U.S. Billionaire Heads to Space Station

TurnAround writes "According to an International Business Times article, a Russian rocket carrying the American billionaire who helped develop Microsoft Word roared into the night skies over Kazakhstan Saturday, sending Charles Simonyi and two cosmonauts soaring into orbit on a two-day journey to the international space station. Climbing on a column of smoke and fire into the clouds over the bleak steppes, the Soyuz TMA-10 capsule lifted off at 11:31 p.m. local time, casting an orange glow over the Baikonur cosmodrome and dozens of officials and well-wishers watching from about a mile away."

Comments

pFirst!

[donutello]

That's Hungarian for First Post.

Re:pFirst!

[modulo]

Wouldn't that be strPost = "First" ?

Re:pFirst!

[The Terminator]

Is this the guy who is responsible for the braindead Hungarian Notation (beginning every variable name with its type)?

CU

Re:pFirst!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always said that they ought blast the asshole who came up with Hungarian notation into space. This is the first of my many insightful suggestions that society has taken me up on.

Re:pFirst!

[Tackhead]

> That's Hungarian for First Post.

In sovRussia, you head to ssInternational? (or at least achieve a PARCing orbit?)

Re:pFirst!

[astrosmash]

Yup, Mr. lpcszHungarianNotation himself has blasted off into space. They should leave him up there. Ha ha, just kidding.



Grrr....

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

Hungarian notation has one very special use - it helps weed out the weenies when you're looking for system programmers.

Its the same for people who do crap like LPCSTR ... hey, you stupid bozos, that's a throw-back to 16-bit Windows 3x. It doesn't belong in 32-bit code on a flat-memory architecture where an int and a long are the same. And it certainly doesn't belong in code for a server for BSD.

And those who insist on "m_uiWhatever" ... hey, f*cktards, what's with the "m_" - its a variable, so of course its in memory. And when you realize that you should have changed Whatever to be signed so that you can catch over/underflows, hope you remember to change all your variable names ... again.

Real programmers don't do hungarian. Ever.

Re:pFirst!

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, that should be: "rEal pRoGrammers dOn't dO hUnGarian. eVer."

There, fixed that for you... ;)

Re:pFirst!

[josh2112]

hey, f*cktards, what's with the "m_" - its a variable, so of course its in memory.

Umm, the "m_" prefix is for "member", as in member of a class. Has nothing to do with memory.

Re:pFirst!

[Anonymous Coward]

"m_" means "member variable", not "memory variable". Real programmers adhere to whatever naming convention is used in the legacy code base or on the platform, rather than re-inventing their own naming and coding styles.

Re:pFirst!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's far too straightforward for Hungarian notation. I believe the notation you're looking for is lpszPost, as it's a zero-terminated string, probably referenced by a long pointer.

OK, now that I've sucked all the humor out of the joke...

Re:pFirst!

[donutello]

The m_ notation indicates that a variable is a member of the class. Simonyi's version of the Hungarian notation is actually very useful. Indicating the type of a variable is mostly useless because that's something any competent IDE will give you for free. Simonyi's original concept of the Hungarian notation focused more on indicating the meaning of the variable in question, rather than its type.

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

To be honest, I think "programmers" are objects, not reals (not even ints) ...

Then again, some of them don't really have any methods, so I guess they're just empty structs, no class.

Of course, it depends on how you #define things in the first place ... you can always assert() whatever you need to ...

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

We had this argument at work ... for those who use it to indicate a member of a class, its also redundant - simple scoping rules, and how its used, make this obvious. Anyone who needs more than that really should go bace to Visual Basic.

And its really funny when people use it BOTH ways ... and inconsistently ... (sometimes because they've copied code off the web).

Ditto for "C" in front of a class. Totally unneeded.

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

I've seen it used/abused both ways.

Simple conventions:

1. #defines in UPPERCASE_ONLY
2. class names and instances in ProperCase
3. functions and class methods in all_lower_case();
4. variables in all_lower_case;

Use and understand proper scoping rules, keep a thesaurus handy for helping pick expressive variable, function and class names, and you won't have any problems, your code will be readable, and you won't have to retype when you change the type of a variable.

The KISS formula works.

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

Simonyi's original concept of the Hungarian notation focused more on indicating the meaning of the variable in question, rather than its type.

That's what a good online thesaurus, with synonyms, is for. If you have to resort to hunNotation, you haven't spent enough time picking the right variable name, which means you're probably missing an essential part of the problem.

Picking the right name is for some variables can be tough! But the extra time pays off in code that's more expressive and self-documenting.

Re:pFirst!

[thelenm]

No, he's not responsible for the brain-dead version of Hungarian Notation (Systems Hungarian). That came later, as people took a basically good idea and applied it in brain-dead ways. Simonyi is responsible for the much more useful version of Hungarian Notation, now called Apps Hungarian. Wikipedia has an an explanation of the difference.

Re:pFirst!

[donutello]

Here are some Hungarian variable names:
cbStr - # of bytes in Str (cb = count of bytes)
cMRU - # of items in the MRU (c = count)
pFoo - pointer to Foo
m_Foo - member variable Foo
fEnabled - flag indicating whether something is enabled or not

In each of these cases, you could achieve the same effect by using words, e.g. strSize, MRUCount, FooPointer, FooMember, isEnabled, etc. but this gets unwieldy when the subject is itself a complex name. A consistently used adjective scheme like Hungarian notation can do wonders to the readability of your code (to someone who is not a complete newbie to the notation style).

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

And I've seen people use cb as a prefix for combobox, c as a prefix for character, m_ as a memory variable (as opposed to one retrieved from a table), and f as a prefix for floats. About the only one that has ANY consistency is p for pointer.

hunPrefixing isn't consistent; I gave it up a decade ago because it wastes more time than it saves.

Re:pFirst!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find Hungarian notion revolting. It one of many pointless shitty practices that have emerged from the sz_Windoze world to ruin the lives of real programmers. Used to be this site did not Windoze users and we made fun of them all of the time. Now every other story is about Vista and the latest mtterings of the hated Bill Gates. Why don't you use Visual Basic or Pascal and leave the programming to the real men.

Re:pFirst!

[CarbonRing]

I hate to disappoint you, but Simonyi isn't the guy that has earned your ire. You want the idiot (or collection of idiots) that took Simonyi's good idea, mangled it into something useless, then made the whole mess visible to the entire world of Windows programmers.

Actual Hungarian doesn't tag variables with their implementation type (16-bit signed int, 32-bit signed int, etc.), but rather their semantic meaning. Hungarian is to programming what labeling quantities is to physics. It doesn't make sense to add a meter-per-second measurement to a temperature reading; correct Hungarian labels variables by their meaning and makes analogous programming errors equally apparent.

For example, if FOO is a struct, then a pointer to a single instance of a FOO, a pointer to an array of FOOs and the identifier of the local storage of an array of FOOs are all of type "FOO *", but Hungarian makes it obvious which is which.

FOO *pfoo; // a pointer to a single FOO
FOO *pafoo; // a pointer to an array of FOOs
FOO afoo[12]; // storage for an array of FOOs

These lines of code are all syntactically correct but nonsense semantically.

pfoo[3].field = value; // NO! you just trashed memory
size_of_array = sizeof(pafoo); // Nope, that's the size of a pointer
afoo->field = value; // this might be correct, but probably not

If you want to know what real Hungarian is, as opposed to the abomination exposed through the Windows header files, try reading about the Hungarian naming convention as conceived and used by Charles, somewhat evolved from his original PhD thesis.

Re:pFirst!

[julesh]

Ditto for "C" in front of a class. Totally unneeded.

Not if you're using interface/implementation separation. CFoo is a class that implements interface IFoo. Alternatives would include the style used by the "Design Patterns" book, which would have had ConcreteFoo as an implementation of AbstractFoo, but prefix letters seem better to me in this case.

Re:pFirst!

[Matteo522]

Yeah... spending the time to write up a single page of abbreviations so that everyone is on the same page on your project is hard!

Re:pFirst!

[arb]

People who use Hungarian prefixes like that do not understand how Hungarian Notation is meant to work.

There are two major problems with Hungarian Notation:

1. Using prefixes for datatypes, instead of the use or meaning of the variable.
2. Not having a clear style guide with definitions of the allowable prefixes to be used

It wasn't until I read Joel's rant on Hungarian that it finally clicked for me.

Just because some coders' use of Hungarian is bad, doesn't make Hungarian itself a bad thing. It's just like braces - some people insist on getting it wrong and putting their braces at the end of the line. ;^)

Re:pFirst!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>any competent IDE will give you for free.

That is true today, but development tools were cruder when Hungarian notation came into being, and sometimes you just want to spread a printout over the floor anyway.

Re:pFirst!

[Merusdraconis]

Just because idiots can do something badly doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.

The example that convinced me it had value was using Hungarian to indicate web strings that had been filtered, to avoid XSS vulnerabilities. It can be very easy to forget to filter a string somewhere, and it's inflexible to require your website to filter every string as it comes out or when it goes out.

Re:pFirst!

[2short]

You can abuse anything (though I've never heard of anyone even refer to anything as a "memory" variable, much less use "m_" to mean anything but "member").

There are any number of sets of simple conventions, and arguing ones own is obviously superior is kind of silly. Your conventions sound perfectly reasonable, though what do you mean by an "instance" if not a variable?

My own conventions are a bit different, because I like StuffInCamelCase and not stuff_with_underscores_in_it. Since function names don't come up in the same places as class names, I put both in plain CamelCase (which you call ProperCase). Variables and functions do go in similar places, so vars go in mixed case, but start with a single lowercase letter. Yes, the dreaded Hungarian. But I still pick expressive variable mnames, and I never have to retype, because I only indicate "n" for integral types, "f" for any floating point type, "s" for any sort of string. I'm not really in the habit of changing the type of my variables much, but if I change it in a way that means a different prefix under my scheme, it's not the same variable; I'd have to change any properly descriptive variable name. I also use "m_" for private class members, "p" for pointers, and "a" for array like things. I don't see how "array_of_integer_indexes" is better than "anIndexes" and I find it makes code much more readily readable to know the basics of what sort of thing you're talking about without having to look it up.

As a somewhat separate point, I am occasionally compelled to write something in JavaScript. There, variable type is frequently crucial, yet perversely unenforced. I find a very simple hungarian (mostly just "n" vs. "s") absolutely essential in order to get anything done.

I find it makes code more readable to

Re:pFirst!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't belong in 32-bit code on a flat-memory architecture where an int and a long are the same...

Yeah, remind me to never let you near portable code.

Re:pFirst!

[75th Trombone]

Quoth the sibling:

If you want to know what real Hungarian is, as opposed to the abomination exposed through the Windows header files, try reading about the Hungarian naming convention [idleloop.com] as conceived and used by Charles, somewhat evolved from his original PhD thesis.

Or read Joel Spolsky's lucid explanation and examples of Hungarian Notation the way it was meant to be.

Re:pFirst!

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly, fully totally agree, I have been coding for quite a while and I found that most of the people using it were MS bozos. Never used it myself cause I find it silly.

Re:pFirst!

[tomhudson]

Yeah, remind me to never let you near portable code.

The code I'm talking about was custom-written to run on one specific target architecture and OS - 32-bit *BSD (though it also runs under linux). Including 16-bit windowisms like LPCSTR on a 32-bit flat-memory architecture was a brain fart, as were all the #Ifdef WINDOWS includes.

1985 called - they don't want their programmers and their stupid code conventions back.

As for the conversion from 32-bit to 64-bit -- that still requires you to go over all code to make sure that any "magic" still works (struct field-padding, for example).

Dupe

[Jarwulf]

dupalicious?

Re:Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time Slashdot mentioned this was in October of last year.

It just seems like a dupe because it's been on the front page of every news site on the planet for two days before Slashdot noticed.

ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users. Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[parkrrrr]

What if you can't spell Claris?

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are exactly the sort of uppity Johnny-come-lately to whom my message is directed. If you think Clarus is a misspelling of Claris, you REALLY, REALLY need to GET. THE. FUCK. OUT. RIGHT. NOW.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Real Mac users? Painful.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[EntropyXP]

You should work for the Apple PR dept. And the last time I touched a Mac, I played Oregon Trail. IMHO, still the best game on the Mac.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.

The toggles... they do nothing!

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[CompMD]

Ah, the days of ejecting 800K floppies on an SE...

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[parkrrrr]

Bah. The last Macintrash I used had a 68000 processor. It sucked then, it sucks now. You can keep it.

Watch the soyuz dock

[chebucto]

Live now!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no l/newsid_6530000/newsid_6539600?redirect=6539637.s tm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1

If that doesn't work, look for links at bbcnews.com

Re:Watch the soyuz dock

[julesh]

Thanks. My browser spent about 10 minutes pissing around trying to download a codec, only to finally display a message saying "this broadcast has finished". :/

If he worked at Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't he just sit in a chair and have Steve Ballmer launch him into orbit?

Harsh

[cyber-vandal]

Word drives me insane sometimes but surely firing him into space for it was a bit OTT.

Re:Harsh

[BigFoot48]

Doesn't it just seem wrong that a developer of Word should be a billionaire? Kinda makes you yearn for those yesteryears of 95% marginal tax rates.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

Close. From the statistics gathered by the late, great Steve Kangas:

Year Median Millionaire or Top 1%
1948 5.3% 76.9%
1955 9.1 85.5
1960 12.4 85.5
1965 11.6 66.9
1970 16.1 68.6
1975 20.0 --
1977 -- 35.5
1980 23.7 31.7
1985 24.4 24.9
1989 24.4 26.7

Source: The Reagan Years: Taxes; Info from: "the 1948 figure comes from The Statistical History of the United States, 1976; the figures for 1955 to 1983 come from Alan Lerman of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Tax Analysis. The calculations after 1983 come from Eugene Steuerle and John Bakija, Right Ways and Wrong Ways to Reform Social Security (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1993). Figures from the millionaire column for 1948 to 1970 represent the effective tax rates for those earning $1 million a year and come from the U.S. Treasury Department unpublished data set forth on page 1112 of The Statistical History of the United States, 1976. FICA is not included, but the rates would not be affected by a percentage point. The rates from 1977 onward are for the top 1% of families as computed by the Congressional Budget Office tax simulation model and include all federal taxes. Source: the 1992 Greenbook of the House Ways and Means Committee, p. 1510. The effective rate on millionaires would be close to the rate on the top 1 percent."

I expect to see a lot of people commenting "hey, he was smart, he worked hard, he deserves that money". My response to that is: "Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?"

Don't get me wrong; complete wealth redistribution eliminates the incentive to work hard in order to better yourself. But a completely "free", "deregulated" economy leads to situations like the early industrial revolution. The economy inherently becomes polarized, as you need money to make money. This is why we have things like the estate tax and higher rates for the upper class. If the rates were like they used to be back in the 1950s/1960s (our nation's biggest boom time, by the way -- yes, you can't really credit that to the taxes, but it's hard to say that the taxes destroyed the boom), we'd be able to provide full healthcare to every American, full education to every American through grad school, double all government funded research, double all infrastructure projects, and still work toward paying off the national debt.

I think 85% may be a bit extreme, but I'd like to see 65% or so. And I say this as someone who has benefitted greatly from having wealthy parents.

Re:Harsh

[operagost]

I expect to see a lot of people commenting "hey, he was smart, he worked hard, he deserves that money". My response to that is: "Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?"

I think it's a bit fallacious to assume that all rewards must be linear. If you believe that, then take away the 1.5x and 2x overtime pay that non-exempt workers get.

If the rates were like they used to be back in the 1950s/1960s (our nation's biggest boom time, by the way -- yes, you can't really credit that to the taxes, but it's hard to say that the taxes destroyed the boom), we'd be able to provide full healthcare to every American, full education to every American through grad school, double all government funded research, double all infrastructure projects, and still work toward paying off the national debt.

You probably think that because you haven't seen the figures that show tax receipts have gone up since GWB's tax cut. They did the same after Reagan's tax cut. Raising taxes on high earners when lowering them is more effective reflects a punitive agenda, rather than a social one.

Re:Harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no, Word was a pretty decent product, perhaps the only Microsoft product (other than IE) that sold well because it was legitimately better than the competition.

Simonyi's work made millionaires out of several thousand other employees and stockholders, which is a good indication that he was worth whatever he got.

Kinda makes you yearn for those yesteryears of 95% marginal tax rates.

What entitles you to 95% of someone else's income? Just the fact that you have more guns? That seems wrong to me.

It's possible that you'd be happier in another country besides the US, one with a different economic system. In which case, I'd remind you that we don't shoot people for trying to leave.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

(Slashdot is eating this post for some reason, so I'm splitting it)

For Reagan, I recommend you read more of the referenced link. I'll give a brief excerpt.

---
One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion -- it's like claiming that you can make trees grow taller by cutting them down. But the supply-siders have their own statistics to quote. "During the Reagan tax-cut era," Rush Limbaugh writes, "IRS collections actually nearly doubled... from $550 billion [sic] to about $991 billion."2 This supply-side deception is as common as it is deplorable; it uses nominal dollars instead of constant dollars, which account for inflation. Here are the total tax collections expressed in both:

Tax Collections (billions)3

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

This chart raises two points. First, it allows you to see that real tax collections actually declined in the two years following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. (In fact, it took until 1985 to recover the 1981 level.) This is exactly the opposite of what supply-siders had predicted. They excuse it by noting that the 1981 cuts were phased in over three years, delaying entrepreneurial investment. But, according to their theory, accumulating tax cuts should have resulted in accumulating -- not declining -- tax collections. (More)

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

Second, contrary to what Rush implies, real tax collections did not "double" between 1981 and 1989; they grew only 20 percent. This reflects the normal growth that our economy has experienced for centuries, as both our population and productivity have grown. The real question is not whether the tax collections grew, but whether they grew faster than normal under Reaganomics. They did not. The following chart shows the average annual growth of real tax collections under the last 10 presidents. As you can see, Reagan ties for 6th and 7th place:

Average Real Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President4

                              Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

Second, contrary to what Rush implies, real tax collections did not "double" between 1981 and 1989; they grew only 20 percent. This reflects the normal growth that our economy has experienced for centuries, as both our population and productivity have grown. The real question is not whether the tax collections grew, but whether they grew faster than normal under Reaganomics. They did not. The following chart shows the average annual growth of real tax collections under the last 10 presidents. As you can see, Reagan ties for 6th and 7th place:

Average Real Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President4

                              Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%

For a fuller derivation of this chart, see More.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

I think it's a bit fallacious to assume that all rewards must be linear. If you believe that, then take away the 1.5x and 2x overtime pay that non-exempt workers get.

You're not talking about 1.5x/2x; you're talking about 100,000x. If anything, when you get up to dollar values like that, I'd say that linear may be too kind. A person who makes 20k/year simply *cannot* be spending their money on luxury; almost all of it needs to go to necessities. On the other end of the spectrum, a person who makes 2M/year simply *cannot* be spending all their money on necessity; even a huge family wouldn't "need" that much. The only exception, in the latter case, is charitable contributions -- and we give deductions for that.

In short, my driving stance is quite simple: tax rates should reflect how much of a "luxury" money is being spent on, with pure necessity being untaxed, and pure luxury being taxed highly. Ideally, this would be done through sales taxes; however, that gets complicated pretty quickly (what's the tax rate for a canned button mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh oyster mushrooms? Fresh truffles?). Bracketted taxes with deductions for charitable contributions are a good way to approximate this. Augmented with sales taxes, it's a winning situation, in my book.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

For Reagan, I recommend you read more of the referenced link. I'll give a brief excerpt.

---
One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion -- it's like claiming that you can make trees grow taller by cutting them down. But the supply-siders have their own statistics to quote. "During the Reagan tax-cut era," Rush Limbaugh writes, "IRS collections actually nearly doubled... from $550 billion [sic] to about $991 billion."2 This supply-side deception is as common as it is deplorable; it uses nominal dollars instead of constant dollars, which account for inflation. Here are the total tax collections expressed in both:

Tax Collections (billions)3

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

This chart raises two points. First, it allows you to see that real tax collections actually declined in the two years following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. (In fact, it took until 1985 to recover the 1981 level.) This is exactly the opposite of what supply-siders had predicted. They excuse it by noting that the 1981 cuts were phased in over three years, delaying entrepreneurial investment. But, according to their theory, accumulating tax cuts should have resulted in accumulating -- not declining -- tax collections. (More)

Second, contrary to what Rush implies, real tax collections did not "double" between 1981 and 1989; they grew only 20 percent. This reflects the normal growth that our economy has experienced for centuries, as both our population and productivity have grown. The real question is not whether the tax collections grew, but whether they grew faster than normal under Reaganomics. They did not. The following chart shows the average annual growth of real tax collections under the last 10 presidents. As you can see, Reagan ties for 6th and 7th place:

Average Real Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President4

                              Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%

For a fuller derivation of this chart, see More.
---
(from )

Want me to run the numbers from Bush II for you?

I think it's a bit fallacious to assume that all rewards must be linear. If you believe that, then take away the 1.5x and 2x overtime pay that non-exempt workers get.

You're not talking about 1.5x/2x; you're talking about 100,000x. If anything, when you get up to dollar values like that, I'd say that linear may be too kind. A person who makes 20k/year simply *cannot* be spending their money on luxury; almost all of it needs to go to necessities. On the other end of the spectrum, a person who makes 2M/year simply *cannot* be spending all their money on necessity; even a huge family wouldn't "need" that much. The only exception, in the latter case, is charitable contributions -- and we give deductions for that.

In short, my driving stance is quite simple: tax rates should reflect how much of a "luxury" money is being spent on, with pure necessity being untaxed, and pure luxury being taxed highly. Ideally, this would be done through sales taxes; however, that gets complicated pretty quickly (what's the tax rate for a canned button mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh oyster mushrooms? Fresh truffles?). Bracketted taxes with deductions for charitable contributions are a good way to approximate this. Augmented with sales taxes, it's a winning situation, in my book.

Re:Harsh

[drsquare]

I expect to see a lot of people commenting "hey, he was smart, he worked hard, he deserves that money". My response to that is: "Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?"

His software made billions of dollars. Can you say that about a roof tarrer? If this billionaire didn't do anything special, why doesn't everyone do what he does?

Is an American programmer several times smarter or harder working than an Indian programmer? No, so why do they get paid several times the amount?

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

For Reagan, I recommend you read more of the referenced link. I'll give a brief excerpt.

---
One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion -- it's like claiming that you can make trees grow taller by cutting them down. But the supply-siders have their own statistics to quote. "During the Reagan tax-cut era," Rush Limbaugh writes, "IRS collections actually nearly doubled... from $550 billion [sic] to about $991 billion."2 This supply-side deception is as common as it is deplorable; it uses nominal dollars instead of constant dollars, which account for inflation. Here are the total tax collections expressed in both:

Tax Collections (billions)3

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

This chart raises two points. First, it allows you to see that real tax collections actually declined in the two years following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. (In fact, it took until 1985 to recover the 1981 level.) This is exactly the opposite of what supply-siders had predicted. They excuse it by noting that the 1981 cuts were phased in over three years, delaying entrepreneurial investment. But, according to their theory, accumulating tax cuts should have resulted in accumulating -- not declining -- tax collections. (More)

Second, contrary to what Rush implies, real tax collections did not "double" between 1981 and 1989; they grew only 20 percent. This reflects the normal growth that our economy has experienced for centuries, as both our population and productivity have grown. The real question is not whether the tax collections grew, but whether they grew faster than normal under Reaganomics. They did not. The following chart shows the average annual growth of real tax collections under the last 10 presidents. As you can see, Reagan ties for 6th and 7th place:

Average Real Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President4

                              Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%

For a fuller derivation of this chart, see More.
---
(from )

Want me to run the numbers from Bush II for you?

I think it's a bit fallacious to assume that all rewards must be linear. If you believe that, then take away the 1.5x and 2x overtime pay that non-exempt workers get.

You're not talking about 1.5x/2x; you're talking about 100,000x. If anything, when you get up to dollar values like that, I'd say that linear may be too kind. A person who makes 20k/year simply *cannot* be spending their money on luxury; almost all of it needs to go to necessities. On the other end of the spectrum, a person who makes 2M/year simply *cannot* be spending all their money on necessity; even a huge family wouldn't "need" that much. The only exception, in the latter case, is charitable contributions -- and we give deductions for that.

In short, my driving stance is quite simple: tax rates should reflect how much of a "luxury" money is being spent on, with pure necessity being untaxed, and pure luxury being taxed highly. Ideally, this would be done through sales taxes; however, that gets complicated pretty quickly (what's the tax rate for a canned button mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh oyster mushrooms? Fresh truffles?). Bracketted taxes with deductions for charitable contributions are a good way to approximate this. Augmented with sales taxes, it's a winning situation, in my book.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

For Reagan, I recommend you read more of the referenced link. I'll give a brief excerpt.

---
One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion -- it's like claiming that you can make trees grow taller by cutting them down. But the supply-siders have their own statistics to quote. "During the Reagan tax-cut era," Rush Limbaugh writes, "IRS collections actually nearly doubled... from $550 billion [sic] to about $991 billion."2 This supply-side deception is as common as it is deplorable; it uses nominal dollars instead of constant dollars, which account for inflation. Here are the total tax collections expressed in both:

Tax Collections (billions)3

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

This chart raises two points. First, it allows you to see that real tax collections actually declined in the two years following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. (In fact, it took until 1985 to recover the 1981 level.) This is exactly the opposite of what supply-siders had predicted. They excuse it by noting that the 1981 cuts were phased in over three years, delaying entrepreneurial investment. But, according to their theory, accumulating tax cuts should have resulted in accumulating -- not declining -- tax collections. (More)

Second, contrary to what Rush implies, real tax collections did not "double" between 1981 and 1989; they grew only 20 percent. This reflects the normal growth that our economy has experienced for centuries, as both our population and productivity have grown. The real question is not whether the tax collections grew, but whether they grew faster than normal under Reaganomics. They did not. The following chart shows the average annual growth of real tax collections under the last 10 presidents. As you can see, Reagan ties for 6th and 7th place:

Average Real Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President4

                              Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%

For a fuller derivation of this chart, see More.
---
(from here)

Want me to run the numbers from Bush II for you?

I think it's a bit fallacious to assume that all rewards must be linear. If you believe that, then take away the 1.5x and 2x overtime pay that non-exempt workers get.

You're not talking about 1.5x/2x; you're talking about 100,000x. If anything, when you get up to dollar values like that, I'd say that linear may be too kind. A person who makes 20k/year simply *cannot* be spending their money on luxury; almost all of it needs to go to necessities. On the other end of the spectrum, a person who makes 2M/year simply *cannot* be spending all their money on necessity; even a huge family wouldn't "need" that much. The only exception, in the latter case, is charitable contributions -- and we give deductions for that.

In short, my driving stance is quite simple: tax rates should reflect how much of a "luxury" money is being spent on, with pure necessity being untaxed, and pure luxury being taxed highly. Ideally, this would be done through sales taxes; however, that gets complicated pretty quickly (what's the tax rate for a canned button mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh oyster mushrooms? Fresh truffles?). Bracketted taxes with deductions for charitable contributions are a good way to approximate this. Augmented with sales taxes, it's a winning situation, in my book.

Re:Harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect to see a lot of people commenting "hey, he was smart, he worked hard, he deserves that money". My response to that is: "Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?"

I think your comment overall is pretty good, but I also think you gloss over the basic ideas behind compensation here, and especially over taxation.

First of all, his work had (theoretically...although perhaps his boss was just a sucker) much greater economic effect for his employer than what he was paid. This is also probably true of the roof tarrer, and yet, even though applying hot tar to a roof is generally a less pleasant job, the magnitude of the economic effect is much less. This is pretty simplistic, but I don't feel like duking it out over minor disagreements in economic theory on /. You're free to agree or disagree.

Second, it's a pretty good bet that most of his net worth was earned through stock holdings acquired either as partial payment of services or bought directly.

Last, while he could've been paid 100,000 times as much (err...that'd be an exaggeration, actually) as that roofer, he also paid, according to your figures, 109,426 times as much in taxes
(100000 x 26.7/24.4 - 109,426)

As a further note, to the best of my understanding, stock holdings are not taxable. This is relevant because the overwhelming majority of the net worth of pretty much all of the richest people in the world is their assets, not their cash. This means the money is actively invested in productive companies. If they want to transmute their holdings into other forms, they've got to sell the stocks and then they will be paying income taxes.

Re:Harsh

[SageMusings]

If this billionaire didn't do anything special, why doesn't everyone do what he does?

The truth is he cannot possibly pull that off today. First Microsoft got wise and started getting stingy with stock. Second, Microsoft stock ain't all that any longer. Third, many (not all) today's coders tackle harder coding problems and see nothing but their normal paycheck.

It's just like Bill Gates: These guys were there at the right time in history. The opportunities they had disappeared when the market matured. As I look around now, I believe the next opportunities are going to require tremendous capital and research, effectively locking out the people with little more than drive and coding knowledge. There will never, can never, be another Bill or Charles.

Re:Harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Last, while he could've been paid 100,000 times as much as that roofer, he also paid, according to your figures, 109,426 times as much in taxes"

That is a bad comparison.

Think of charity: One who makes 2 million dollars a year can give 1 million to charity (50% of his income) while someone who makes only 20,000 will be hard pressed to give anything at all (say, 1%), yet the first one still keeps nearly a million more than the other.

Thus, the proper way to consider taxation would be by looking at how much money is left after taxation, not how much taxes he paid.

Re:Harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?" Your logic behind that comparison is flawed. You think that the results of workforce are linearly cumulative, e.g. 100 workers produce 10 times more than 10 workers under the same circumstances. You obviously have no real life experience in that area -- by increasing the numbers of workers, you decrease productivity, exponentially. The truth is that if You replace say, Steve Jobs, with 1000 people that earn 1000 times less yearly than mr. Jobs does, then Apple will fall faster than you can say 'Oops, I did it again'. That's why some people earn a lot more than other people. It is the only way to get results. Got it?

Re:Harsh

[khallow]

I expect to see a lot of people commenting "hey, he was smart, he worked hard, he deserves that money". My response to that is: "Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?"

I would say that he provided about that much more value than the tar roofer did. And he's invested it well. So yes, he deserves that money.

Re:Harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

Or another Larry or Sergey? What about another Tim? Or maybe another, another Larry? No? Never? Never ever Never? Please throw your sub-marxist historicist ramblings out of the window and get back into the real world. There will always be a place for some bastard/s with brains and balls to turn over the big boys no matter the industry, no matter the time.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

You're arguing "deserves" from what the market will pay -- how "replacable" he is.
I'm arguing "deserves" from a merit standpoint -- how much his actions justify that kind of earnings.

Why should governments set tax rates according to a replacability guideline instead of a merit guideline?

Re:Harsh

[khallow]

I'm arguing "deserves" from a merit standpoint -- how much his actions justify that kind of earnings.

My take is that the two viewpoints, merit and replacement cost are well-correlated in the absence of government enforced rent-seeking.

Why should governments set tax rates according to a replacability guideline instead of a merit guideline?

Because the market value is rational, fairer, more accurate (and public), and less subjective. Who gets to decide the relative merit of your job? Have you paid enough bribes and groveled enough?

You are claiming that someone who tars roofs (typically a youngster's job) should be worth somewhere near the value of the person who oversaw over a 25 year period the creation of tens of billions of dollars of value, the Microsoft Office suite and who invested his money well. I don't see the reason that should be so, either on merit or value grounds.

Re:Harsh

[khallow]

I think 85% may be a bit extreme, but I'd like to see 65% or so. And I say this as someone who has benefitted greatly from having wealthy parents.

I missed this last time. It just means you can afford to cripple the US economy. I agree that rich people should pay a higher tax rate, but 65% is just stupid. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with 35% which is the current tax rate on the highest bracket. Just eliminate most of the tax breaks (and stuff that'll as a result become cruft like the alternative minimum tax). Too much revenue might be pouring in at that point, in which case, it'd be a good idea to lower tax rates.

Re:Harsh

[Rei]

My take is that the two viewpoints, merit and replacement cost are well-correlated

And were is your argument for it? I presented mine: the person is not working 100,000 times harder or is 100,000 times smarter. They're just 100,000 times less replacable. The two are very different.

Given that they're different, one has to decide whether taxation should be based on replacability or merit. I'd argue for merit.

Who gets to decide the relative merit of your job?

First off, it's merit of your labor and intelligence (I'd add risk-taking to that list as well), not your job itself.

As for how meritous, I'd give that choice to the market. What I wouldn't give to the market is to determine the merit on a *linear* scale, since, as we can clearly see by the "100,000 times smarter/harder working" fallacy, the market applies its decisions with the predictable geometric escalation of supply and demand, not the linear correlation to how hard a person works. You will accept that an exec who makes billions isn't working 100,000 times harder, smarter, and risk-taking than a hot-tar roofer, correct? Then there is no inherent moral defense for an "I earned it!" argument for their taxes being low. Just because the market skews monetary rwards that way doesn't change this fact, and no reason why the government has to use its scaling function when setting tax rates.

You are claiming that someone who tars roofs (typically a youngster's job) should be worth somewhere near the value of the person who oversaw over a 25 year period the creation of tens of billions of dollars of value, the Microsoft Office suite and who invested his money well.

I never said such a thing; that's a straw man. Quite to the contrary, I was discussing how the intelligence/labor/risk taking of the exec ought to -- and in fact, it would be ruinous if it didn't -- provide further rewards. It's an incentive for such activitiy. However, the intelligence/labor/risk taking that they put forwards is not 100,000 times that of the hot tar roofer. They're just 100,000 times less disposable.

He's probably introducing some great tech solution

[solevita]

"I see you are trying to blast into space, would you like help with that?"

Borat Commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Jak se mas! Today capsule launch in Kazakhstan go nice! Great success!

Does it piss anyone else off that....

[CyberSnyder]

...while he paid $25 million for his little trip to space, my tax dollars are subsidizing the rest of his trip. Do some damn science instead of being a taxi for the uber-rich. (I know Russia is strapped for cash.)

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[cashman73]

In Soviet Russia, . . . space rocket launches YOU! /oh wait!

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[lgarner]

Not at all. First, "While at the space station, Simonyi will be conducting a number of experiments, including measuring radiation levels and studying biological organisms inside the lab."

Second, I don't see anything indicating that the US directly paid for the launch. If the Russians want to collect some money to help pay for this thing, then fine. I don't see why the US doesn't do the same- that could have meant $25million fewer of your tax dollars going into the ISS.

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no US money involved in this flight - it's an all-Russian flight. Two COSMONAUTS and a paying passenger.

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't piss me off at all that "your" tax dollars are helping some billionaire have a good time in space. But, I'm set for life as far as money goes; i'll never have to take a job I don't like. In my experience, people who brag about "working for everything they ever had" are pretty bitter, pissed off and miserable. :)

Fuck you :)

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[tomhudson]

No, it doesn't piss me off at all that "your" tax dollars are helping some billionaire have a good time in space. But, I'm set for life as far as money goes; i'll never have to take a job I don't like. In my experience, people who brag about "working for everything they ever had" are pretty bitter, pissed off and miserable. :)

Fuck you :)

... as opposed to trust fund babies and welfare-for-lifers ... neither of which will ever take a job they don't like ... So, which one are you?

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[morgan_greywolf]

Second, I don't see anything indicating that the US directly paid for the launch.

I don't see anything in his post indicating that he's a U.S. citizen, either.

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust fund :)

You sound bitter; you probably had to work your way through college while I was getting high and getting laid.

Fuck you too :)

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[tomhudson]

Trust fund :)

You sound bitter; you probably had to work your way through college while I was getting high and getting laid.

You sound supremely unmotiviated. I enjoyed working my way through college - and it was something I found to be at least as educational as anything I learned in school. And unlike you, I wasn't living at home or mooching off my parents or living off the fat of the land while I was in college.

Fuck you too :)

Sorry, but you're probably not my type, and vice versa :-)

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[CyberSnyder]

Anonymous Coward == troll living in mom's basement. I wouldn't worry about him.

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because no US money went into building the ISS...

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[BoyIHateMicrosoft!]

Just as a side note to this, I am a trust fund kid ( probably more than you have ever dreamed of) and my parents still taught me the value of hard work. I decided to work my way through college because I figured that I would value it more if I did. Pricks like you are the reason people like me get a bad name.

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[CyberSnyder]

Motivation, drive *plus* a trust fund can be a formidable force. Good luck!

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[networkBoy]

Close...

Anonymous Coward == troll living in mom's basement (not getting laid).

Because obviously if said troll was getting some they would be far too happy and busy to post on /.
-nB

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[networkBoy]

While I don't really begrudge you the money (and as another poster said you could be quite a force), I'm willing to bet that you had a lot less stress working your way through college, just by virtue of knowing you had a safety net. Myself.... I had to drop out for lack of funds. No matter, I'll get back there eventually :-) (in about 18 more years)
-nB

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[CyberSnyder]

I paid my way via the Army College Fund. Can't say I would recommend that now. ;-)

Re:Does it piss anyone else off that....

[khallow]

Why? Russia is IMHO going about this the right way. Their space program is a hell of a lot more sustainable than any other national program in the world precisely because they are getting paid to put things and people in space.

you inse8sitive clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

outreach are FrreBSD is already But now they're But n)ow they're

Lets hope...

[Tavor]

that the Soyuz doesn't suck up a ton of memory; crash and burn...

Re:Lets hope...

[julesh]

Would we get to autorecover a version of Simonyi at age 8?

Re:Lets hope...

[itlurksbeneath]

If so, somebody please give him an Ubuntu CD...

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I know, let's celebrate some billionaire who can afford to take a trip to space! How fucking quaint.

Does this matter? Not in the slightest.

Re:Who cares?

[danpsmith]

Hey, I know, let's celebrate some billionaire who can afford to take a trip to space! How fucking quaint. Does this matter? Not in the slightest.

This is significant, he's the guy who is responsible for MS Word and he's off the earth. This is obviously a big victory for computer users everywhere, now if we can just keep him there...

Re:Who cares?

[noidentity]

Sure it does; it means that space travel is getting closer to being in reach for the average person. Ten years ago I doubt having a trillion dollars made you any more likely to get into space.

I really think Steve Ballmer shoud try to go next

[JamesP]

and I would encourage him to go in a Windows-controlled spaceship, that's for sure.

Hey... everybody should eat their dog food, shouldn't they??

Notation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully his notation burns up on reentry.

It's a rich man's solar system

[tempestdata]

Not only is it a rich man's world. It is also a rich man's solar system now. Its amazing what money can bring you. He will get to experience something that I most likely never will, and he'll get to do it because he is filthy rich. Does that make him a better man and deserving of this? Most likely the answer to that question is yes. But is it not mildly depressing? Knowing that while you and billions others are scrounging to make ends meet, to buy a home, and in a majority of the cases to put food on the table, there are people who can afford to plunk down $20million + to take a joy ride into space. I don't blame him for it, and I think its his right that he do what he wants with the money he earned. Its just, such an overpowering display of wealth.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[haluness]

I think this is common in many areas. Whenever something is new, it is usually upto the rich to buy the thing and try it out.

As time goes by, these things will get cheaper and at one point will hopefully be cheap enough for the ordinary person to buy/try.

So if anything, you were born too early :)

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[julesh]

Not only is it a rich man's world. It is also a rich man's solar system now. Its amazing what money can bring you. He will get to experience something that I most likely never will, and he'll get to do it because he is filthy rich. Does that make him a better man and deserving of this? Most likely the answer to that question is yes. But is it not mildly depressing? Knowing that while you and billions others are scrounging to make ends meet, to buy a home, and in a majority of the cases to put food on the table, there are people who can afford to plunk down $20million + to take a joy ride into space. I don't blame him for it, and I think its his right that he do what he wants with the money he earned. Its just, such an overpowering display of wealth.

The thing to remember is that rich people paying money for stuff like this now actually helps attract the investment that will eventually bring this kind of thing within the reach of ordinary people. It might cost $20 million now, but in ten years that'll probably be more like $2 million; ten years after that $200,000. And that's the tipping point: the point where significant numbers of people start to be able to afford it as a once-in-a-lifetime expense.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[Glonoinha]

You realize that the Soviet launch vehicle isn't just burning that $25M as twenty five million $1 bills, right?
The money is being reaped back into the program, and $25M is a metric assload of cash for a Soviet government program in today's Russian economy. The money, quite possibly, made this trip possible (or at least helped make it possible.) For about $25k, you can take a few rides in one of several MiG/Su (Russian jet fighters) - a lot of the money goes towards the gas and maintenance of the jets, of course, and ... well it gives the military pilots some more air time. Simple, symbotic, and evidently effective (because they are still offering it.)

If some lamer wants to drive my 350z, I tell him to buzz off. If some millionaire offered me $30k to borrow my Z for a month long road trip ... I'd probably let him.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[justinlee37]

something that I most likely never will

With that attitude, you're probably right.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[drsquare]

Two thousand years ago, you and millions of others were slaving building colloseums whilst emperors sat indoors all day eating grapes. Today, even the poorest can sit inside all day eating grapes, whilst billionaires fly into space.

The richest and most powerful have always had it better, being bitter about it isn't going to change anything. Today's luxury is tomorrow's commodity.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[DrCode]

...and before we know it, we'll be complaining because our street is all parked-up with spacecraft, and a couple of our neighbors have old orbital vehicles rusting on their lawns!

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[SonicSpike]

Perhaps, but the benefit to living in an open and free society with limited government is that ANYONE is able and allowed to compete in the market place to become millionaires and billionaires. This is why keeping the government small and limited is essential to ensuring the overall wealth of the nation continue to grow, especially to the middle class.

Big business likes big government because big government has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of big business. This means that effective regulation can stomp out small business competition and give big business a free pass. A small and limited government could not actively participate in this, thus large business must compete against small business.

Artificial barriers to entry (think laws and regulation) stifle the sole proprietor, small biz owner, and entrepreneur. Its in these arenas that the common man has a chance to make big money. Did you know that over 80% of all millionaires in the US are first generation wealthy? The book "Millionaire Next Door" documents this.

Vote Libertarian ;-)

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it a rich man's world. It is also a rich man's solar system now. Its amazing what money can bring you.

Solar system? Come back in a hundred years. It's more like the rich man's LEO (Low Earth Orbit).

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[ch-chuck]

You mean they're not doing this??

Gasp.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[ch-chuck]

Not only that, a few weeks ago I had to upgrade my system with a new video card to be able to play WoW. Then Word® 2002 started complaining about "significant change in the system" so I had to drive out to a storage shed 5 miles away, dig the box of Office Suite out from the back, underneath everything, plop in the CD and 'reactivate' the software, which failed over the Internet (which works fine for everything else) so I had to call an 888 number and have an irritating conversation with an automated attendant complete with the abonimation of being requested to 'speak' the registration number into a phone even though it is MUCH easies to press the touch tone digits. After spending about an hour wasting my limited life time jumping through those hoops, now I can print envelope lables again and open business document communications from morons who don't know any better. So, enjoy the trip!

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[ceeam]

Pst, "solar system", ASTROnauts... This irritates me a bit... The only "spacemen" IMHO were those few who did the moon missions. As for all the others... Do you realise that a typical orbit for a shuttle/space-station is a bit above 300km? That's 1/40th of the Earth diameter. 2.5%. Sorry, but that's just not too impressive to me.

Re:It's a rich man's solar system

[Raenex]

Knowing that while you and billions others are scrounging to make ends meet, to buy a home, and in a majority of the cases to put food on the table, there are people who can afford to plunk down $20million + to take a joy ride into space. And somebody 10 times poorer than you would look at all the luxuries you spend your money on in the same way.

Re:He's probably introducing some great tech solut

[jimstapleton]

It's more like (30 seconds after liftoff)

*turns off the atmospheric regulation equipment, engine, and anything else active*
"I see you are trying to go to the space station, would you like help with that?"
*crash*

Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[Un pobre guey]

Paving the way for the future! Colonize space! Escape from earthly cataclysm! Embrace the future! Mine the asteroids! Terraform and colonize Mars! Put manned bases on the moon and in orbit! Make your moronic SciFi dreams come true! Make sure the pork keeps flowing in vast amounts to the defense industry! Keep sitting on the floor playing with your Fisher-Price spaceships well into your 30s and 40s!

Oh, es inutil...

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[maxume]

I know where my meals are coming from for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, what is it acceptable for me to spend the rest of my time thinking about? Please let me know.

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[overtly_demure]

Oh come now. Surely you can see the value of spending billions of dollars to have people float around with clipboards turning things on and off?

What? You think computers can do that? Who would read the dials? Do computers have fingers that can flip switches? Who would use the space toilet? The ISS would be totally empty! Only useful work would get done! All that space food, wasted...

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[Un pobre guey]

Think globally, act locally.

Anything that will help local small businesses will be of great help. Figure out ways to make your local economy resilient to recession, including food supply, shifting labor to other businesses when local industry slows down, etc. Things that will help local small- and medium-scale agriculture and food production. Promote cuisine that deemphasizes meat because it is wasteful of resources, because cows produce a lot of greenhouse gases and huge amounts of other waste, and because more people can be fed per hectare with plant crops than with animal products. Help people switch to open-source software at home (try the Ubuntu version that comes out on April 19). Promote a path to higher education that avoids the current standardized testing and advanced placement rat race. Figure out ways for people to be more self-sufficent and DIY in their daily lives, no achievement is too small. Get people to wean themselves away form commercial pop-culture, especially scheduled TV viewing. Promote reading, socializing, manual arts, using computers for productive and/or creative activities. Support local sports for children and teenagers, such as AYSO, Little League, and the like. Teach people to program computers. Donate prizes to school competitions such as writing contests, math and science competitions, etc. I'm sure you can think of many other things.

I am assuming you were not being sarcastic.

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[maxume]

Well gee, those seem to reflect your values, any reason they must be the ones I follow?

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[Un pobre guey]

Well gee, those seem to reflect your values

Of course. What did you expect? A puzzling remark.

any reason they must be the ones I follow?

The only reason would be if you agree with them, which I gather is not the case. Here's something more general and possibly less ideological:

Write to your state and federal congressional representatives at least once a quarter or so. Let them know what you would like them to do or how you would like them to vote on at least one issue or specific piece of legislation.

Promote small- and medium-sized businesses in your area. You choose the focus.

Promote open source software in your area. You choose the focus.

With regards to US space exploration, make sure the actual programs and spending are in alignment with the short- and medium-term goals you think are important. Be very wary of defense/aerospace industries just grabbing for pork as a way of life. Let your congressional representatives know about the results of your analyses.

There. How's that?

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[maxume]

I expected you might give a second or two of thought to the pointlessness of ranting about how special your values are in a thread where you know people won't especially care about them and to give some consideration to the general notion of speaking to other people like they might in fact be adults.

Re:Let the SciFi fanboy bullshit fly again

[Un pobre guey]

With all due respect, I would suggest that the posts you refer to, namely those pointing out the wastefulness and lack of utility of manned space travel, or the practical impossibility of achieving the childish dreams of colonizing space, escaping the dreaded asteroid impact, etc., are not values based. I merely point out that it is unlikely in the extreme that the necessary resources to fulfill those dreams can ever be practically applied. This is not values based. It is due to physical barriers of mass and energy balance. Perhaps my ad hominem characterizations are values based, or merely insulting, but the underlying arguments are not.

In sovRussia

[davidwr]

void sovRussia() { stSalyut.head(YOU); }

In case of trouble ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Simonyi had a special Help* button installed. When pressed, Captain Clipsky, will pop up and say "I see you are up creek without paddle. Would you like me to make "help" scream sound for you? [blink,blink]".

* is finest teknolgy in former Soviet Russia

Ahhh, ground control this is Major Simonyi

[presidenteloco]

We're experiencing loss of document format stability up here....

We just changed from the small platform to the larger one.

I don't understand what happened to the document.

I'm pulling off the access panel now. Seems to be a whole ratsnest of old embedded
OLE objects in there. Christ that's some ugly HTML.

Sproing! What the hell just happened to my paragraph format?? Oh my god, we have a backward compatibility failure!

Somebody open the hatch, quick! Open it! what do you mean there are two different opening standards!

Ahhhhhhhh!, We're losing all design integrity here. There are so many buttons. Don't know which ones to push......
Mayday, Mayday,

(Sure hope I land on my money pile. Oh, Sh***t)

Re:Ahhh, ground control this is Major Simonyi

[chuckymonkey]

Windows

                    A fatal exception 0E has occured at 0137:BFFA21C9. The current
                    application will be terminated.

                    * Press any key to terminate the current application.
                    * Press CTRL+ALT+DEL again to restart your computer. You will
                    lose any unsaved information in all applications.

Press any key to continue _

Heloo! Anybody home?

[Un pobre guey]

I think its his right that he do what he wants with the money he earned

Don't you get it, you dipshit? He didn't pay for more than a fraction of it. We and a lot of average Russian citizens subsidized his trip with a lot of prior public investment. Earned? Microsoft earned their billions? With hard work, no doubt, not a structural monopoly they defend tooth and nail and a huge ocean of PR bullshit.

"Great Success!"

[ltcdata]

roared into the night skies over Kazakhstan? Great Success!

Re:"Great Success!"

[TGTilde]

The rocket, it looks like giant ... khrum!

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not Mark Shuttleworth. Why should I give a flying fuck about this then?

'It looks like you're trying to fire...

[Channard]

.. your secondary rocket boosters. Would you like help with that?'

Billions and Billions

[davidwr]

Is that

1) Billions and Billions of stars?
2) Billions and Billions of bugs he left back on Earth?
3) Billions and Billions of Bucks he earned while overseeing the project in #2?

Will he be..

[Anonymous Coward]

Will he be helping out with the science experiments, or will he just be masturbating, getting drunk and smoking cigarettes ?

Wait -- this could be a really good thing

[ThousandStars]

who helped develop Microsoft Word

Do you suppose it would be possible to leave him there?

Re:Wait -- this could be a really good thing

[session_start]

only if he had something to do with clippy should we leave him...

Re:Wait -- this could be a really good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember Word being a pretty good product -- I think I liked it more than WordPerfect (Remember, everything was DOS back then, no Windows -- and it was showing bold and italic text on the DOS screen, which was pretty cool at the time). Even version 1.x and 2.x for Windows I thought was pretty good. The bloat and evilness started coming after that -- which I don't think Charles can be blamed for.

Re:Wait -- this could be a really good thing

[lattyware]

I would honestly laugh if he paid all that money to fly up for a minute and explode.
Seriously though, I wonder what would happen there? No doubt he signed away his safety for it.

Your tax dollars funded the 25m too!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Thanks to MS trying to lock governments into MS Word.

Re:Your tax dollars funded the 25m too!

[CyberSnyder]

Very true. (I cut and pasted this from Word just to make it more meaningful.)

TV

[Noexit]

Is that the same MS Word guy that was on "Identity" a week or two ago?

Re:TV

[justthinkit]

No, that was Richard Brodie, who had a hand in WinWord. Charles is the guy who did Word for DOS (that I still use primarily, with WinWord only for gui formatting). At least that is what books at the time say.

I never heard of Richard Brodie until he started promoting himself at the World Series of Poker, main event.

Chairs + Windows in space???

[EmbeddedJanitor]

If the chair is thrown through a window won't space suck you out?

Re:Chairs + Windows in space???

[Anonymous Coward]

Wou;dn't you be blown out? AFAIK you'd be forced out by the gas moving from high pressure to low pressure - vacuums don't actually suck. (they're pretty cool (or cold))

Re:Chairs + Windows in space???

[soliptic]

Congratulations, your tedious repetition of a tedious joke, so clumsily adapted for "relevance" to this story, and so obviously only posted in a cravenly transparent bid for circle-jerking approval from all the other chair-joke retards, is actually less funny than cancer.

Insightful?

[JeanBaptiste]

Not in the least!

There was a time when only the richest of the rich could afford automobiles. Now everyone has them.

Its efforts like this that will eventually drop the price down enough for space travel to be worthwhile for the general populace.

maybe I'm just jealous

Re:Insightful?

[aesova]

Its efforts like this that will eventually drop the price down enough for space travel to be worthwhile for the general populace. Price aside, what would make space travel for the general populace worthwhile? Personally, I really can't see any real purpose for this, other than tourism/entertainment, and the energy used and pollution generated to put people in space for no good reason seems to significantly decrease any possible worth.

Re:Insightful?

[zippthorne]

What makes eating for the general populace worthwhile? Personally, I don't see any real purpose for this, other than mere maintenance of population, and the energy used and pollution generated to make all that food for people to do nothing more than continue to exist seems to significantly decrease any possible worth.

Is mere survival a worthwhile goal for the whole human race?

Re:Insightful?

[dorath]

There was a time when only the richest of the rich could afford automobiles. Now everyone has them.

I look forward to the day that I can have a spacecraft up on blocks in my front yard.

Not that I want a spacecraft on blocks in my front yard, but the thought that I could have a spacecraft of my own AND a front yard big enough to hold one sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting either.

I might be a smidge jealous too.

Re:Insightful?

[aesova]

So, space travel for the general populace is equivalent to eating? Hmmm... So, again, what is the value in space travel for general populace - if it even happens?

Re:Insightful?

[khallow]

Tourism and entertainment are worthwhile, so you already list two.

Well, I see more practical applications. First, we can move an industrial civilization from a moderately fragile and valuable ecosystem to space where no ecosystem exists and which also has vastly more resources than Earth does. Why does "bull in a china shop" evoke images of shattered pottery? It's because no one expects a bull to live peacefully in a china shop. But there is a place for the bull in a pasture. In a similar fashion, I really don't see an industrial civilization living peacefully inside a delicate ecosystem. But there is a place for it in space.

Second, it helps solve the "all eggs in one basket" problem by spreading humanity beyond Earth. Extinction is probably very unlikely, but civilization will IMHO be occasionally set back. Having a lot more locations means that a setback is more likely to be local and thus one can receive help to recover from it. For example, imagine if New Orleans was all of civilization. Hurricane Katrina would rather than be a disaster for a modest sized US city, probably be the end of civilization until a new one springs up centuries or millenia from now. Third, new habitat results in new ways of thinking and technology. For example, my take is that a space colony will be the first to implement 100% recycling of every resource used.

Re:Insightful?

[aesova]

Those are reasonable arguments in a purely speculative sense, but they raise the much simpler question - if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space? How about sinking time/money/resources into technology to improve and fix our existing civilization here - alternative energy chief among them? I suggest that the billions and trillions that would go into your outer space Utopia could be better and more fairly used right here on Earth right now. I think that people are naturally seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving these problems through space travel is overlooked.

Re:Insightful?

[aesova]

Those are reasonable arguments in a purely speculative sense, but there are so many steps/dollars/decades before anything like that is feasible, and the suggestions themselves raise a much simpler question: if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space? And if you object to the suggestion that we can't do it right on Earth: If we can do it right here, then why sink so much energy into space? I suggest that the billions and trillions that would go into your outer space Utopia could be better and more fairly used right here on Earth right now. How about sinking time/money/resources into technologies to improve and fix our existing civilization here such as alternative energy? Why not 100% recycling on Earth? Why wait for a space colony? I can definitely see practical uses within science and technology, but these still fall outside the "space travel for the general populace" realm, leaving tourism and entertainment. As far as T&E are concerned, besides your saying so, how can these be considered - taking issues of initial cost, environmental impact, increased consumption of natural resources, etc. into account - worthwhile? Some billionaires make more money? X number of jobs are created? T&E dollars "grow the economy?" Again, how, aside from the neat-o factor, is this a better solution than anything with equal or greater potential here on Earth? I think that people are so seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving Earth's problems in space is overlooked.

Re:Insightful?

[khallow]

if we humans can't do it right here, how can we be expected to do it right in space?

Incentive. People die in space, if you don't do it right. On Earth, things just get a little dirtier. That's why I think 100% recycling, for example, will occur in space first. There's no incentive to do it on Earth except in order to get it right in space.

leaving tourism and entertainment. As far as T&E are concerned, besides your saying so, how can these be considered - taking issues of initial cost, environmental impact, increased consumption of natural resources, etc. into account - worthwhile? Some billionaires make more money? X number of jobs are created? T&E dollars "grow the economy?"

The fact that people pay good money for tourism and entertainment is an indication of their value. And if the resources consumed were so expensive, then the price would be higher.

Again, how, aside from the neat-o factor, is this a better solution than anything with equal or greater potential here on Earth? I think that people are so seduced by the science-fiction fantasy of life in outer space that the Rube Goldberg aspect of solving Earth's problems in space is overlooked.

The things that have equal or greater potential are being fixed though at a very slow rate. Government corruption, lack of infrastructure and law, poverty, etc. However, at some point we have to take the future into account. The Earth is limited. There's only so much we can do here. Industries, especially highly resource consumption industries like steel or aluminum refining will end up in space. There's far more material up there, far more energy, and the regulations will be a lot looser.

Re:Insightful?

[zippthorne]

What is the value of Paintings? Movies? Collections of poetry? Superconducting Supercolliders? National parks?

No, I think you are right. We should just live in dormitories and eat Spirulina.

Re:Insightful?

[aesova]

People die in space, if you don't do it right. On Earth, things just get a little dirtier. Wait, people don't die on Earth? What about pollution related illnesses, industrial accidents, famine created by land misuse, natural disasters compounded by faulty infrastructure and administrative mismanagement? The physical risk is rarely to the people with the power and/or money, why would it be any different in space?

That's why I think 100% recycling, for example, will occur in space first. There's no incentive to do it on Earth except in order to get it right in space. Your suggestion is cyclical, and ignores hundreds of existing incentives for increased recycling on Earth.

The fact that people pay good money for tourism and entertainment is an indication of their value. Only if by value, you mean money, in which case your statement is little more than a tautology. Besides, I can put a bunch of money in a slot machine, or into Britney Spears CDs, but if I get nothing in return, there is no value to my investment.

And if the resources consumed were so expensive, then the price would be higher. Higher than what? Than it is now? It will be, if were carting steel to and from space. Whenever there is increased usage, the price increases. This is shown every summer when gasoline prices increase, for example. Or do you mean, perhaps higher than the price last year, ten, twenty years ago? It is higher, and continues to grow. And the resources themselves continue to be exhausted. And since we're talking about a venture that would take several decades to achieve, the cost and availability of resources becomes a bigger issue.

The things that have equal or greater potential are being fixed though at a very slow rate. Government corruption, lack of infrastructure and law, poverty, etc. These issues will not disappear just because we're doing things in space. Corruption, mismanagement, economic problems, legal issues, etc., are human issues, and will therefore follow people and their endeavors into space. It's just a change of venue. It doesn't change the means or motivation of these people concerned.

However, at some point we have to take the future into account. The Earth is limited. There's only so much we can do here. Industries, especially highly resource consumption industries like steel or aluminum refining will end up in space. There's far more material up there, far more energy, and the regulations will be a lot looser. Where and to what extent is this wealth of resources and energy that you describe available in space? Are we going to start mining the moon? Regarding regulations, your suggestion is purely speculative. Regulations are not a natural phenomenon that diminish along with the atmosphere. They are created by humans to solve human problems. A major issue will be who has claim to the resources available in space, this or that particular location in space, etc. I think you and these billionaires taking their little space rides have created a Utopian vision of a future in space based on enthusiastic speculation and little substantive evidence. For now, it is, for all practical purposes, nothing more than vaporware, and we'd all be better served if we focused this kind of attention on the issues facing us right now on Earth.

Re:Insightful?

[khallow]

Wait, people don't die on Earth? What about pollution related illnesses, industrial accidents, famine created by land misuse, natural disasters compounded by faulty infrastructure and administrative mismanagement? The physical risk is rarely to the people with the power and/or money, why would it be any different in space?

None of these contribute to human death in a significant way. You can lose an entire space colony, if they screw up. The costs from getting it wrong are much higher in space.

Your suggestion is cyclical, and ignores hundreds of existing incentives for increased recycling on Earth.

There's only one. The value of recycling material X is greater than the cost. Most of the Earth-side waste stream simply isn't worth recycling. In Earth orbit, every scrap of matter and every breath of air currently costs $2500 or more per kg to put up there. Even with massive declines in the cost of getting stuff into Earth orbit, it is doubtful that the price will decline below $10 (in current dollars) per kilogram.

Only if by value, you mean money, in which case your statement is little more than a tautology. Besides, I can put a bunch of money in a slot machine, or into Britney Spears CDs, but if I get nothing in return, there is no value to my investment.

Money is the universal measure of value. Also, you do get something in return so your point is invalid there. Even at worst, the slot machine or the CD entertains you (the point of entertainment after all).

Higher than what? Than it is now? It will be, if were carting steel to and from space. Whenever there is increased usage, the price increases. This is shown every summer when gasoline prices increase, for example. Or do you mean, perhaps higher than the price last year, ten, twenty years ago? It is higher, and continues to grow. And the resources themselves continue to be exhausted. And since we're talking about a venture that would take several decades to achieve, the cost and availability of resources becomes a bigger issue.

Tourism and entertainment in general strikes me as low cost activities that are unlikely to change merely because raw materials become somewhat more expensive. The CD doesn't take much in raw materials. Neither does pulling the lever on the jackpot. Such things as lights, flashy concerts, etc may appear to be expensive, but these costs are divided among a huge number of customers. In comparison, space tourism is similar. Little of the cost is the raw materials. Even if every rocket had to buy appropriate carbon offsets, it would add little to the cost. Most of the cost is tied to insurance, the cost of making the vehicle, and range costs (from government owned launch sites). Fuel costs are on the order of 1% of the cost of a vehicle. And carbon offset costs would be similar though smaller simply because fuel is the primary contributor to carbon emission (not necessarily directly, liquid hydrogen currently is extracted from methane gas) and carbon offset costs are IMHO less than the value of the fuel being burned.

These issues will not disappear just because we're doing things in space. Corruption, mismanagement, economic problems, legal issues, etc., are human issues, and will therefore follow people and their endeavors into space. It's just a change of venue. It doesn't change the means or motivation of these people concerned.

As far as the "greater problems" I cited, my point was that these are being fixed (without recourse to space technology) not as problems that were being "escaped" by a move into space. I don't see many of the big human problems being solved by a move into space. But Man's footprint on Earth can be solved in this way.

Where and to what extent is this wealth of resources and energy that you describe available in space? Are we going to start mining the moon? Regarding regulations, your suggestio

Clarus and Claris were two different animals

[Anonymous Coward]

So to speak.

MOOF!

A better way to spend the money

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Save an industry landmark: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/09/shockley_f ruit_closed/

Sell soul to windows for space trip?

[arcite]

Speak for yourself poor boy.

I think not.

I use a Mac and my soul is intact thankyouvery much. I don't need to go to space.

OSX completes me.

Word users:There are other people on board too

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't wish evil things, mercy the astronauts.

Soyuz has just docked with ISS

[nbannerman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6539901.stm

2 hours from now and they'll have the airlocks released.

Alternanative Headline

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Man Expelled from planet for crimes against Humanity.

Interesting

[RancidMilk]

Send a person with more money than he knows what to do with, somewhere where he can't spend it. Leave him there and teach him a lesson.

+5 Soviet Russia jokes?

[iago-vL]

Hey guys, where are all the +5 Funny-rated "In Soviet Russia...." jokes? I was looking forward to them!

Re:+5 Soviet Russia jokes?

[CompMD]

In Soviet Russia, Word launches YOU!

Re:+5 Soviet Russia jokes?

[$0.02]

This is the guy he invented Hungarian notation. I will have more inspiration with Soviet Russia jokes when they launch to space the guy who invented Reverse Polish notation.

Not one bit.

[Shivetya]

He is paying what they are charging. If he flew on a US flight then perhaps we can bitch about the costs, it sure would cost him more than a paltry 25m to get there.

War or no war NASA is never going to get anywhere until it does something that can generate votes. Until the polticians will only keep it around for the local jobs it creates and to bash the other party for not funding science enough

Ubuntu2

[feranick]

Does it mean that we are going to have a new Linux distribution, based on Shuttleworth's Ubuntu, maybe?

In Soviet Russia...

[RancidMilk]

>Hey guys, where are all the +5 Funny-rated "In Soviet Russia...." jokes? I was looking forward to them! ...We have better taste than that.

Kazakhstan?

[smithcl8]

Charles Simonyi : Rich Man of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Very Nice!

Re:He's probably introducing some great tech solut

[Rei]

MS Word, in my experience, is more like having your spacecraft decide, "Well, they've used this particular reaction control thruster every time they've pressed a button, so I'm just going to go ahead and fire it off every time before they do anything to save them the time."

Word is shutting down...

[arcite]

Please save your work, grab your balls, and press restart.

Power will be restored once you hit the ground.

Planet Earth is Blue

[flyingfsck]

and there is nothing I can do...

Hmm, has the ISS screens turned blue yet?

Do we charge him rent?

[reezle]

I understand the Russians get Millions to launch him there, but we spent quite a bit of our cash to build the station. Do we get anything for hosting him for the time he's up there?

Re:Do we charge him rent?

[Un pobre guey]

No. You are supposed to be overwhelmed with positive emotions, and glad to have had the chance to fund whatever miniscule part of the Shuttle or ISS was paid for with your taxes. You need to feel that as he is in space, you are too, and that in itself should be fulfilling. You must also conclude that this shows the commercial viability of manned space travel, as well as its imminent blossoming on a much larger scale at Spaceport America. You should also have had your faith in the usefulness of manned space travel enormously reinforced. Now your faith in it is unwavering and rock-solid. You will write to your congressional representatives asking them, nay, telling them, ordering them, to spend scores of billions more on manned space exploration. This proves that humanity will colonize space, escape the dreaded asteroid impact, terraform and colonize Mars, colonize the moon, and generally have a vast and bright new future away from our troubled planet.

Even if only five or six people actually make it beyond earth orbit for any significant amount of time. Ever. At least they went, and that proves the whole concept.

That'd be lpszCharles lpszSimonyi, thankyouverymuc

[melted]

That'd be lpszCharles lpszSimonyi, thank you very much.

In Soviet Russia: +1, Ingenious

[Anonymous Coward]

Sp[ace station heads to U.S. Billionaire.

P.S.: Fuck Bush

Now watch the hatch opening!

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries, now it's time for the hatch opening on NASA TV!

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

OK by me

[smchris]

I can't think of a product developer I would rather have measuring radiation exposure.

Voluntarily. Paying to do it. Explains a lot about Word.

Did He Take Clippy With Him?

[aquatone282]

Maybe Clippy will be shoved out of an airlock "by accident".

THIS JUST IN!

[icedcool]

Successful Slashdot reader reads about billionaire going to space! More info Here

Cue MST3K theme:

[jimbo3123]

We'll send him cheesy movies.
The worst we can find.
(la la la)

He'll have to sit and watch them all
Then We'll monitor his mind.
(la la la)

Now keep in mind Charles can't control
Where the movies begin or end
(la la la)

Because he used those special parts
To make his Clippy friends.

Re:Cue MST3K theme:

[Thuktun]

A planet where apes evolved from men?

Wish I had mod points.

Find the latest info at Simoniy site

[Kalle Barfot]

Charles in Space, includes a blog

Re:Find the latest info at Simoniy site

[Anonymous Coward]

y before i, idiot

All I can say is:

[His name cannot be s]

There is a special spot in hell reserved for Charles.

Out of all crimes against humanity, Hungarian notation is one of the worst.

Repent! Abandon ye all who use use the notation of the devil! :p

Re:All I can say is:

[75th Trombone]

Hungarian Notation has a bad (w)rap because it got perverted into something it was never meant to be.

Read Joel Spolsky's explanation of how it all went wrong, and how Hungarian Notation can actually be a good thing.

Wait a second...

[SteveFoerster]

If someone paid the $25 million airfare, say you won a contest or something, does that mean you'd turn the trip down?

Re:Wait a second...

[CyberSnyder]

If the space shuttle was involved, I'd turn it down. I guess using it as a playground is as good of a use as any. Has any good science come out of the ISS? I don't follow it much except to watch it travel overhead one night, but I haven't heard of any good studies resulting from the ISS. Seems more like a monetary black hole in low earth orbit.

Re:He's probably introducing some great tech solut

[operagost]

... or hiding the lever for the escape hatch because it hasn't been used in a while.

Is this the new billionaire fad?

[kinglink]

There was a time that it was flying around the world in a hot air balloon, or growing your nails long and letting your appearance go. Now it's flying to outer space? Yuppie fads aren't that outlandish but they have nothing on billionaire fads.

You're asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, rather, your straw man is asking the wrong question:

I expect to see a lot of people commenting "hey, he was smart, he worked hard, he deserves that money". My response to that is: "Really? Is he a hundred thousand times smarter than the average American? Is he a hundred thousand times harder working than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living? Really?"

The correct question is, "Is he a hundred thousand times harder to replace than some guy who does hot tar roofing for a living?" The answer to that being, "Well, duh, yeah."

That is why he gets 100,000x the money as the roofer. It turns out to be pretty important not to abuse (or overtax) members of your company (or society) who are hard to replace.

They might quit, and then you're fucked.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Rei]

And that is precisely why they earn that much money. Not because they deserve it because of their "intelligence" or "hard work" -- the merit arguments made by libertarians. They're not 100,000 times harder working -- they're just 100,000 times less disposable.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[heinousjay]

Typically due to intelligence and hard work. Let's not get confused here.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Rei]

100,000 times as much?
I think not.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? My point is, 100,000 times less disposable trumps any arguments you have about whether someone actually works 100,000 times as hard, or is 100,000 as smart. Replaceability as a metric is a pretty good indicator of how much someone should earn, in a fair economy.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Rei]

That's where you and I differ. I view how much one "should" earn to be a merit judgement, not a replacability judgement. If the market wants to use replacability as its only guideline, then I'm all for such people getting a higher tax rate than the "replacables".

C'mon guys - Word is a small part of his story

[Ian.Waring]

the American billionaire who helped develop Microsoft Word

This is the same guy who started up Microsoft's applications business - so i'm sure Multiplan and Excel have a lot of influence from him too. He was featured in "Programmers at Work" by Susan Lammers years ago. I think the only other guy tat Microsoft o get to the same technical "level" as Simonyi was David N Cutler, who led Windows NT after arriving from Digital (also the lead for RSX-11M, a lot of VAX/VMS, VAX PL/1, the MicroVAX-I and Mica at DEC). Very clever guys... and probably the two technical leads for the two parts of MS that make the most money these days.

Ian W.

No gift shop on ISS.

[SeaFox]

a Russian rocket carrying the American billionaire who helped develop Microsoft Word roared ... to the international space station.

There's no place to spend your money... in space.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[rantingkitten]

Microsoft Word launches YOU!

Systems Hungarian vs. apps Hungarian

[tepples]

Yup, Mr. lpcszHungarianNotation himself has blasted off into space. There are two kinds of Hungarian notation: "systems Hungarian", which prefixes variable names with low-level data types such as the common lpsz representing "32-bit pointer to string"; and "apps Hungarian", which prefixes variable names with high-level data types such as rw for "row", str for "string", n for "number of", x for "horizontal coordinate", etc. Mr. Simonyi didn't advocate the "systems Hungarian" approach as much as "apps Hungarian". Wikipedia covers the difference.

public class HashMap implements Map

[tepples]

Not if you're using interface/implementation separation. CFoo is a class that implements interface IFoo. Alternatives would include the style used by the "Design Patterns" book, which would have had ConcreteFoo as an implementation of AbstractFoo, but prefix letters seem better to me in this case. I prefer the Java collections approach, where the interface has the short name and the implementation carries a prefix that implies its implementation's characteristics: HashMap and TreeMap implement the interface Map, and ArrayList and LinkedList implement the interface List. This way, most of your code sees the interface, and the long names can be confined to the new statement.

Re:He's probably introducing some great tech solut

[Anonymous Coward]

Linuxies: "ahhh I see you are going to space, go do it yourself than"

Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that one of the experiments isn't to study the effects of zero gravity on masturbation?

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. He'll be conducting the first untethered space wank.

Optimum Tax Rate

[mrcaseyj]

>One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion...

If taxes are too low it's bad for everyone rich and poor because the government doesn't have enough money for needed services. If the tax rate is too high it's bad for everyone rich and poor because it destroys too much of the motivation to work. Somewhere in between there is an optimum tax rate. If taxes are way too high then cutting taxes WILL actually increase overall tax collections. The problem is that the ideal tax rate is different depending on whether you're optimizing for the benefit of the rich or the poor. The poor are probably better off with a higher overall tax rate and the rich are probably better off with a lower overall tax rate.

Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

If he came up with Clippy, i suggest we cancel his returnticket.

Trickle down model is not always true

[fantomas]

"There was a time when only the richest of the rich could afford automobiles. Now everyone has them."

There was a time a hundred years ago when only the super rich could afford Rolls-Royces with chauffeurs. That's still true. Same with yachts, crystal and silver dinner sets, and a lot of other things.

And on another rant :-) , the trickle down effect doesn't make everybody richer... still a lot of folk on a dollar a day.

Giving it away

[Oshkoshjohn]

Conspicuous consumption has had paybacks from the proles in the past, notably the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. Twenty million dollars would keep several dying American school districts open. Put his ass into a tumbrel headed to the guillotine or up against a wall to be shot! Class warfare and anarchy is coming.

At least Bill Gates is giving his vast pile away.

What would be news....

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be news if these rich moguls gave up their seat and gave the ticket away to someone who really deserves it.

Obligatory Clippy Joke v7.1354.b259

[swschrad]

"I see you're trying to breathe with a user of the Cyrillic language version standing on your air hose. Can I help?"

The 68000s still suck

[Anonymous Coward]

You need at least a 68020 to do anything useful.

Let's hope,,,

[Anonymous Coward]

...he doesn't come back.

HateHateHateHateHateHate. :)