not exactly a Microsoft apologist, but for you to sit there an dismiss such a huge amount of philanthropy as a PR campaign or tantamount to billionaire one-upmanship angers the shit outta me -- regardless of who's in question."

Why does that anger you? Are you Mr. Gates? The fact remains that Mr. Gates did not get on the philanthropic exploits until Ted Turner started mocking him in the press. Turner has given more (as a ratio to his wealth) than Mr. Gates has. Turner gave the proceeds without anyone guilt-tripping him over it. And Turner doesn't go around to countries asking them to give Time Warner any contracts when he writes out his donations. It is unfortunate for Turner that Time Warner stock has devaluated so much which is capping his ability to maintain his donation commitments.

"Maybe I'll be more inclined listen to you bitch when you donate 13% of your net worth to charity."

Excuse me, but you don't know me and you don't know the amount of money or time that I've committed to charities, thank you very much. Now, back to the discussion on Gates...

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[reverendslappy]

"Bill Gates does not run... blah blah blah"

You're right. It's only his $26 BILLION (sorry, $6.2 billion is just what they've given out so far) that comprises the endowment.

"Mr. Gates did not get on the philanthropic exploits... blah blah blah"

So? Just as I don't know "the amount of money or time" that you've committed to charities, you don't have a clue as to what Mr. Gates' motives are, and the smarmy, self-important intimation that you do is part of what angers me. And "guilt-tripping"? Is that a joke? Bill Gates can either be an emotionless corporate hard-heart, hell-bent on world domination, or he can be swayed by the "guilt" laid on him by people. He can't be both. Pick one.

And does he "go around to countries asking them" for contracts? I'd like to see any evidence of that beyond anecdotal /. rants. Even if that has some basis in fact (which it could), it doesn't change the fact that countless people have benefitted with their lives from the grants. And it doesn't stand to reason that Gates would say "Hey, here's $200 million. But first, sign this $4 million contract." I'm no math major, but that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Speaking of not making sense, let's examine part of what you're saying:

"He doesn't run the Foundation."
"He does run the Foundation and uses it to get Microsoft contracts."

Huh?

"You don't know me... blah blah blah."

You're right. And you don't know Bill Gates. Maybe you should take some of your own advice, and not speculate as to the intentions of another person.

But, given the size of the entire endowment, I think it's safe to guess you (just like I and most of the rest of the population of the world) haven't given 56% of their net worth to charity. That, unlike your assumptions, has at least some statistical validity to it (somewhere... I'm not about to look up average charitable donations by household as a percentage of income, but I'll betcha 50 bucks it's a whole shitload less than 56%. Feel free to look it up, though, if you think that statistical assumption is wrong).

Either way, I suppose I don't really care what you donate. I think it's absurd for you dismiss the significance of the donations as being executed for personal reasons of ego, while ignoring the benefits they've caused -- regardless of their source. I don't think it's any better of you to criticize Mr. Gates like you do than it would be for you to say to me "Bah, whatever chartitable donations you've made have only been to make yourself feel good and only for your benefit" or something to that effect. And that'd get me wicked-pissed off.

Re:Paul Allen is cool....

[Anonymous Coward]

At the UW in Seattle, Mr. Allen donated a bunch of money to some college for construction of facilities but had to stamp his name on it. ... Mr. Allen also took over a venerable (KCMU I think) radio station and ruined it. With his kind of prosperity I guess it is easy for me to nitpick amoungst the attempts at altruism. A la Voltaire, I have more than enough to worry about in my own immediate backyard (2kids, money).
later...

There's some padding...

[zipwow]

I'm reminded of KC Royals owner Ewing Kauffman in the early 70's.

I should point out at this point that the Royals were very competitive, mostly due to the money that Kauffman was putting into the club.

Anyway, the story goes that one reporter asked him if he was worried about the amount of money he was losing by owning the Royals. His reply?

"Yeah, I can probably only afford to do this another fifteen or twenty years."

If Paul Allen wants it to work, it works. That's what being in the "top 5 richest..." list is about.

-Zipwow

if (SpaceShipOne)

[sahen]

that might explain why they used Visual Basic naming conventions.

Facts? Anyone?

[redfenix]

Okay, I'll admit. I bit, I checked the link and I check the site's links. I still did not find what I was looking for and have one blazing question:

Who sold the camp?

In order for someone to buy, someone else has to be willing to sell. The purchaser cannot be the only one at fault. Apparently, the seller was largely at fault for not recognizing the importance of the camp site and "selling out."

Re:Moderation System

[ajaf]

OFFTOPIC troll!

You're off topic & I got mod points

[JetScootr]

But I'll answer instead.
* "More mod down than up." Maybe there are more trolls than interesting or informative people. I can easily believe this. Also, If something is well said, several people may mod it up at the same time - remember there's a time lag between post, mod, post score change, other people do stuff, etc.
* "logged in are modded down faster then AC." This is cuz when a user first gets mod points, they may not change their preferences. I go in and set "threshold" and "highlight threshold" to -1 when I get mod points. Then I put it back to 2,3 like I normally use. But some moderators may not change their thresholds, and may have AC modded DOWN -1 in their prefs. This would result in what you're seeing.
* "Once your karma hits -4 or -5, your posts are -1 and no one mods you down anymore. AC is 0". AC is higher than bad karma cuz it's not nice to assume the worst of a stranger. As for low karma users being ignored, well of course. See previous answer.
* "some posts modded down are clever but off topic....news site like /." Yup. There's an "Offtopic" choice when the moderator justifies his mod. PS: This ain't a news site. It's a gossip site where the topic is often something in the news.
* "digging deep..." You can this stuff right on the surface in a cow pasture. The motto here is "news for nerds. Stuff that matters", NOT "Fair and balanced". You don't want to hear about how great linux is? Try this.
* "I thank you for your time". You're welcome.

Re:Space...

[falcon5768]

These are the private voyages of the spaceplane Microsoft.

It was the surgery.

[Moderation abuser]

He had his personality surgically removed as an adolescent.

SpaceShipOne vs malaria, AIDS, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the post meant to be ironic? As a space nerd, I'm happy that Paul Allen is funding the development of a spacecraft, but all in all, I don't think a suborbital spacecraft is more important than trying to eradicate AIDS, malaria, and hunger. Check the Gates Foundation web site.

And no, I'm not saying we have to choose between earthly needs and exploration.

just imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

if there had been a tech blog in the age of naval exploration, with a discussion on whether or not Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth...

Re:just imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT?!! You mean the earth isn't flat!?

What am I gonna do with all this rope to help save ships sailing to the edge?!!

Gates Foundation grants.... $6,200,000,000

[The Anointed]

That's "Billions", folks.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants/

Carmack has a run for his money

[AbbyssalOni]

While reading Masters of Doom you find out that John Carmack was looking to acheive that X-prize. Wonder if the id man can still do it...

Seahawks Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at his other high-profile outsied adventure : the Seattle Seahawks.

0 Super Bowls.

Re:Seahawks Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU. Seahawks ownz.

Just the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if you ever tried to enter the anal probing marketspace, you'd quickly see they're not above cutting your throat to protect their monopolies.

What has Linus done for us lately?

[t0ny]

Its nice to see people like Bill Gates, now Paul Allen, and id Software's John Carmack doing things with their wealth that benefits humanity.

By contrast, all I hear about Linus is him buying some expensive sports car. Oh well, I guess the guy isnt really the second coming of Christ, after all.

Re:What has Linus done for us lately?

[dotwaffle]

Linus bought a Z3, yeah big deal. He has like $3 or 4 million if memory serves me right, and he spends wisely, like on his house. Bill Gates has $50 odd BILLION and gives 0.01 % to charity. Big deal. Linus Torvalds doesn't get money as people pay for linux, he gets it as a thank you from companies granting him stock interests. He isn't even the head developer (Andrew Morton is now...) so basically, he's just the face. Bill Gates OWNS Microsoft. Linux doesn't own Linux. He owns the copyright, but not the source. It's free for all, and every Linux developer (even user?) owns a share. Correct me if I'm wrong, IANAL.

Re:What has Linus done for us lately?

[mal3]

He isn't even the head developer (Andrew Morton is now...) so basically, he's just the face.

Yes he is. He just turned 2.6 development over to Andrew Morton. Just like when he turned 2.4 over to Marcello. Now Linux will go back into a development stage with 2.7, then cut over to 2.8 at which time Linus will have some other person maintain it. Just like when he turned 2.4 over to Marcello.

Re:What has Linus done for us lately?

[dotwaffle]

2.7 hasn't been announced yet, he's in limbo atm. By the way, when are mm's patches going to be integrated in 2.6? They're rather useful!

Re:What has Linus done for us lately?

[t0ny]

Gates has $50 odd BILLION and gives 0.01 % to charity. Big deal.

You may want to check those figures, i think they are a wee bit off.

Bill Gates OWNS Microsoft. Linux doesn't own Linux.

Gates = good businessman. Linus = bad businessman.

One is, in the capitalist sense, earning the most from their efforts, the other is not. Money isnt everything, but it sure is nice to have. For example, Gates has given at least a BILLION to charity (which is why your figures are way off), which he would never have been able to do if he werent a good businessman.

The more you have, the more you can do.

Re:What has Linus done for us lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe hes busy making babies between releases?

If you knew what you were talking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Allen contributing money to the project doesn't make it more or less likely to succeed. The fact that Rutan is running it makes it VERY likely to succeed. The man is an aviation genius.

MS Orbital Vehicle Assistant

[Odonian]

__
/ \
|O O|
|\_/| "Looks like you are trying to Break
| | The sound barrier!"
| | |
| | |
| \_/

Re:MS Orbital Vehicle Assistant

[tgd]

Was that subconsciously or consciously intended to look like a penis with a smile on top? What are you saying about Microsoft, really?

Re:MS Orbital Vehicle Assistant

[shrikel]

Nice. We need more ASCIIArt on this forum. We're geeks, after all!

Re:MS Orbital Vehicle Assistant

[mpn14tech]

EJECT!! EJECT!! EJECT!!

Re:MS Orbital Vehicle Assistant

[Anonymous Coward]

If THAT looks like your penis, you need to see a doctor.

In the future M$ will own all the space ships

[eadint]

The massive spac e armada lines up for the battle to save earth from the alien mennace, and just before the conflict all of the space ships go dark.

No really, dosent the idea of MS trying to fund space erk you a little, kinda like seti at home.
Given the history of microsoft embrace and extend, i dont want them embracing and extending space,

By the way has anyone else notice the Mach.com adds for geeks. thats just scarry. what about jenny cam

Re:In the future M$ will own all the space ships

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly SCO will claim that System V code was used in the development of all spacecraft therefore SCO owns everything.

The toilet on the space shuttle

[rebelcool]

cost almost as much as all of SS1's development and launches.

Private industry is the future of space. Another notable thing about SS1's development, is that all of their subcontractors doing things like the rocket motor (except perhaps Thiokol who I believe supplies their graphite fabric) are small businesses themselves.

Re:Space...

[Anonymous Coward]

...its five-minute mission: to actually stay running long enough to keep you from falling back into the Pacific Ocean.

quiz of the day

[savuporo]

Quiz of the day,
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/p hotos/images/800/Brian%20Paul%20and%20Burt_800.jpg
Identify the Mastermind, the Pilot, and a Sponsor on the picture ( IMO, a instant classic ) .

BTW, scaled has posted loads of new images over here: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/p hotos/photos_text.htm

not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

you got modded to -1 for daring to question the wisdom of moderators. it doesn't matter that it is ontopic and worthy of discussion, the parent comment is nonsensical tripe.

this really has gotten out of hand on slashdot. moderators and editors just can't stand people questioning the idiocy here.

So it's government sponsored after all?

[Anonymous Coward]

...given the illegal monopoly and mandated use of Microsoft products throughout the US government.

Crash and burn instead of a BSOD

[Anonymous Coward]

....My joke about this considering it has/had anything to do with a MS co-founder.

protection AND documentation: Patents

[freshfromthevat]

Patents were cool because the protection given by the Patent made the documentation process rqeuired worth doing, but they were even MORE cool because they make sure that the idea gets recorded for all to see. Once upon a time invention were kept secret and often lost before implemented. Patents attempted to fix that.

that is unspeakably disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

really.

Re:Moderation System -- my experience

[anantherous coward]

I have had a +5 informative moderation once, but mostly I have been left with a default of +1 -- and justly so. My first post was moderated down to a -1. It was part of an off-topic thread, and I felt at the time that the moderation was unfair.

The +5 post was the first post with some links and a perspective that no one else had yet persented and it was on topic. It merited being modded up.

Do you realize that most of the moderation is done by people members of the community? -- i.e. people who have signed up and have made posts? I have gotten moderation points two times now. I don't know why. My karma is still just 1, but I have tried to be judicious in my use of the points and follow the guidelines. Yes, it is true -- Posts that I modded up were most often modded up by others. Perhaps this is because those particular posts actually merited being modded up. That might explain why a post that gets modded up at all, often gets modded up to a 5. Or maybe it is just because we are all Nazi's as you say.

My conclusion from my experience is that Slashdot's solution is the best I know of.

• No one is restricted from making any kind of post no matter how offensive -- witness your GNAA reference or the running gag about goatse. Anyone who gets restricted in the limited ways you describe earns that restriction. Have you experienced BBS's with no censorship? Even with spam removed, they get ruined by trolls and worthless arguments. But -- these arguments are allowed to go on here at slashdot! You are free to engage in all the public discussion you want! And all using slahsdot's, not your, resources. The only difference is that your discussions are made less visible by means of the collective judgment of the community.
• Thanks to this moderation system, it is possible for someone like myself to view read through the comments and glean a lot that I find interesting and useful. Yes, I might miss something that has been overlooked, but in fact I have found the collective mind to have excellent judgment. I don't think it fails much at all in bringing the best stuff to the top. Needless to say, I don't agree with your assessment of the content.
• Slashdot's system preserves free speech while also respecting the wishes of the majority. Slashdot does not need to be fair -- it is not in business to be fair, but, with the system they have, they are very fair over all. Over time "unfair" treatment gets balanced out. A person who participates in the community in good faith will find that they will get modded up when the community finds what they say to be interesting and timely. Not all judgments will be absoloutely fair or just, but on the average it is as fair and as just as one can reasonably expect.

Slashdot's system may not be perfect. But, please take my advice -- if you find a perfect system, don't join it, you will mess it up due to one fatal flaw -- your human.

and in related news...

[bikerguy99]

... Bill Gates of Microsoft has admitted to be a secret and a major is a sponsor of Clonaid (http://www.clonaid.com/news.php).

Have you not yet compiled?

[ScrappyLaptop]

Did you not read about the improvements to SMP and the last minute rewrite of the "patch" to IDE-SCSI? How much of your work have YOU given away this holliday season?

Re:Have you not yet compiled?

[t0ny]

How much of your work have YOU given away this holliday season?

All of it. BTW, you spelled "holiday" wrong.

HOLLIDAY - American comedian best remembered for her performance in the play (1946-1950) and film (1950) Born Yesterday.

Re:Space...

[VanillaCoke420]

...which actually would be a "blue crash".

GAHH!!!

[euxneks]

Torn... between... hatred... for Microsoft... and .... lust for... space travel!!!.... *blows up*

How is that irony?

[MachineShedFred]

Behold, more proof that most people don't understand what Irony is.

Here it is again for the cheap seats:

a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

With Paul Allen funding this...

[TheDefunctMunky]

...doesn't any one else find it a little odd that scaled.com is hosted off of apache on linux?

Re:With Paul Allen funding this...

[n6mod]

Not in the least. Paul Allen hasn't had much to do with Microsoft in a number of years.

ISSUE with the Ship Design

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, its extremely unlikely this vehicle design would ever be capable of orbit. This is because the Wings and other control surfaces would not be able to survive because of the high thermal temperatures. The wings and control surfaces are way too thin to tolerate reentry.

I have my doubts, though.

[MtViewGuy]

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt the Carmack-sponsored Armadillo Aerospace effort will fly the X-Prize flight profile before Scaled Composites does it first. Mostly because SpaceShipOne is already in flight testing and has already demonstrated actual powered flight with a rocket attached.

I'll guess that Paul Allen's support for this project is no more than US$25 million, chump change for someone as rich as Allen.

The difference

[Anonymous Coward]

... between BillG spending his money on African famine/AIDS relief, and spending it on a private space program, is that whatever benefits that humanity accrues from the space program will still be there when all of the money has been spent. Africa, on the other hand, will revert to its usual barbarian-filled Bronze-Age state the second Gates takes his money and goes home.

Harsh, but true.

Re:The difference

[James in Iowa]

Yeah but the thing you forget is that the next Einstein might die as a child from malnutrition or some preventable childhood diseases.

MS space screen saver

[g00bd0g]

Now you can see the REAL MS space screen saver!

You tell him that

[Anonymous Coward]

Be real incisive. You know, forthright. Make no bones about it. Make sure he gets the message.

After all, just because he *once* attracted, mainly coordinated and greatly contributed to the development of a truly free computing movement... doesn't mean he still can. He's old, right?

And, besides, he's a moderate computer nerd. Not a hard tech, rocket science guy.

You're right! He's completely incapable of doing for the pop-space movement the same that he did for collaborative/free OS/software movement! Right!

Go tell him that. Please.
Make sure he listens. ;)

Make em work!

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can escape Earth after ruining it ?

No!

Make them stay and help mend what they ruined! As beasts-of-burden, preferably! Let them fear what Hitler feared!

*Now* he admits it.

[hacksoncode]

Why does this remind me of China keeping their space launch secret until it succeeded?

Good on 'em

[lifebouy]

I've been thinking for years that Billy and Co. should use some of that money to advance mankind. Even if Paul is doing it for some sort of profit, it's the right thing to do. (Albeit for the wrong reason) Ok, Bill, your turn.

uhm...

[rebelcool]

gates has given away billions in vaccinations and AIDS research. In fact, he's the worlds largest donator, ever.

Gates Foundation

Re:uhm...

[lifebouy]

oh you mean like the flu shot, which has only served to strengthen the viral strains? Same thing applies to vaccine (take your pick). tampering with DNA is equally bad, which is the direction of most AIDS research. All you are telling me is that when the world gets wiped out by a super-virus, Gates is likely the one whose money paid for our deaths. Now space exploration, colonization of space, that will give mankind a chance of not being wiped out of existence. I'm all for making sick people better. But not if it means putting the rest of the world at risk. That's like smoking crack to make your finger stop hurting. It just makes more sense to cut the finger off.

Re:Versioning - SpaceShip 95

[Esteanil]

OMG... When SpaceShip95 comes along, Colombia will seem like a happy memory in comparison... Do you remember how those things used to crash!?
Can we build an Open Source spaceship? :p

Which centennial?

[Goth Biker Babe]

So which centennial are you on about?

• In the 18th century the Montgolfier brothers launched a balloon carrying a man - The first ever recorded flight although the Chinese used kites when men strapped to them.
  
• In 1852 Jules Cliffard flew a man in a steam powered dirigable air balloon - The first ever controlled powered flight.
  
• In 1853 Sir George Cayley (who also invented flight surfaces such as flaps and rudder etc) flew his butler in an unpowered monoplane. Unfortunately his gunpowder engine didn't work well! (Basically an internal combustion engine using gunpowder explosions. The quality of the materials meant it kept blowing up). He had actually been successful in flying un manned gliders for the previous fifty years and is considered the father of modern air design. - The first manned flight of a plane.
  
• In 1890 Clement Adler flew in a steam powered monoplane. - The first ever engine powered plane flight.
  
• In early 1903 Richard Pearse, a farmer from New Zealand, flew a similar design but with a petrol engine - The first petrol powered manned flight.
  
• In December 1903 a couple of bicycle makers got in to the act with a fairly primitive plane.
  

It just goes to show it's not whether you were there first just how good your marketing department is.

Sad state at slashdot... yes

[Nazmun]

Yes, it is sad... But I'm also sad that you are posting posting as an AC--why am i the only one sacrificing karma :(. I dunno maybe you are the wiser person.

More importantly I'm somewhat surprised by Slashdot's reaction almost as much as i found my original parent to be marked insightful. Should I continue to question the wisdom of of our great moderators or should I continue to really express my thoughts?

you are a fool

[rebelcool]

if you even bothered to look at the page you would see the vaccinations he donates. They're to third world nations, things like polio, diptheria and other diseases which have been wiped out in the western world but cause havoc in the third world for no good reason except for the fact they're poor.

Re:you are a fool

[lifebouy]

My point is that ALL vaccinations are bad, ditto antibiotics. In a macro sense. At best they cause the viruses and bacteria to get stronger by adapting. At worse, a whole new strain is created by the vaccination producers, or more likely the researchers, which might wipe out the population of Earth. Saying, "Look at all the people its helping!" is short-sighted. It's like dumping your garbage in a landfill. The short-sighted approach says, look, I got rid of the garbage from my house, its clean again. In the long term, we are polluting the earth, poisoning our children's children's children. Vaccination research is Russian Roulette, except the gun is held to the heads of the entire population of earth.

However, I will admit to being a fool.

The bizzare thing is...

[Baldrson]

You have to ask yourself why these wealthy guys don't like putting their wealth up for prizes that return to them also equity stakes?

There is more risk for Allen in the current situation than in the situation you describe where he puts up prize awards and buys into the successful companies.

So if they've lost nerve then it isn't normal risk aversion -- it is some non-business risk they are avoiding.

Re:The bizzare thing is...

[randall_burns]

Well, space development has the potential to eventually create a universe where money just doesn't matter all that much. Most of human history was that way. I can see how that would be rather scary to someone like Allen-who has risen near the top of the heap in a hierarchy where accumulation of money is _the_ big competition that really matters.

Ultimately, money is little more than the ability to mobilize/organize large numbers of people. In terms of the Xprize, had Allen not invested in Rutan, I suspect Carmack would be winning. In closer terms, I can imagine that Carmack represents something substantially different than what Allen does.

I'm glad to see Allen doing _something_ constructive with his money(which is more than I can say about Jobs or Ellison at this point). Still, I think what this experience with the X Prize tells us, space development is too important to be left up just to folks that think in terms of money. Just because Rutan was better able to work with Allen doesn't necessarily mean that Rutan's design is better than that of Carmack--we need to be thinking of how to evaluate these sort of things without letting the pronouncements of lawyers and bean counters get in the way too much. Ideosphere points in that direction a bit-a decision support system that has a little different type of playing field. I can believe that as that area develops more, we'll see that money-based markets are good for organizing some activities but not others.

Is what Gates is doing really more moral?

[randall_burns]

Gates is spending a lot of resources curing diseases. In the short term, this really seems like a "good thing". However, if humanity doesn't similtaneously expand the useful resource base, then eventually, we'll wind up in a situation where there is a conflict over that resource base.

In the short term, Gates is going to get a lot of kudos for helping folks to live longer. The next question though: what do we need to do so those longer lives are really worth living? Do people really want to live in a world where everyplace is like China and dictates that each woman can have only one child-or an ecological basket-case like much of the third world? Gerard O'Neill estimated the resource base of the asteroid belt at several times that of the earth-that is enough to postpone population problems quite a bit(at least for those folks willing to live off-planet).

I see no evidence that globally folks will at present be able to peacefully settle the question of who should and shouldn't reproduce--or for that matter what the right balance is between preservation of various ecosystems and non-human species and expansion of human populations. Development of space potentially gives us more time to work on those kinds of issues.

Mod this down as troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Astroturfing at its finest.

No need to speculate about "guilt tripping" or even trying to win over schools and developping countries to Microsoft. No, the motive is much more short term: tax deductions.

If Bill donates Windows licenses to a school, he deducts full retail price for tax purposes, even though they cost his company only a tiny fraction of that retail price to produce ===> instant win.

The fact of locking the givee into Microsoft, and the good PR are only icing on the cake. The main motive is short term gain!