Become the Fifth Space Tourist

MattSparkes writes "There have been four space tourists so far. You could become the fifth — even if you aren't a dot-com millionaire. New Scientist is running a competition to send one person on a sub-orbital flight, 62 miles above the Earth. All you have to do is write 250 words on what the best ever patented invention is. Personally I think it has to be the Levitationarium." Of course if you win you'll probably have to pay the taxes.

Comments

Only for UK residents

[lecithin]

Terms and Conditions

http://www.winatriptospace.co.uk/blogs/patent/tand c.html

1. This competition is open to anyone aged 18 or over who is ordinarily resident in the UK except for employees of Reed Business Information Limited, Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Limited or Space Adventures Ltd and their immediate families. For guidance on what 'ordinarily resident' means see

www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cbtmanual/cbtm10020.htm.

Re:Only for UK residents

[syousef]

2. You must sell your soul to the lords of IP evil by promoting shitty patents as being good for invention and innovation.

Brits Only!

[tverbeek]

Note: This contest is only open to residents of the UK.

So no need to worry about the IRS demanding a share... just Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Re:Brits Only!

[julesh]

So no need to worry about the IRS demanding a share... just Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Fortunately for us Brits, prize winnings are tax exempt.

Re:Brits Only!

[muftak]

Especially if they are not cash. I'm not sure I believe that story about getting taxed on a prize that isn't cash.

Re:Brits Only!

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Believe it or not, it is true. If you win a car in a church raffle in the US, you must pay applicable taxes on the prize. Sucks, but it's the truth :(

Re:Brits Only!

[ari_j]

Sorry, life's a bitch. If you're on a game show and get to choose between a car and cash, take the cash. Also, as to the IRS not taking any of your winnings, if you're a US citizen and you reside in the UK and win, the IRS is going to come after you, anyhow.

Re:Brits Only!

[tompaulco]

If you win a car in a church raffle in the US, you must pay applicable taxes on the prize.
At least with a car, there is an MSRP that says what it is worth. Of course, no one in their right mind pays MSRP for a car. Now, for a trip to space, when they value it at umpteen million dollars, where is the comparison to find out what it is really worth? Sure, some millionaire might pay $25 million for it, but how much would the average Joe pay. Or in my case, how much would they have to pay me to get me to go?
I think in some cicrumstances, the IRS demands up front payment for prize winnings. I have seen circumstances where a prize winner was forced to sell his prize in order to pay the taxes on it, and I have seen other cicrumstances where prize winners were unable to accept the prize because he would have to immediately pay the taxes. I am not sure what the distinction is. If I were King, I would make it a requirement to pay tax on cash prizes immediately (actually estimaed taxes at quarter end, because I'm a nice guy), because cash is cash, and goods have to be sold to turn into cash. I think it would be more fair that way. At least someone of limited means could still win a huge prize, and get to keep the cash equivalent of 2/3 of it.

Re:Brits Only!

[Wite_Noiz]

Why tax it at all?
Unless I'm missing something, somebody paid tax to buy said item as a prize... why have the cheek to tax it again just because somebody one it? (If you were king, that is; I understand why governments have the cheek)

It sounds like it's some kind of measure for preventing fraud ("Wow! I just one the company monthly cash give-away again!").

Re:Brits Only!

[tverbeek]

U.S. income tax is not a tax on cash received, but on income. Whether you're paid in dollars, stock options, room and board, sexual favors, or magic beans, they want you to pay tax on the value of that income. If they only taxed income in the form of money, employees would start requesting their pay in the form of gift certificates, merchandise, and other not-money substitutes as loopholes to get around it. That would not only hurt tax revenues, but undermine the dollar as a monetary system, which the federal government definitely does not want to happen. So it's a tax on the dollar value of your income, not just the dollars.

Re:Brits Only!

[tompaulco]

Why tax it at all? Unless I'm missing something, somebody paid tax to buy said item as a prize
You have a good point. If I were King, I would try to avoid double taxation. In the current system in the U.S., people generally think that they can not pay taxes on something if it has already been taxed, but that is not the case at all. Multiple taxations are commonplace. People think that they do not have to pay sales tax on the items they sold at a garage sale because they already paid the full sales tax when they bought the item originally. But this is not true in most states. If an item goes from garage sale to garage sale to garage sale, according to the letter of the law, it should have sales tax withheld each time.
When you invest money that you already paid income taxes on, and it produces a return, then you have to pay tax on it.
My company hypes the fact that my medical and dental benefits are paid (by me) pre-tax, but this is not true. It is pre income tax, but I still have to pay social security and medicare tax on it, and those together add up to about 7%.
The U.S. is commonly known for having on e of the lowest tax rates among the first world nations, but when you add up ALL of the taxes, not just income tax, then it reveals itself as not such a great rate after all.

Re:Brits Only!

[Wite_Noiz]

Interesting.

I'm a Brit, so we just get screwed over and taxed for anything the government can tax us for (except prizes, but don't give them any ideas).
Our VAT is pretty good at preventing double taxation.

Good luck on becoming king, btw. I like people with ambition ;)

Re:Brits Only!

[tverbeek]

At least with a car, there is an MSRP that says what it is worth.

And with a suborbital space flight, there's a web site that says what it's worth.

Sure, some millionaire might pay $25 million for it, but how much would the average Joe pay.

Um, the average Joe wouldn't pay anything, because he can't afford it. But the price he would pay is {checks web site} $102,000, because they don't offer an "average Joe" discount.

Re:Brits Only!

[robot_lords_of_tokyo]

actually the US has one of the highest personal income tax rates for people earning under $100k. Germany for instance only has a tax rate of 15% for everything up to 52k. Corporate taxes in the US are outrageously high. Social security just sucks, and has to be paid regardless of where you are....and even better, after a certain point, your world wide income becomes taxable. To my knowledge, it's the only country that abuses it's citizens in this manner. Time to start dumping tea again...

Re:Brits Only!

[MightyYar]

Why tax it at all? Using the church-raffle car as an example, the problem is that somewhere upstream, the car was written off as a deduction on someone else's taxes. For instance, a car dealership may have given the $20,000 car to the church, and then gotten a $5,000 tax break. Someone needs to fill that $5,000 tax void now, and so it is the recipient. You could require the contest promoter to pay the taxes instead if you wanted. In the specific case of a charity raffle, the taxes should probably be excluded altogether to encourage charitable giving and participation in the raffle.

Re:Brits Only!

[muftak]

If you are getting paid in stock options or goods, then do you have to pay income tax on them again when you sell them? Do you have to pay tax on company perks, like free healthcare, pensions, company phones, etc? I just pay tax on my salary. Also my company gives out some prizes as gift vouchers, so we don't have to pay tax on it. Although we have a tax on watching TV, so it's not all good here.

Re:Brits Only!

[pjt33]

U.S. income tax is not a tax on cash received, but on income.

That's true of U.K. income tax too. The difference is that in the U.K. prize winnings are not income.

Re:Brits Only!

[Aptgetupdate]

I have seen circumstances where a prize winner was forced to sell his prize in order to pay the taxes on it

So you're saying I should wait for someone else to win, then buy it at a reduced rate when the IRS has them at gunpoint...

Damn. If only this were being held in the USA.

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

Using the church-raffle car as an example, the problem is that somewhere upstream, the car was written off as a deduction on someone else's taxes. Using the church-raffle car as an example, the problem is that somewhere upstream, the car was written off as a deduction on someone else's taxes. For instance, a car dealership may have given the $20,000 car to the church, and then gotten a $5,000 tax break.

But that car dealership bought the car from the car manufacturer, who had to pay taxes on the income. Incidentally, that's the amount that the car dealership is allowed to deduct, the amount they paid for the car.

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

If I were King, I would try to avoid double taxation. In the current system in the U.S., people generally think that they can not pay taxes on something if it has already been taxed, but that is not the case at all. Multiple taxations are commonplace.

VAT taxes and property taxes seem to avoid "multiple taxations" the best.

My company hypes the fact that my medical and dental benefits are paid (by me) pre-tax, but this is not true. It is pre income tax, but I still have to pay social security and medicare tax on it, and those together add up to about 7%.

Why are you paying social security and medicare tax on medical and dental benefits?

The U.S. is commonly known for having on e of the lowest tax rates among the first world nations, but when you add up ALL of the taxes, not just income tax, then it reveals itself as not such a great rate after all.

My family paid about 10% in taxes in 2006, counting FICA and estimating sales taxes at about 2% of my income (remember, sales tax isn't charged on my rent, my food, or my savings). To be fair I suppose I should factor in the property taxes based on what my landlord pays, so let's add 10% for that. A quick calculation of the gasoline taxes I pay gives me a number well under 1%. Am I missing anything? Now, where but Florida "in the first world" can I pay less than 20% of my income in total taxes?

Re:Brits Only!

[MightyYar]

But that car dealership bought the car from the car manufacturer, who had to pay taxes on the income. Yeah, that's the way income tax works... each "value added" bit gets taxed, and you get credit, within limits, for losses. The car manufacturer purchased raw materials and only made a profit on the differential between the COGS and the factory price. The dealer would only pay the tax on the difference between the factory price and the retail price. If all goes correctly, the government has taxed the entire cost of the car exactly once.

Now, if the car dealer decides to give the car away as a promotion, he is going to write of the cost of the car and thus not pay any tax on it. This means the government will loose the tax on the factory->dealer transaction. That needs to be made up, and so the winner gets taxed. A better system would be to force the sweepstakes promoter to pay the tax anyway so that the "free" car really is free. In other words, disallow it as a write-off.

This would mess up charity, however, so I think that in the case of the church raffle, the government should just eat the loss to promote charitable giving.

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah, that's the way income tax works... each "value added" bit gets taxed, and you get credit, within limits, for losses.

That works to the extent that the costs of generating the income go into the final product, the costs of goods sold, but doesn't work so well for general expenses that can't be tied to a product, like in this case advertising.

Now, if the car dealer decides to give the car away as a promotion, he is going to write of the cost of the car and thus not pay any tax on it.

But the whole purpose of giving the car away as a promotion is to sell more cars, thus to increase income and profits (which increases income tax). If the car dealership advertised by blowing up the car or pushing it over a cliff, they'd get to write off the cost of the car and thus not pay any tax on it. Moreover, if the car dealership gave the car to an employee who drove it around the country doing business the car would get written off and no one would pay any additional taxes.

Now maybe it's the time to move away from the car analogy and back to the situation at hand. New Scientist wants to sell magazine subscriptions. They think they can do so by essentially blowing stuff up. That they chose someone to come along for the ride doesn't seem to me to be worthy of taxation. Yes, according to the law, it very well might be, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

All this said I'm not quite sure how to reconcile what seems like a terribly flawed law, without destroying the income tax system entirely by opening up loopholes. I guess the rule should be that a non-employee of a company who receives a prize without doing any work for the prize-giver (or by doing a token amount of work like writing an essay on the best patented invention) shouldn't be taxed on that prize. To avoid subversion of the gift-tax rules, in the case of a related-party transfer it would still be taxed as a gift.

But in the end I think it's time to just get rid of the income tax entirely. The whole idea of taxing free trade makes no sense - free trade should be encouraged, not taxed. If I perform a service for you in return for you performing a service for me that doesn't deserve to be taxed, regardless of whether or not money changes hands in between. How then do we pay for the running of the government? Reducing spending should come first. Excise taxes which can be tied to spending should come second (gasoline taxes to pay for the roads and environmental cleanup efforts). And property taxes should come third, though I haven't really decided exactly what property other than real estate should be included. It'd have to be easy to enforce and hard or impossible to avoid using loopholes. Taxing all property fails on the first criterion, and taxing only business property probably fails on the second.

Re:Brits Only!

[MightyYar]

Well, like you, I am not a huge fan of income tax. As a result, I am not defending income tax per se, - just trying describe why I think that you need to tax contest winnings. Mostly I am afraid of the opening up of loopholes, but also I'm not sure how it makes sense not to tax just based on my basic feeling of fairness. A guy who works really hard for $135,000 will pay about 1/3 of that in taxes. Why should some guy who does absolutely nothing come along and get $135,000 and not have to pay a dime?

I agree that a blown up car is a "loophole" in income tax, but I'd argue that it is too small of one to bother filling. I'm not aware of any example of this having happened, and it certainly doesn't happen on the same scale as give-aways.

As for the auto dealer using the car and thus writing it off, they are just an end user like any other business user - there just happens to be a coincidence that they are using a car and also happen to sell cars. If the use of the car helps to provide more taxable revenue, then the government is ultimately a winner. Also, the depreciation schedule for a car is something like 5 years, so they won't be able to just claim the entire cost of the car on one tax return as they could by giving it away in a contest.

Income tax sucks, but so do property taxes. Property taxes are especially harsh on people with fixed or no incomes. Excise taxes are better, IMHO, but regressive if applied to certain items. For instance, you'd better subsidize public transit if you are going to tax gasoline - you just made it more expensive for the poor to get to work! A couple of years back in the US they instituted an excise tax of only 10% on certain luxury items, like yachts. All it did was stop people from buying yachts - it didn't really raise much revenue, and the entire yacht industry was leveled. In my area, that meant a lot of people lost their jobs. They repealed that puppy in a hurry...

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

A guy who works really hard for $135,000 will pay about 1/3 of that in taxes. Why should some guy who does absolutely nothing come along and get $135,000 and not have to pay a dime?

Because two wrongs don't make a right?

That's enough reason for me, but maybe you want a more limited exception. What's so utterly egregious about this particular case is that the prize is a non-transferable service. So a more limited exemption would be for prizes of non-transferable services. Or you could go a little bit more broadly, and limit the taxation to the amount that the prize recipient could receive by reselling the prize (which in the case of non-transferable services would be $0).

I agree that a blown up car is a "loophole" in income tax, but I'd argue that it is too small of one to bother filling.

Actually, I don't think it's a loophole at all.

I'm not aware of any example of this having happened, and it certainly doesn't happen on the same scale as give-aways.

Movie productions blow up cars and/or push them over cliffs all the time. And lots of other businesses destroy products during the course of their business.

As for the auto dealer using the car and thus writing it off, they are just an end user like any other business user - there just happens to be a coincidence that they are using a car and also happen to sell cars. If the use of the car helps to provide more taxable revenue, then the government is ultimately a winner.

OK, but isn't that the same situation we have with the trip to space? The rocket ride is being given away to advertise for the company, it is being done to provide more taxable revenue.

Also, the depreciation schedule for a car is something like 5 years, so they won't be able to just claim the entire cost of the car on one tax return as they could by giving it away in a contest.

Sure, but the car is going to last 5 years. The trip to space is closer to 5 hours (random guess, but it's short). The gasoline for the car is used up more quickly, and gets to be written off immediately. But again, the gasoline doesn't go into the final product, it is a general expenditure.

Income tax sucks, but so do property taxes.

It sucks to pay property taxes, but I'd much rather live in a world with property taxes than one without them. I can't say the same for income taxes.

Income tax sucks, but so do property taxes. Property taxes are especially harsh on people with fixed or no incomes. Excise taxes are better, IMHO, but regressive if applied to certain items. For instance, you'd better subsidize public transit if you are going to tax gasoline - you just made it more expensive for the poor to get to work!

I don't think it makes sense to mix social welfare programs with tax breaks like that. If you want to help poor people get to work, give them rebates for free public transit, don't change the gasoline tax. If someone is disabled and can't work, give them housing credits, don't lower everyone's property taxes. If someone neglected saving enough money for retirement, or didn't use birth control and had 8 kids...well, those are tough ones, but whatever we decide to do to help them it doesn't make sense to mess with everybody else's tax rates too.

Re:Brits Only!

[MightyYar]

Again, I agree with you that the income tax system is not desirable. That said, we have it, and so I would like it to at least be as equitable as possible. To that end, I feel like government should collect the same amount of revenue whether or not a contest occurs. You make many very good points, but someone still has to fill the government's coffers, and I really don't see why someone who did nothing to win a prize should be worthy of an exemption of the rules that we all play by. I have no idea how the government currently calculates the value of a prize. Fair market value is certainly an option - personally I think it should be taxed at whatever the contest promoter writes off on his taxes. That way the government should be happy, and there are plenty of very strict rules that already govern how much one can write off. I also think that a prize winner should not have to pay any taxes at all on their prize - so the promoter should have to pay. In other words, simply get rid of the write-off. If the winner then sells the prize, he'd get taxed the difference between the factory price and his sale price.

Not that I really care all that much... just so the system is uniform and has protections against abuse.

Your ideas about keeping a "flat" tax and then working out separate welfare-type programs makes a lot of sense, especially since the government just ends up running those kinds of programs anyway.

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

Again, I agree with you that the income tax system is not desirable. That said, we have it, and so I would like it to at least be as equitable as possible.

Fair enough. I don't actually agree with this, as I see it similar to saying that "we have pickpocketing, so we should make sure everyone gets pickpocketed equally", but if you're sure you want to take that position with regard to taxes I can accept it. After all, there is a certain belief that taxes go to benefit the public, which is at least somewhat tenable (personally I look at the wars which are fought using tax money, and the people who are put in jail for victimless crimes using tax money, and make the opposite conclusion). Anyway, I'm going to go with your desire to be as equitable as possible, and I still think there's a good argument for exempting contest winnings.

To that end, I feel like government should collect the same amount of revenue whether or not a contest occurs. You make many very good points, but someone still has to fill the government's coffers, and I really don't see why someone who did nothing to win a prize should be worthy of an exemption of the rules that we all play by.

OK, but if you want to be fair, what about when a gift occurs? The way I see it, a contest is more like a gift than a paycheck, and gifts aren't taxed as income.

I have no idea how the government currently calculates the value of a prize. Fair market value is certainly an option - personally I think it should be taxed at whatever the contest promoter writes off on his taxes.

In this particular case, the amount being written off by the contest promoter is probably equal to the fair market value, because the contest promoter probably isn't getting any discount off the market price. The IRS will probably take the position that the value of the prize is equal to the fair market value. There are a couple cases from several decades ago where the courts allowed a lower valuation in similar situations (a prize of a non-transferable cruise), so I'm not going to say one way or another what I think the proper valuation under the law is (unless one of the prize winners feels like paying me a whole lot of money for written advice).

Your ideas about keeping a "flat" tax and then working out separate welfare-type programs makes a lot of sense, especially since the government just ends up running those kinds of programs anyway.

Thank you. And in case you've read me wrong please understand that while my ideas are radical I don't seriously suggest that we adopt all of them overnight. In reality I favor a gradual movement in this direction, which needs to be re-evaluated along the way as problems arise. I know I'm dead wrong a lot of the time, and I know that when things change drastically a lot of unintended consequences arise.

Re:Brits Only!

[MightyYar]

I pretty much agree with you, so I don't want to sound too contrary. :) I guess I'm just pragmatic about the prospects of getting any serious tax reform.

I will point out, though, that gifts are taxable if they exceed some amount - I think it is $12,000 these days.

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

I will point out, though, that gifts are taxable if they exceed some amount - I think it is $12,000 these days.

Gifts are taxed, as gifts, to the person who gave the gift. They are not taxed, as income, to the recipient. I think you're right on the $12,000, but I'd have to look it up to be sure.

Re:Brits Only!

[alphamugwump]

I don't think it makes sense to mix social welfare programs with tax breaks like that. If you want to help poor people get to work, give them rebates for free public transit, don't change the gasoline tax. If someone is disabled and can't work, give them housing credits, don't lower everyone's property taxes. If someone neglected saving enough money for retirement, or didn't use birth control and had 8 kids...well, those are tough ones, but whatever we decide to do to help them it doesn't make sense to mess with everybody else's tax rates too.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the ideal would be to pay as little welfare as possible; the idea of taxing poor people for gas either directly or indirectly (by raising the cost of shipping, for example) and then giving them cash back seems a little funny to me. Because, of course, if you tax gas, you raise the cost of everything. It is also probably inefficient as well, because some of that money is bound to rub off as it passes through the government's hands. Now, obviously, you need some kinds of welfare programs, but the ideal would be to minimize the loopback. Because, otherwise, you're just having the government spend your money for you.

Re:Brits Only!

[anthony_dipierro]

I'm not so sure about that. I think the ideal would be to pay as little welfare as possible; the idea of taxing poor people for gas either directly or indirectly (by raising the cost of shipping, for example) and then giving them cash back seems a little funny to me. Because, of course, if you tax gas, you raise the cost of everything.

I won't quibble over whether or not you raise the cost of everything, but I will point out that you'll raise the cost of something that uses a lot of gas more than you'll raise the cost of something that uses very little gas. Even if you do raise the cost of everything, you don't raise the cost of everything equally.

The ideal would be to not tax the poor and then give them cash back. Absolutely. But that ideal would be pretty much impossible to implement. You want to present ID and/or your latest W2 statements every time you go to the gas station to fill up?

It is also probably inefficient as well, because some of that money is bound to rub off as it passes through the government's hands. Now, obviously, you need some kinds of welfare programs, but the ideal would be to minimize the loopback. Because, otherwise, you're just having the government spend your money for you.

I really don't think a gas tax is going to push many people over the edge from not needing government assistance to needing it. So the vast majority of those people are already dealing with the government for assistance. So instead of making the disabled veteran show ID every time he fills up his gas tank, you just give him a few extra bucks along with his disability check. This means less government involvement, not more...

Best Patent Ever

[eldavojohn]

It would probably have to go to Edward L. Van Halen's patent awarded in 1987. You see, fig. 1 just can't be beat.

Well, now I'm torn between that and the "The ornamental design for a unisex short with reversible condom, as shown.." After all, some of us are so busy with life that we don't have time to stop and take out a condom and put it on when we're about to have sex. For the promiscuous person on the go!

Re:Best Patent Ever

[tverbeek]

Patent leather, of course.

Easy

[Soporific]

The best invention is probably modern plumbing. Before that disease was much more rampant. Not only that, it gave everyone a throne of their own to feel like a king on!

~S

Re:Easy

[syousef]

"Pipe the sh%t right out of your house" - History of the World Part 1.

Unless you can provide a link to the patent for plumbing though, I'd try again.

Sliced Bread

[Dr. Eggman]

There can be no question that sliced bread is the greatest invention of all time: it is the yardstick by which all inventions have since been measured.

Re:Sliced Bread

[Trivial_Zeros]

I'd say the greatest invention is the yardstick. It's the best invention since sliced bread!

Re:Sliced Bread

[Kuvter]

The best invention before sliced bread, the knife.

Re:Sliced Bread

[edwardpickman]

Fire how else do you expect to toast the bread.

Avoiding most taxes

[1000101]

You would think that there would be a way for the winner to avoid having to pay the taxes for winning this trip. I'm not a tax guru by any means, but couldn't the company just temporarily hire the winner as an employee, pay them minimum wage, and then send them on the trip as part of the job description? This way, the winner will only be paying a very small amount of income tax. Monetary winnings are one thing, but I would think there would be loop holes as far as services are concerned. Just a thought.

Re:Avoiding most taxes

[91degrees]

Don't take the comment in the summary too seriously. UK tax law is different. Prizes aren't subject to income tax in the UK.

Re:Avoiding most taxes

[julesh]

You would think that there would be a way for the winner to avoid having to pay the taxes for winning this trip.

There is, and they're doing it. Prizes in the UK are tax exempt; this prize is only available to UK residents.

5th Tourist? No Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much responsibility.

I want to be the 47th.

-Linus

Taxing the prize

[darjen]

Perhaps people who run these contests should also offer to pay the taxes on them. At least until we can work to repeal them.

They're asking for patented ones...

[Svartalf]

And it's a tough call- there's so many to choose from.

Phonograph (Edison)
Light Bulb (Edison)
AC Power System (Tesla)
Remote Control System (Tesla)
Bladeless Turbine (Tesla)
Steam Engine (Watt)
Hot Air Engine (Stirling)

And so forth...

Each of the above has had an impact or will have an impact on all of our lives in a very major way. It's a shame, really, that they're limiting the competition to UK citizens.

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[lonechicken]

And it's a tough call- there's so many to choose from. Pish posh. It's the microprocessor. TI? Intel? I don't know, but the science and tech seemed to move faster than ever since then.

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[Soporific]

Good point, I was a bit hasty and skipped over the patented part.

~S

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[xoyoyo]

There are, especially as:

Thomas Savery invented the Steam Engine, Joseph Swan invented the light bulb and Edison only invented half the phonograph, the french having figured out the recording part.

Perhaps a more useful 250 word essay would be on how the patent system enshrines the myth of the individual genius, when in fact technology moves forwards by little increments.

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[terrymr]

It's a shame, really, that they're limiting the competition to UK citizens.

At least by doing that they don't run the risk of being thrown into jail for violating some obscure US law.

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[cashman73]

Don't forget about sliced bread! Heck, there's even a wikipedia article about it! Or are we talking about the best invention since sliced bread ?

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that it's funny how many Americans think that 'patented' = 'invented'. If you study the history books (not American ones), you will find that Americans are particularly bad at blue-sky invention, but they are very good at claiming an invention for themselves, making money out of it, and stiffing the little guy who had the idea originally.

Bill Gates is actually a thoroughly typical American inventor.

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry?

The 'Bladeless Turbine' and 'Remote Control System' have had a 'very major' impact on my life exactly how?

Why do Americans pretend that they invent lots of things when everybody knows they just steal ideas and then lie to themselves. Do yoy know that the USians believe that a bloke called Farnsworth invented the TV and the Wright brothers built the first aeroplane? They even claim Einstein as an American scientist!

Re:They're asking for patented ones...

[strider44]

The transistor (Bell Labs)

Re:5th Tourist? No Thanks

[MattSparkes]

Yeah, early adopters often lose out. I don't mind paying extra to be an early adopter of household technology, but when it comes to strapping myself to a rocket I'd like to know that some research has been done. Having said that, if I could win, I would try.

Best patented invention

[Anonymous Coward]

The mother of all patented inventions is obviously that "5 years ahead" gesture one the iPhone.

Re:Best patented invention

[Anonymous Coward]

fanboy

Best Patent?

[Threni]

It's got to be Microsoft's stunning IsNot patent.

Audi & Patents

[DJPenguin]

... As an audi owner and general geek I wasn't impressed at all with the fairly recent adverts proclaiming the sheer number of patents that were involved in designing my car. See here (not my blog).

Seems like they are really going for this patent thing with this competition, too. I wouldn't be suprised if the winner had to write something about Audi's patents :)

Re:Audi & Patents

[bilbravo]

"... As an audi owner and general geek I wasn't impressed at all with the fairly recent adverts proclaiming the sheer number of patents that were involved in designing my car. See here (not my blog)."

You weren't impressed because you realize all of that over-engineering is what makes your car require so much maintenance.

(note: I also own an Audi, and wouldn't trade it for anything... except maybe an Aston Martin)

Re:Audi & Patents

[DJPenguin]

"You weren't impressed because you realize all of that over-engineering is what makes your car require so much maintenance."

Hmm. Let me see - drove out of the garage from new, and doesn't need to go back until it's either 2 years old, or it's done 20k miles. Long life service *grin*

Although I do see your point. They replaced the handbrake with a switch thing which is presumably linked to a motor. One more thing to fail and when it does, I better have some wheel chocks handy!

Over-engineered, yes - but doesn't seem to need much maintenance.

Re:Audi & Patents

[Grimbleton]

20k miles? That's hardly a year's worth of mileage.

kinda scary if you ask me...

[SuperStretchy]

I just know I wouldn't want to be the fifth tourist in space... I mean, thats akin to being the fifth scientist to attempt building an atomic bomb at home. Granted, its been done before by professionals.. but still... its an expensive way to possibly die. Giving all your money to a college student and killing one's self is a lot more beneficial.

The Wheel

[Toutatis]

It's one of the best inventions of mankind and it was actually patented.

Re:The Wheel

[aussie_a]

Wow, and I thought people defacing Wikipedia to test it was bad.

Levitationarium?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a wind tunnel, dumbass... and they've been around for a long time.

Not quite appealing...

[ErGalvao]

... as being the first one. I rather wait to be the 400th or so and pay half the price =:cP

Re:Not quite appealing...

[aussie_a]

Half the price of nothing? Well while technically half of nothing is a value (i.e. nothing) I don't think you'll be saving anything by waiting, except your life ;)

Interesting Social Experiment

[necro81]

These sorts of things crop up every few years: poll a bunch of people - prominent scientists, celebrities, politicians, bum-on-the-street, [insert other demographic here] - on what the best invention of the last X years (or ever) was. You can get some interesting results. I would be facinated to see a histographic breakdown of the results of this contest among space enthusiasts.

The greatest invention, in my opinion

[Hoi Polloi]

I'd have to say it is "One Click Shopping" patented by Amazon.com. Truly, the greatest invention since this one.

Fifth space tourist?

[julesh]

Sixth is more like. Simonyi is scheduled to go up before the winner of this prize.

Talking about Levitationariums...

[GillBates0]

If you're in the Boston area, and have $50.00 to spare, you can visit http://www.skyventurenh.com/ )warning, embedded QT movie) in Nashua, NH, where you can experience body flight in their indoor vertical wind tunnel.

I'm not related to them in any way, but do plan to visit sometime soon. Thought people around here may be interested in that kind of experience as well.

Re:Talking about Levitationariums...

[DrKyle]

It says you can't be more than 250 pounds, doesn't that rule out like half the US population? That can't be good for marketing.

Re:Talking about Levitationariums...

[brettski74]

The instructors have to be able to spot you in case you do something dumb that might cause you an injury. It's not as dangerous as skydiving, but you can hurt yourself. Levitationarium is an old design. SkyVenture is more modern and should have much smoother airflow. Check out http://www.bodyflight.net/ for details of wind tunnels around the world. There are quite a number of SkyVenture locations, as well as several other independent wind tunnels designs out there.

Re:Talking about Levitationariums...

[dbIII]

With technology like that there how do you keep the bomb squad away?

Fist Say:

[Fist! Of! Death!]

Yeah ok - but what is there to do there?

Re:Fist Say:

[geekoid]

Sex with hot green alien?

Re:Fist Say:

[Excen]

but what is there to do there?
 
I would suggest joining the mile-high club, but, considering your name, it would be a solo endeavor.

Re:Fist Say:

[Fist! Of! Death!]

Surely a Futurama fan would at least suggest cryogenic suspension??

Use of a Laser Pointing Device to exercise cats

[jolyonr]

Truly the most innovative patent of all time.

Jolyon

Taxes

[Higaran]

Wouldn't it be better for the taxes issue if you won the opprotunity to go on the trip for like a dollar or something, that way, the cost isn't considered income, since your actually paying to go on the trip?

Gah!

[Reality Master 101]

I hate marketing. Suborbital is NOT SPACE TOURISM! The other four space tourists entered orbit -- a controlled entry into space, and stayed there. A suborbital trip is a rocket ride. Fun, yes, but not space travel.

Re:Gah!

[xoyoyo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line

It's not an orbital flight, no, but it's definitely outer space. Alan Shepherd only went 50 miles higher.

Re:Gah!

[Dunbal]

Suborbital is NOT SPACE TOURISM! ... A suborbital trip is a rocket ride.

      Unless something goes dreadfully wrong. Then it could become an orbital trip after all ;)

Re:Gah!

[Reality Master 101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line It's not an orbital flight, no, but it's definitely outer space. Alan Shepherd only went 50 miles higher.

That's the boundary of space, but that doesn't mean this is space travel. I define space travel as a controlled entry into space, a controlled stay there, and a controlled return. Throwing a can up high and letting it fall back to Earth is not space travel.

Re:Gah!

[drsquare]

No, even if everything goes wrong, the ship won't have the energy to get into orbit.

Re:Gah!

[xoyoyo]

Travelling past the boundary of space == space travel. Not really something you wriggle out of by adding extra conditions.

If you could throw your can up above the 62 mile mark it would be a space vehicle.

If I cross the border from Canada to the US to get some smokes from Walmart, the border guards aren't going to let me get away without ID on the grounds that I'm not really in the USA because I'm not planning to stay long.

I completely agree with you that the prize isn't of the same order as the people who stayed in the ISS but I think you need to find a better term for your objections.

Also, by your reasoning the first American astronaut would be John Glenn. (and if we add your "controlled" requirement Glenn doesn't really count either, as his flight had several malfunctions).

Re:Gah!

[Anonymous Coward]

who's talking about the whole ship?

Re:Gah!

[Venerable Vegetable]

As far as I know staying somewhere is not a requirement for tourism. Actually I think that if you stayed it would be immigration.

Re:Gah!

[Dunbal]

the ship won't have the energy to get into orbit.


      Exactly, like the other poster said - PARTS of it might just make it to orbit. So look on the bright side, at least your right foot and 2 fingers off your left hand might make it to orbit!

Re:Gah!

[FleaPlus]

I hate marketing. Suborbital is NOT SPACE TOURISM! The other four space tourists entered orbit -- a controlled entry into space, and stayed there. A suborbital trip is a rocket ride. Fun, yes, but not space travel.

Although I think it would be in fact technically space tourism, I disagree with the submission's claim that they would be the "fifth space tourist." Note that this is an assertion by the submitter, not the contest itself. In fact, the contest doesn't even make any claims that the winner will be on the first commercial suborbital trip. If they were on the first commercial suborbital trip, there would also be several other passengers on board at the same time.

Re:Gah!

[Reality Master 101]

As far as I know staying somewhere is not a requirement for tourism. Actually I think that if you stayed it would be immigration.

Interesting analogy. So, if you land in London Heathrow Airport temporarily on the way to somewhere else, were you a tourist in London? I'd say most people would say "no", even though you were technically in "London Space". As with outer space, if you just enter temporarily on the way back down to Earth, I would say you weren't a tourist.

Re:Gah!

[Venerable Vegetable]

What analogy?

It depends on your intention anyway. If you are just traveling somewhere and make a stop at Heathrow Airport in between, most would agree that you're not a tourist.
If you are however interested in airports and travel from airport to airport just to see them, then yes, you are a tourist.

Re:Gah!

[Reality Master 101]

If you are however interested in airports and travel from airport to airport just to see them, then yes, you are a tourist.

I'd agree with that, but space is not an airport. An airport is a landing spot on the way to another destination. Space IS the destination. Even if I walked out of an airport and saw london for four minutes before a rubber strap whipped me back into the airplane, I don't think I would've been a tourist.

The Wheelbvarrow

[Anonymous Coward]

I read about the Australian government granting a patent on the wheelbarrow a few years ago. A clever lawyer wrote up that application.

The wheelbarrow is based on one of the simple machines.

Self-Medication with GHB

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking GHB has got to be, by far, one of the most enjoyable patents in the office.

oooh!

[tuxette]

I better make sure my Multi-Pass is up to date!

Misleading

[swight1701]

There have been 4 visitors to the International Space Station. Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie road SpaceShipOne to space and can also be considered space tourists. Making the total 6.

Also, from the article, before you read the information on the site itself, it implies you'd go on the same trip as the first four Space Adventures customers to the ISS. This is not so, they will be flying to space onboard the XCOR Xerus single stage RLV. Not 7-10 days in space, but 5 minutes. Not detracting from the 5 minute space flight, just seeing the earth from space and experiencing weightlessness for any amount of time could be a life changing experience.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie were not "tourists." They were doing their respective jobs & were paid to go into space.

Re:Misleading

[luckymutt]

I have to agree. When presenting it the way they did, I initially thought: "Cool...hang out on the ISS for a couple of days just the the previous 4 "space tourists"" This is more akin to driving all day to get to the beach, slowing down to have a look and then going home. Not that I would turn it down, but it is a bit misleading.

Re:Misleading

[geekoid]

If a pilot and copilot fly a commercial plane to Vegas, they are not tourists.

Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie were not tourists. In fact, if I were them it would make me a little angry to be demoted to tourist status.

Re:Misleading

[swight1701]

I do see your point. Tourist isn't the correct term. But they were private citizens. Not government sponsored. That was my point.
The four people who went to the ISS were by no means up there just to float around and look out the window, they only qualified by being able to do scientific research while aboard the ISS.
Anyone who has gone to space so far have been absolute professionals.
But the labels haven't been invented for what people who pay to go to space vs who are not paid, and yet again, privately backed vs government.

I would like to ask Brian and Mike what they consider themselves to be.
Maybe 'tourist' should be replaced with 'adventurer'.
I have no doubt that Mike and Brian would consider their short jaunt a working holiday.
The idea of private citizens in space is in its infancy, we'll figure out the terminology eventually.

If those in the US could play

[sckeener]

If those of us in the US could play, I'd take the jail time to go to space if the IRS came a-knocking. I probably couldn't afford the taxes, so jail time vs going into space....

In a heart beat I'd go to space....

but wait...what if I spend a year outside the US and then collect the prize? Kind of like working outside the US and getting paid at the end even though the contract was written up months earlier when I was in the US....that sounds like a way to get around the IRS taxes for this while keeping my family together.

Statistics says anything past 39th is OK.

[s-gen]

It would be unusual to be among the last 5% of space tourists to fly before they lose one. Not particularly unusual to be in the last 20%. Hence, if you want a routine space visit where it would be unusual if you died, go for 39th or later.

oops... thats first or last 5%

[s-gen]

...and more particularly, trying to avoid being in the last 2.5%. (Who cares if you're unusually near the start of a long successful run of flights? But best not to be unusually near the end of a short one!)

This one has my vote

[sjamisoRC]

These should be manditory if cell phone service is provided on planes.
http://totallyabsurd.com/hijackerinjector.htm

That moron talking REALLY LOUD on his cell phone is now drooling in his shirt pocket!

Best Patent Ever....U.S. Patent 1,867,377

[jzarling]

Sliced Bread - Otto Frederick Rohwedder of Davenport, Iowa

More exactly the single load bread slicer.

You wont go to jail

[geekoid]

for that little amount of money.
You would have your wages garnished, or you could work out a payment plan.

Re:5th Tourist? No Thanks

[geekoid]

yeah, manby someday someone will do research in rocketry..hell maybe we could put people in orbit regularly....Then someday, in the far future, we may put a man on the moon.

Printing Press

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the printing press not be #1??

Even History Channel named Gutenberg #1 person of the last millennium. Over Newton, Martin Luther, etc...

Re:Printing Press

[Anonymous Coward]

History channel is sensationalist bullshit.

from the shoulders of giants...

[Todamont]

How about Tesla? AC power and dynamoes literally brought humanity into the light. How about Prometheus? First plasma physicist ever.

Astroturfing?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

My guess is that the winner will be a software/crypto or business method patent, and that this will be used to fuel the push for such patents in Europe.

My picks: lightbulb and integrated circuit....

[iamcf13]

The lightbulb made round-the-clock commerce possible worldwide. (Thanks Thomas Edison!)

The integrated circuit made computers smaller, faster, more efficient, and networkable--generating a huge amount of commerce and revenue worldwide. (Thanks Bell Labs!)

Now, less affluent people can't stand to live under these conditions--they are considered only to be a resource to be exploited by 'the corporate machine' who got to be that way thanks to the light bulb and integrated circuit.

You do realise...

[denzacar]

...that this contest is just a government plot to get Korben Dallas to space quietly and undercover?

Method of concealing partial baldness

[Anonymous Coward]

A method of styling hair to cover partial baldness using only the hair on a person's head. The hair styling requires dividing a person's hair into three sections and carefully folding one section over another.

Commonly known as the "Comb Over"

Re:5th Tourist? No Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll wait until SP5 comes out... No point being the beta tester for something that might kills me.

PATENTED!!!1

[RealGrouchy]

I'm susprised that the word "patented" didn't jump out at more people; it seems an arbitrary restriction.

How long until New Scientist's sister magazine - New Musician - runs a contest where you can win a trip to Las Vegas for writing a 250-word essay on what the best DRM'ed album is?

- RG>

Slashdot grow some huevos:

[SaberTaylor]

This should have the censored "forks and spoons" patent icon associated with it.
'Twould be fair play.