Slashdot Mirror
Google Founders Buy Fighter Jet
Ponca City, We love you writes "The NY Times reports that H211 LLC, a company controlled by Google's top executives, including billionaire founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, appears to have added to its fleet a Dornier Alpha Jet, a light jet attack and advanced trainer aircraft manufactured by Dornier of Germany and Dassault-Breguet of France. The 1982 Alpha-Jet seats two and was originally used by European air forces, but is now being sold relatively cheaply to civilians. The jet has landing rights at Moffett Field, the NASA-operated airfield that is a stone's throw from the Google campus. It is not clear who exactly flies the fighter jet, although Google chief executive Eric Schmidt is an avid pilot. If the top Googlers indeed own the fighter jet, they would be following in the footsteps of Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison, who has owned several aircraft, including fighter jets."
of how many starving children in Africa they could have fed instead of buying a jet so they can show off.
Are these guys Yahoos??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Red Bull has one too. Does that make them evil?
I'd have one if I had that kind of money too.
In other news, Microsoft is installing anti-aircraft emplacements
I see you own a computer. Surely you could have sent your money to Africa instead?
> It is not clear who exactly flies the fighter jet,
Hint: The Google AI
When fighter jets, tanks, etc. are sold to civilians, most of the fun stuff is ripped out.
This is basically the rich fuck's version of buying a sports car when you're 50 to stroke your ego.
Companies will do battle in the sky to prove superiority.
This isn't a big deal, Bob Lutz (Vice Chairman of GM, Retired Marine Aviator) owned a MiG i think, and now flies around in a Czech fighter.
Jack Roush (NASCAR owner, head of Roush Industries) owns a bunch of WWII fighters.
The odd part is that the Google guys seem to have bought it through some company.
Android + Maps + Fighter Jet = Deadly Precision with real-time traffic!
Isn't it hard to live up to "do no evil" when you have a strike-capable air force? This is a slippery slope, indeed. I think the next time the Yahoo! talks escalate, things just might go a little differently.
Obviously this is a first step toward achieving air superiority in the skies above Google's new aquatic data centers. As the Google Navy continues to expand its influence the importance of protecting the fleet from airborne threats will increase.
Also, never underestimate the bandwidth of a fighter jet full of tapes screaming across the sky at Mach 3.
Awesome! Maybe they can challenge Dexter Holland of The Offspring to a dogfight:
- Alan Cross, Ongoing History of New Music, "100 weird things about new rock - part 9"
UTF-8: There and Back Again
This is beyond the realm of reality so cut me some slack...
Corporations (or their top execs) are starting to buy military hardware. Do you think we will ever see a corporation declare war on another corporation?
Gives a whole new meaning to hostile takeover...
So... Google has added an "airforce" to complement their navy...
Google Navy
It must be carrying pinatas full of candy and goodwill...
Fighter jet, which has been in "Beta" for years.
AA guns, with targeting system running Vista.
Ought to be a good show.
Didn't Michael Dorn (Worf of Star Trek: The Next Generation) buy a fighter or a trainer after he was done with TV?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
They'll have to offer free rides to people who could never afford a plane of their own.
> In other news, Microsoft is installing anti-aircraft emplacements
So, Ballmer is buying more chairs?
luckily it's payload is light.
So everyone with more money than you should give it all to charity?
You think those starving children in Africa wouldn't go out for a meal at a fancy restaurant if they were given a billion pounds? Then perhaps buy some nice shoes? They could just use it to buy everyone in their country just the right amount of food to make sure they're not classed as 'starving' for a while, but I highly suspect they might want to enjoy themselves a little too. They might even buy a bike or a car. You know, some people like to have fun occasionally, when it is within their means?
I'm very sure Larry and Sergey have caused more money to go to charity than you ever will. Just because they also want to use their money - money that they have earned by creating an excellent business - to have a bit of fun doesn't make them evil. It's easy to point the finger, but I bet you'd buy a nice car and house if you were a billionaire, rather than live in a slum. Any of us slashdotters could survive on a lot less than what we have. Why do you even have a slashdot account and access to a computer? Why aren't you out there earning as much money as you can so that you can redistribute the wealth?
The problem is not with our "consumerist culture", it's with corrupt and moronic governments who run their countries into the ground and treat their citizens like shit. No amount of charity is going to turn a country like that around if its leaders are corrupt.
which is totally what she said
They can use these fighter jets to fend off the pirates attacking their oceanic data centers!
In all seriousness it sounds more like a , "Dude I own a fighter jet!" then a, "Let's defend our data centers from Microsoft and Pirates!"
OK, so a couple of rich guys buy an expensive toy, so what? They already own a boeing 757, and a 767 for chrissake, and you didn't post those aquisitions.
Its no Rocket Car...
Rocket Car
Eschew Obfuscation
There was a former Czech air force MIG-21 for sale on Ebay a couple weeks ago with a "buy it now" price of only $45K. The aircraft was located in Ohio and was in ready-to-fly restored condition, and is actively flown in air shows. While the purchase price was cheap, it is hideously expensive to operate a MIG-21. A half-hour flight consumes almost $2000 worth of Jet-A fuel. Also a MIG-21 can only carry about two hour's worth of fuel onboard anyway. The engine in it has to be overhauled at a cost of over $100K about every 250 hours of flight time too, since Russian jet engines are built with such loose mechanical tolerances in the moving parts.
It's an advanced trainer. It's a toy. (albeit a rich man's toy). What's the big deal -- he already owns several aircraft. This isn't even uncommon.
Now, if you told me he bought a couple of fully armed F22's, THAT would be news. (you may, of course, substitute your plane of choice for the F22)
Even some actors are into that.
I have to say that there's something fitting about Worf in a fighter jet
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
...the first thing to come up is a wikipedia article?
The Collings Foundation owns an actual jet fighter, an F-4D Phantom II from the Vietnam War. They had to get all kinds of waivers from the Feds to be able to own and operate it. This is for display at airshows.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Well they have the cheap geothermal power and the free cooling for the datacenters. The only hitch was how out of the way iceland is. But it does have an abandoned NATO airfield so now that the top execs can jet in and out in an hour or so at supersonic speeds goodbye Silicon Valley Hello Reykjavik. Solves all the turnover problem too as in "You want to leave Google and join Microsoft. Fine as soon as you get security clearance from the Icelandic government you can leave (never that is)" With Iceland being bankrupt they would sell their souls and change their national anthem to "Do no evil" if Google comes calling.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Hmmmm. And Sarah Palin's $150,000 was also good fiscal prudence, too?
What happened with Sam Walton driving a pickup truck?
And special landing rights at Moffet? Can't go a few extra miles out of SJA? Oh, right, it needs to be near their little Boeing something.
Great corporate stewardship. And if they join Larry at Oracle, that's guilt by association.
Not intended as flame. Intended as an observation of prima facia conspicuous consumption that smacks of aristrocracy in a country that soundly, firmly, and with my ancestor's blood-- rejected aristocracy.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Science, of course! H211 LLC uses many of its jets for NASA-sponsored experiments, since they operate primarily out of Moffett field, a NASA-controlled airstrip that's conveniently located right next to Google's Mountain View HQ. The jet was acquired to carry scientific instruments that could not be rigged up to Boeing 757/767 and Gulfstream jets the company already operates, some of which were used to monitor the re-entry of the ESA's Jules Verne satellite.
If you RTFA you would note that they have a NASA contract which that jet is going to be used on.
That'll help them in their quest to be carbon-neutral won't it?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Sam Walton is dead. It's difficult to drive a pickup while afflicted with such a condition.
This was the subject of some controvery in the aviation community.
Moffett Field is a Naval installation and as such civilians cannot use it unless it's a emergency and even then you can expect to spend some time answering questions posed by the Military Police.
I understand the nearest civilian airport that can accept jets is quite a ways away.
So how did the google guys obtain rights to use Moffet field when no other civilians can?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Actually a WWII V1 Doodle Bug. It was found in the V2 production workshop in Germany just after WWII. He also has a super-rare, original Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen
Hmmmm. And Sarah Palin's $150,000 was also good fiscal prudence, too?
I'm not voting for her either way, but I fail to see why people pounce on her for this. She's a public figure that is engaging in the mother of all popularity contests. Like it or not, appearance makes a HUGE difference to the American people. That $150,000 is an investment in her campaign plain and simple. If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated.
Essentially, consider it part of the advertising budget. When you're trying to sell yourself to a nation packaging is important.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I did.
Nothing like a little government money.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
When they start doing practice runs over Microsoft, the mission will be obvious.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
But I suspect is has to do with a large stack of paper with pictures of presidents on them. You'd be amazed out how well such things work when the stack is large enough. The key is to make sure that your get them into the right hands. Elected officials are particularly partial to them, and hold a great deal of sway over what is and what isn't allowed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Here at Google, we're committed to helping build a clean energy future and reducing our carbon footprint."
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I bought a toothbrush and some new underwear. Really guys, is this stuff that matters?
tag: !news
while shipping container datacenters get all of the news today, google has realized that a shipping container just isn't very sexy
meanwhile, imagine a full rack of server hardware, effortlessly streaming youtube movies and search returns, all the while cruising at mach 1 above the rockies
now that's some seriously sexy IT hardware
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's a fact. And when he was alive, he lived an unostentatious life, as have many entrepreneurs.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It's very easy to pounce on her for having the RNC spend $150,000 on a freaking wardrobe. This isn't Barbie we're dressing here, it's an Alaskan governor that ought to have already had a wardrobe for that office. Even the top women execs I know don't have a budget like that. It takes her from where she was to some sort of 'star' status, rather than a prudent user of political funds. I wonder aloud if they'd have paid for a boob job should she have needed one.
It's imprudent, and grandiose.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
They may want to avoid this thing that will soon operate from the same Moffet Field:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/19/BUVD13JIMG.DTL&hw=airship+ventures&sn=001&sc=1000
Airship Ventures is flying a Zeppelin NT airship (no Windows jokes here! ;) ), which is larger than the small blimps we often see over major public events like college and NFL football games.
The construction and maintenance of a fighter jet is one of the more labour intensive things you can buy. So I look at this as a large transfer of money from the rich guys to working people.
Our little company has done engineering work for the Canadian Forces Alpha Jets but mostly we convert super expensive large business jets. We charge a lot.
Flying toys are one of the worlds best wealth re-distributors. Small numbers of ridiculously wealthy middle eastern princes and other "principles" keep our team of engineers and techies employed, not to mention a whole raft of suppliers. And then you have to include all the people who work for airframe OEMs.
After they buy something from us they are quite a bit less wealthy than they were before.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
No, it's flamebait because this is Slashdot and the story is not about Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, but about the Google founders.
You need to keep your eyes on the goalposts. They move a lot.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Well, let's look at the word "selfish": "Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others."
Assuming that's what you mean, here's a way of looking at it: so what? It's wrong to do something for yourself, even if it's not in someone else's best interests? Even if it was your hard work and energy that put you in a position to do this in the first place?
If it is, tell me /why/ it is? Why do other people deserve the fruits of their labor? Why should they send their money to a corrupt nation, where it's assured that scarcely any of it will be received by the people who need it?
Why doesn't the millions of dollars that they have already donated to charities count? Must they give it all away and live as paupers to meet that laudable goal of not being "selfish" or "consumerist"?
Poetically, your defense of them has the same root as any defense of ridiculously wealthy people allowing their silly purchases of toys to be publicized. You either are one of them currently, or you want to be one.
Let me fix that to apply to your post...
Poetically, your contempt for them shows the same deep-rooted envy of those unable to attain such positions of wealth.
Easy to make generalizations, isn't it? Though I suspect mine has as much truth as yours...
Little known fact, but one of the brothers that own Fry's Electronics owns a stripped down F-14 (no weapons), last I heard it was located in Arizona. Not sure why there is so much news coverage on something this innocent. I mean if we found out that Larry Ellison was building a Death Star (he isn't is he?!), then I understand the hubbub.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
An airplane, a whole airplane, a German airplane? WooooooooooooooooooooW. I have a pair of shoes, look, look there, Susie down the street has a mailbox of her own....I must MUST get this on the news... who cares?
Thanks, now I have images of Steve Ballmer on the roof of MS HQ with a chair in one hand screaming, "Bring it on!" at Larry and Sergey strafing.
I have no idea what you're on about with Sam Walton. I recognise the names of [the complete moron who seems to know less about American newspapers than I do, despite neither reading papers often nor living in America] Sarah Palin and Larry at Oracle, but that's about it. I live in the UK and have only watched some YouTube videos of Palin after seeing many comments about her here on slashdot. If you search for her on google images you'll find plenty of retarded photos of her holding guns and flags, etc. She's such an airhead, it's unbelievable .. okay scratch that, when Dubya is the most powerful man in the world, it's perfectly believable..
As for the Boeing thing, again I just don't see why so many people think they have the right to judge them. Many of us that have cars could probably get by without them in some way or another - certainly here in the UK and in built up areas of the US that have public transport and taxis. Very large companies make use of private jets in the same way that 'normal' people make use of cars. They may not always be full of passengers, and so are wasting fuel, but they can save a lot of time and if the company or person involved is willing to waste the money on that fuel to save time, it's up to them. It's not illegal. Some people might find it immoral, but they are probably doing exactly the same things with their cars, just on a different scale. Here in the UK, virtually everybody (apart from a few people in very remote areas like the north coast of Scotland) could get by without a car, but it simply isn't convenient - and so the people that can afford cars and are fit to drive, usually buy cars.
Now the fighter jet is more like buying a motorbike to just cruise around on. It's perhaps valid to criticise the amount of fuel that is being wasted just on joyriding (though how do you know that they aren't buying it for some AI test project? Larry and Sergey love their AI), but anyone that has ever gone for a drive just to clear their head or for fun would be guilty of the same thing, in my opinion.
I do get why people think they are "bad" guys for spending money on these expensive things, and their frivolous wastes of fuel are much more noticeable than other peoples, but I just think it shows a lack of perspective. Why the heck not buy that kind of stuff if you have the money? It's not like they are giving nothing to charity. Why should they be criticized by a bunch of bitter people (who most likely wish they could afford to spend money on stuff like that, and if they started earning a few billion a year would probably end up buying a jet or some other expensive toy at some point) for having a fighter plane any more than a homeless person should criticise someone for buying an expensive mountain bike that, strictly speaking, they don't really need? It just seems kind of pathetic to me.
If I made the kind of money they did, I would give some to charity sure, but I would use some to have fun. Is that selfish? Possibly, but I wouldn't feel too bad about it. If I'm doing a job that really justifies earning that much money, I'd want to have some of the rewards that go along with being successful.
which is totally what she said
No amount of charity is going to turn a country like that around if its leaders are corrupt.
Unless that charity is in the business of selling arms to the rebel opposition... Just saying.
Google's founders have always seemed to show a philanthropic attitude. This is at odds with buying fighter jets. The obvious conclusion is that Google have finally worked up the guts to go after Microsoft's HQ directly. When MS is dead, and people in africa aren't being charged a month's wages for MS products, then clearly, Google's philanthropic arm will be satisfied with the purchase too.
If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated.
What? Who could possibly perceive here as less sophisticated? E gads!
which is totally what she said
Well, the more I hear about Google, the more they seem like everyone else. And I'm not saying it in a condemning way or anything. They're just human.
They too need some big expensive toy as suspicious consumption. They too would rape your privacy if it helps optimize 0.01% off their average search time, and thus make an extra buck. They too will sell some Chinese babbling about "democracy" to the authorities if that's the price to make a billion dollars in business in China. They too will expose your data occasionally if it's cheaper than hiring testers. And they too apparently aren't above making a backroom deal with Yahoo or using patents keep the competition out of their little monopoly field.
(According to at least one analysis, that's why MS wants to buy Yahoo. Some time ago Yahoo apparently bought a small company who had a blanket patent on matching ads to the text on the page. Yahoo licensed it to Google, but refuses to license it to MS or anyone else.)
In a nutshell, they're like any other corporation. Plus a funky meaningless motto, that some people mistake for some kind of final proof that Google is the digital-age Mother Theresa. Heh.
The thing is, no other corporation is "evil" in the sense of seeking to cause the maximum misery, pain and destruction possible. Even MS, I'd bet they never had a board meeting along the lines of, "how can we make more people miserable?" There are no super-villains cackling over doomsday device blueprints. And there are no altruistic super-heroes either. There are only greedy people trying to make a buck, and the difference is in how many corpses they feel they can get away with stepping over, on their way to the top.
At any rate, Google "doing no evil"... well, it's technically true, but only in as much as you could say with a straight face that MS does no evil. They don't sacrifice babies to Satan or anything. But from there, both have shown repeatedly that their goal is simply to make the most money, and both don't have much consideration for whoever might get to suffer for it. As is, indeed, expected of a corporation.
They're just human. They're just a corporation. That's it. It doesn't make them evil, it merely makes them the same as everyone else. One just has the funny motto.
Well, I think I'll make "36 inch penis" my motto. I'm sure some people will actually believe that I live up to that ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Androids new AI will fly fighter jets.. that ought to sell a few G1's.
A company near me, ATAC, has a fleet of ex-fighter jets. Kfir, Hawker Hunter, and A-4 Skyhawk. They contract out to the USAF and Navy to fly intercept and fleet protection missions. Here are a couple of their jets on the ground.
The Kirlin family runs one of the world's the largest chains of Hallmark cards and gifts franchises (Kirlin's Hallmark stores, based out of Quincy, Illinois). Two sons of founder Dale Kirlin Sr. (Dale Jr. and Gary) went into the family business.
The other son, Don Kirlin, pursued an aviation career with the US Navy and Us Airways before he started Red Air which is a company also based out of Quincy, IL. Don has lived in Quincy, in Boulder, Colorado, and also in Kyrgyzstan while working on acquiring a former Soviet fighter.
Red Air operates a fleet of Mig, Alpha, and Vodochody fighter aircraft in training maneuvers with US and Canadian fighter groups. Their former USAF and US Navy flight instructors flying foreign-built fighters make for a much more realistic training scenario than simulators or flying US aircraft against other US aircraft.
If you have the cash, the licenses, and the desire then check out his foreign fighter and trainer sales business, Air USA. Weapons systems are not included, of course.
Don's also the man behind the World Free Fall Convention, which brought visitors from every state and 70 foreign countries to Quincy, IL and Rantoul, IL for 17 years and featured during that time over 600,000 jumps. Jump platforms included everything from a B-17 bomber to the Family Channel blimp. Even a Super Constellation and a Boeing 727 have been featured.
So if you really want to talk about privately held air power, Oracle and Google take a back seat to the black sheep son of a greeting card and gift store magnate.
Care to inform us how much Omambie and Clinton have spent on wardrobe?
hmmmm????
No?
Of course not. You people always slam those you oppose and conveniently leave out the fact that those you support are just as bad if not worse.
$150,000 is *nothing* in a political campaign. It costs several times that to even air a single commercial.
But, perspective is your enemy...which is why you folks never provide any.
And the Google Worship by Slashdot editors reaches, and I hardly thought it possible, a new low.
Why is this news to anyone?
Eric Shmidt? He can't fly a plane. He's a fucking pussy!
If I were a shareholder, I'd be furious. There is no defensible reason for spending corporate earnings on private aircraft, let alone a fighter jet. Let them pay for it out of their salary, not the profits.
...It's not illegal...
Let's presuppose that global warming is true. Tell me the efficiency of two fellows hopping in their little 767, and its carbon footprint. And all of the other execs that believe themselves so self-important that they must also do so (think Larry, John Travolta, and the long list).
I have a motorbike. It's 125cc. Gets me around. Smallish footprint. Great mileage. But I understand there's rational justification for larger vehicles. I have a family van that transports five of us on holidays to my in-laws, and occasionally is used to haul large items. It sits, otherwise.
Spending money isn't a bad thing, and they're not 'bad' guys for doing so. Is charity a penance paid for outlandish consumption? I don't think so. It's done because we have a responsibility to those that have less than we do.
I'm not embittered by Google cash blasts, nor am I jealous. It was always my belief that stewards of invested monies should make the best use of them. The self-important uses can be understood, to a point. A 767 is past that point, as is a $150K wardrobe.
Toys are another thing altogether. The aphorism that 'he with the most/best toys when he dies wins' has launched enormous waves of reckless frivolity when there are 10,000 children dying of malnutrition every DAY (source: Kofi Anan's speech on World Hunger Day this past month).
Rewards are what motivates us. These aren't rewards, these are aristocracy in the making, and American principalities.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Google's coming to get ya!
For some reason I suddenly had a flash of Google branching into Mercenary activities, or Private Military Contractors as they prefer to be called these days. Squads of Google Soldiers running around with a large Logo on their arm and unlimited bandwidth. Gives the terminology G-Men a new meaning.
The Long Now Foundation
What happened with Sam Walton driving a pickup truck?
The same Sam Walton who didn't give much for charity, because he didn't believe in giving "any undeserving stranger a free ride"? Was he a better man because he makes Scotsmen look generous?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Balmer may want to reconsider his original idea, or in the very least strap a few jet packs and bazooka's on it now...
They need the jet to compensate for size.
They were going to buy a Hummer, but the fighter jet gets better gas mileage.
Clinton is of no consequence.
How much HAS Obama spent? Got a number? How about Obama AND Biden?
$150,000 on clothes is a huge number, campaign or not. Imelda Marcos comes to mind. Brutal. This isn't TV, this is wardrobe. Television advertising time isn't a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus.
I'm not 'you folks'. Get over an independent opinion-- mine.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Seriously, why is this news? They buy a plane that is available to the public if enough money is exchanged. Even the summary talks about a fleet implying it is not even the first plane they own.
So it is not news that they bought a plane, because they have some already. It is not news that they have a lot of money. It is not news one of the big shots has a pilot license. It is not even news for being the first to have such a plane.
It's not news. If anything it's gossip. About as interesting as knowing Tara Reid was drunk again. News? That is not news and it doesn't matter.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's not like she's actually sophisticated. She's stupid and childish about everything, and can't even run her own family without government assistance (see the huge amount of Alaskan tax dollars she charged for family expenses, even on trips which they were not invited for). Polishing a turd will only give you a shiny turd, no more.
Microsoft's next patent: the anti aircraft chair
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
His charity sucked. But his sense that shareholders get the best possible return on assets rendered is the point.
If he gets to St Peter's Gates and gets rejected for his lack of charity, then so be it. If you invested in Sam, you got a return without the fatuous, self-aggrandizing/self-enriching management contingent present today. I'll take that honesty and hard working ideal rather than stupendously insane market cap and lots of fat toys. Google is too big, given even this morning's disaster on Wall Street.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Noooo iiiittt issssnnnnn't. Yoouuu jussst neeed to eaeeaat soooome brrrrraaaaaiiiiiinnssss fiirst.
BRRRAAAIIIIINNSSSS!!!
Apparently, they didn't agree with our decision or they would have gotten the Aircraft Carrier!
A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
Steve Appleton, founder of Micron has owned and flown a variety of military jets for over a decade. A MiG trainer, a Hawker Hunter supersonic British jet fighter, and he even wadded up a plane and collapsed a lung while shooting a corporate video.
...properly defined, as an aircraft designed to destroy other aircraft. It's a design optimized as an advanced trainer. It has a secondary purpose as a light attack aircraft.
As a former Navy pilot (S-3A Vikings, 20+ years ago) I have at least minimal standing to discus this. The Alpha jet was one competitor for the Navy contract for new training planes, way back in the 80s. One of them visited our base, some of the senior officers went up for a spin. Neat little plane. It lost out to the BAC Hawk, a variant of which (much if not mostly built by us subcontractors) as the T-45 Goshawk.
And special landing rights at Moffet? Can't go a few extra miles out of SJA? Oh, right, it needs to be near their little Boeing something.
Umm... They already have rights to use Moffet field, which is a good business deal since it never gets used otherwise and it's a perfectly good airport, its MUCH closer to them, and traffic on 101 to the airport (which is SJC, not SJA) totally sucks pretty much all the time.
If they need to get on a plane, having their own airport nearby probably saves them an hour or two every time they have to go somewhere, and probably an hour or so again when they come back.
When a company is that big, 3 hours of CEO's time is actually worth what it costs them to set that up, so it's actually a good business decision.
If you don't think they should have a fighter jet i can't blame you, but don't knock the one sensible part of this - having a good airport as close as possible.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Do they have an "I'm feeling lucky" button in the cockpit? :)
The founder of Digex bought an ex-NATO warship when he cashed out.
I've been on it, it's pretty cool. Makes the other rich guys' yachts look very, um, flaccid.
If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated.
And if a $150,000 investment in her mouth could have the same effect, the GOP would be much better off...
Damn that sounded dirty.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Google is on the way down, down, DOWN.
When billionaires begin acting arrogant, they soon lose all sight of reality. Examples? Gates and Ballmer. Okay, okay, they were never in touch with reality.
Not many people realize that an aircraft's initial cost is dwarfed by its yearly maintenance and fuel costs. Think about how my base does it- 200-odd maintainers each making between $25k and $65k plus benefits. In my shop alone it's not uncommon to see a daily throughput of up to $60k in parts (replacements, turn-ins, locally fabricated). Landing gear cracked? No repairs allowed, and a drag brace or main strut costs more than my house.
I will of course leave out the cost of the flightline and weapons personnel for now.
The point of flying an unstable, fast, small aircraft is that you can maneuver at high speed/high-G. Pilots play hell with the airframe, and you wouldn't believe what breaks under those conditions. I saw a loose rivet head in a sealed portion of a vertical stabilizer (F-15, not my base). No one knew when the rivet head got in there, but it had completely destroyed a static air line and an electrical cable. The inside of the compartment looked like pavement.
I would love to own my own fighter jet, but it's not something you can just save up for and go buy- you should set aside 4-5 times the cost of each aircraft in high-interest funds to help pay for maintenance. And remember that commodity military hardware like this will only depreciate in value, and you have what other posters have identified as a mid-life crisis cure.
If I had stock in Google and they were planning on paying for this with corporate money, I would be outraged.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
context is important. 150K is nothing in terms of a campaign budget, but it is irresponsible to spend that on clothes. I'm sure joe the plumber would agree. And mccain is using public financing, right? (i.e. my tax dollars).
It is a good day to fly.
Perhaps spending $150,000 on her wardrobe makes apparent sense on the short term, but it is rather foolish if you think it over. After considering how much John Edwards was laughed at for his expensive haircut, it is hardly imaginable that any candidate would want to appear in the news with a shopping spree like this. Especially with a financial crisis being in full swing.
It would be stupid to assume that nobody will notice. (Even if it didn't have to be officially disclosed, somebody would leak the hockey mom's expensive taste.) Almost everything a candidate does, including buying shoes, is potentially a news story, and the candidates would be smart to act accordingly. In a case like this, you can be absolutely certain that the press will make a story of it.
Of course Conservatives do grumble that it is unfair for the press to put it in the headlines, but that's just silly. It's politics, people, and public scrutiny, even unfair scrutiny, is part of the game. TV channels and newspapers exist because people choose to read and watch them; it is called free press and a free market. Truman would have said: Get out of the kitchen.
I think the bottom line is: If Palin wasn't prepared to go on stage and tell the world "I just spent US$150,000 on clothes and I am proud of it", she shouldn't have done it at all.
I take it as one of the few signs of intelligence that politicians get raked over the coals for excessive spending on frills. An election campaign shouldn't have an advertising budget, never mind have it as the most important part.
I make enough money to live comfortably. I don't need any more money, and I know this. I don't feel any need to be as rich as these guys, or in fact any richer than I am. I can already buy all the gadgets and books, etc that I want to.
I was just as happy, if not happier when my family was 'poor' by the way - my father was a student (he had spent 9 years in the police but then went to University when I was born) and my mother was a full time housewife for a few years when I was growing up. So I can appreciate the value of the things I have now better than some. I even like to share them with my friends and family too, which doesn't to me seem very selfish, but call it what you will.
I am not particularly 'pursuing' anything at the moment, other than trying to find a new meaning to my life after renouncing Christianity in May. I have lived as a relatively poor person by western standards, and now am probably "middle class".
But yes, I can be a bitter, selfish, angry bastard sometimes. I have gone through bouts of depression, and OCD (read up on it, I didn't realise the way my mind was acting was OCD, I just thought I was weird. OCD involves a lot more messed up shit than just being obsessed with numbers or movements or whatever, the worrying was really crippling and took months to break free from) etc from family and other personal problems in the last 7 years. And then years of bullying before that. I know that I am much better off financially than a lot of the world, and yet a lot of them are better off than me mentally. Life is not all about money you know. I would happily make less money if I knew it meant I could have a better adjusted setup in my brain which enabled me to be a more positive person. I am trying to improve myself anyway. Sorry if my way of looking at things isn't as morally upright as yours.
I used to give a tenth of my income to the church even when I wasn't making as much money. Yes, a significant amount of that went to charity and missionary work. I remembered to stop that payment last month, and no I have not started a regular monthly payment to any other charity yet but I was intending to once I find one that I consider worthy if that makes it any better *shrug*.
I didn't say that I am not influenced by the culture around me, I just think that people who criticise it probably spending a significant percentage of their income on things that are not really necessary too. I do think that is a valid way of looking at it, though obviously once you start earning over a certain level then you have no financial worries and should be giving a higher percentage than before to charity. But if you are expected to give a higher percentage to charity, why shouldn't you be able to spend a higher percentage on toys too? You seem to be taking a very one sided approach to the whole thing. No, I don't think it's right to base your life on the pursuit of material possessions, but there is nothing wrong with having some if you can afford them, either. And I don't actually know what the purpose of life is yet so I wouldn't even say that pursuing possessions is "wrong", though it is of course selfish if you don't help to provide for those less fortunate than you.
After further reading of the comments, it seems that the fighter jet isn't even a toy anyway, it is for research projects (I did suspect something of the sort and mentioned it in a reply above, but I thought it would be more about AI research than just for fitting sensors to or whatever they're doing). So your self righteousness about "silly purchases of toys" is even less fitting.
which is totally what she said
More proof that Google is trying to take over the world.
Lackey: Hello
Sergei: Hello Lackey. Ellison was spouting crap about how he could kick my butt in a dogfight over poker last night. I need a plane.
Lackey: Um, OK, what do you want?
Sergei: Jet fighter, something in a pastel I think. You decide, just get it here.
Lackey: A jet fighter
Sergei: Yep, jet fighter.
Lackey: A pastel jet fighter
Sergei: What, you don't like pastels?
Lackey: No no, just checking. OK, um, do you know what you want to spend?
Sergei: (pause) You know how much I'm worth right?
Lackey: Right
Sergei: Do I care how much it costs?
Lackey: Um, no I guess not
Sergei: Get it Fed-Exed over night, I need this tomorrow. I'm sooo going to kick his ass
If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated
Actually, if she stood up there in K-mart clothes while keeping her mouth shut, I think people would actually perceive her as more sophisticated.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Well, there are a number of points.
$150,000 is more money than most "real Americans" spend in an entire lifetime on clothing. That to me is pure hypocrisy.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Hmmmm. And Sarah Palin's $150,000 was also good fiscal prudence, too?
I'm not voting for her either way, but I fail to see why people pounce on her for this. She's a public figure that is engaging in the mother of all popularity contests. Like it or not, appearance makes a HUGE difference to the American people. That $150,000 is an investment in her campaign plain and simple. If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated.
Essentially, consider it part of the advertising budget. When you're trying to sell yourself to a nation packaging is important.
Exactly. I'm sure Obama, Biden, and McCain are all wearing $99.00 "Suit in a sack."
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Perhaps this is the first step in the appearance of anarcho-capitalist security contractors that protect people against the crimes of the state. I know many people who would love to have insurance against imprisonment by tyrannical governments, such as those in the US and UK.
Read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed, or refer to the writings of Murray Rothbard and Roderick Long, for more information on how this would work.
[ home ]
Dubya is the most powerful corporate sock puppet in the world, it's perfectly believable
There, fixed it for you.
Dubya does not have intrinsic power, he merely acts as the avatar for his nation's $tronge$t intere$t$.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
which is worse, spending 150,000 for clothes (that end up going to charity) or building a TEMPORARY Greek Altar to oneself, or spending MILLIONS on a "victoray party" for you and your elite friends while the rest of the country is suffering meltdown economically?
If you think $150,000 for nice clothes for someone running for office, I wonder what you think of these other campaign expenses are? You must be really pissed off at "that one".
And I'm not even voting for either of them, because both of them are ridiculous. I'm just saying.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Until the Google Armed Forces has tanks and a navy too. Although they do already have the satellite surveillance in place.
Might not be a bad time for Microsoft to invest in bunkers, just in case.
They should go patent attack planes carrying data centers. It has natural cooling features, apart from the added security.
$150,000 + $22,800 to spend on a TV message where you explain your views to the voter - OK
$150,000 for fancy clothing + $22,800 for hairstyling - Not OK
And while I'm sure Obama's suits are custom tailored, I sincerely doubt he spent $150,000 taxpayer dollars on them
No sig for the moment.
Great point. That partially justifies it, but personally even if they were just using it as a barbeque it wouldn't matter - I was just fed up of people's incessant bitching every time someone who is richer than them buys something that they can't afford. It is so petty and pathetic. These guys wouldn't have the money if they didn't earn it (it's not like they're lottery winners), and they and their company do a whole lot more good than most other rich entities. They don't pretend to be ghandi or anything. Their motto isn't even "do good", they just say "don't be evil" which isn't the same thing ;)
All these whiners like to ignore that these guys have benefitted the world more than they will ever do in several ways. I wonder if that makes them feel inadequate, so they have to focus on any possible negative to make them feel better about themselves :/
which is totally what she said
I have to agree. I certainly am not voting for that airhead, but the RNC certainly can spend $150,000 on her clothes if they think it will help them get elected. This is tiny compared to other expenses. Perhaps she won't wear every outfit while campaigning, but I'm sure they spend orders of magnitude more on unused things like commercials that they decide not to air or on setting up campaign stops that are then cancelled.
Both seem injudicious. Please explain the altar.
I know what realistic expenses are. No one has to ride in the steerage class; and $150K is too much money for a wardrobe. If she needed that much work, it seems an awfully strained selection.
Both candidates also have their own fleets of aircraft, a huge carbon waste. One more than the other, pays lip service to this incredulous use of resources. I'm voting to that one, as the other one would veritably bask in it, and is accustomed to it.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What happened with Sam Walton driving a pickup truck?
The same Sam Walton who didn't give much for charity, because he didn't believe in giving "any undeserving stranger a free ride"? Was he a better man because he makes Scotsmen look generous?
Scotsmen like Andrew Carnegie?
you are far too critical and valuable to be wasted in a plane crash.
Read radical news here
Advertising budget, yes. Personal expenditures, no. They are forbidden by the campaign laws that John McCain pushed through Congress. Clothing qualifies as personal expenditures. It appears that the RNC bought them so these purchases are exempt from those rules. However, given the state of the economy and the campaign's attempt to portray her as a "hockey mom", the amount of the purchases appear to be unwise.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Sorry man. Trickle down economics is more of a tinkle down economics. The rich get richer and piss on the poor.
The middle class got wealthy not because some "prince" got their new toy, but because the middle class was able to produce something that they could actually afford, the Model-T.
The your "prince" doesn't get the billions from sucking oil out of his country, he will just fly first class, not in private jet and then you are all out of work. That's the piss down economics.
You're right, but I guess it's the irony that on one hand she's trying to appeal to "Joe sixpack" and on the other she's wearing clothes that altogether probably cost more than Joe sixpack's house, or at least his annual income.
I think it is more a commentary on people's misplaced perceptions of what's important than on her specifically. In other words, *why* does a campaign require that a candidate have such an obscenely expensive wardrobe?
I hope they didn't remove the hard points. The fact that we can no longer defend our citizens from the military with simple muskets means citizens should have the right to own tanks and fighter jets.
*laughing my ass off*
Taxpayer dollars? Sorry...campaign money is anything *but*.
Try getting a clue.
'Cause I think the plane needs to be called Goo Fighter.
You, sir, win one thousend internets. LOLspect!
It's almost certain that we are having an effect on the environment of course.
I agree about the wardrobe entirely, I spend very little on clothes myself.. often my family just buy me clothes at Christmas and birthdays because they are fed up seeing me walk around in raggedy jeans and t-shirts with holes in them etc.
I do also agree in principle on the jet, it seems a waste and it's part of a culture that shouldn't really be justified (especially since google could easily setup video conferencing). I just want to play a bit of devil's advocate to all these whiny bitches bitching about them buying a jet. They even whine before finding out what it is going to be used for. The fact that google bought it rather than a private individual should have been enough of a hint that it was going to be used for a project, but no, they still complain.
We have sent millions or billions of pounds worth of aid into other countries. A lot of it is intercepted by moronic or corrupt leaders as I said. That isn't an excuse to never give to charity or anything like that of course, but I think that we ourselves have little control over these situations and it is pointless to act like we can suddenly solve everything by just pouring more money into them. It's up to world governments to sort out these guys. I'm not sure what charity/charities I want to be giving to yet. I'd been giving to the church for the last 3 years since I started earning, with the occasional open source contribution or donation to charities work is supporting etc, but have just stopped the church contributions in the last month or two and don't know who else to give to now - I admit freely I haven't been thinking about it much, I still have my student loan to pay off, don't have a house, etc. and it's easy to drift along thinking about your own problems. I expect that putting money towards victims of abuse and things like that in my own country would mean that my donations were more efficiently utilised than if I donated to a charity that sends food packages to areas with bad malnutrition, but I don't know. I certainly don't see the point in donating to animal shelters or anything, I'd rather send my money to Africa than that because I regard human life as worth much more than abandoned puppies (though I also don't want to prolong the life of those living in suffering, as cold as that might sound - I don't know what happens after we die, but not existing at all is probably better than just living a life of pain). Any suggestions would be appreciated too.
which is totally what she said
So everyone with more money than you should give it all to charity?
No! This is why we need to raise the effing hell out of taxes. No one needs a FIGHTER PLANE you tool
Remember, Paul Allen has his own air force already. It's even open for public viewing: http://www.flyingheritage.com/
Please explain the altar.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/27/_1da0715_3.jpg
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
*laughs*
Doesn't work that way bucko. You're the one claiming it's absurd. But you apparently have *nothing* upon which to base that.
Do you actually know how much *any* of them (other than Palin) have spent on clothes?
Any clue at all?
No?
Then you have *zero* information upon which to base your "independent opinion", do you?
Didn't think so. Uninformed opinions don't mean squat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_campaigns
No sig for the moment.
One
Raging
Asshole
Called
Larry
Ellison
http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#alan
I suspect that they want 1 - 3 tailored outfits for her a day. Unlike men who can wear the same three suits and change shirts and ties, women can't.
If they used Walmart / Kmart / Sears outfits the luney left would accuse her of being ... "Blue light special" and ridicule that.
Face it, there is no winning with some people.
I'm voting Libertarian, as that is my continual protest vote. I realize that Libertarians will probably never gain power, because the idiots in charge will never run a three (or four) candidate forum (debate). They like the fiction that is a two party system.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yeah sure.. Every "joe-six-pack", as she like to compare herself to, also go out and spend $150,000 on makeup and clothes. I'm sure it could had been done for a bit less.. The issue is that she is fake.
I'm 37 myself, and I remember "Jager-bombs" consisting of a shot of Jager dropped into a glass of BEER.
BTW, I've had a few of the ever-popular "Red Bull and Vodka" drinks before - but I don't care for 'em. That weird feeling you get when you mix a depressant with a stimulant doesn't do much for me.
We'll agree that the purpose of helping others is constantly thwarted by corruption. It's nice to have means, I don't have any jealousy of anyone else's. Rather, it's time to change the process, and it can be done. It takes vision to change the habits of governments, as well as the people. It takes governments that are willing to spread information about birth control and help provide the means to educate the populace, and to elevate the worth of life beyond just 'something else that died'. There is hope; there is action. Combined, one at a time, there's a better future that's bereft of the inequity that kills a child every eight seconds, 24/7.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You know, it's interesting to see where the intellectual line is here on Slashdot. I don't actually completely believe the post I made that you're responding to, "thePowerOfGrayskull", it was an object reference to an essay by a certain Irish novelist of some renown. I thought it fit in well with the point of what I was responding to with it, and wondered if it would be negatively labeled.
It was, obviously, and thus a line is drawn. In the future I shall try very hard to be much more blatant with my points and never assume that any moderator on Slashdot has enough interest in literature or philosophy (sadly, this is all too common among people in general) to have consumed something close to a healthy diet of them.
Google can literally blow away the competition!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Interesting!
I wonder if the parties would roll out just exactly how much they spend on what. A fat PDF would be sufficient, don't you think? Maybe a spreadsheet? The mind reels.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It would seem to me, that if there was a juicy number (think a $400 haircut), that we'd have seen that number by now. But perhaps not. And I'm also willing to cry foul at either party's ludicrous expenditure(s).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
We agree on the need for more than two parties. However, that might be seditious thinking these days.
In terms of 1 - 3 tailored outfits, I'll relay the sentiments of a Fortune 500 female exec that I know. She does a ten day road trip visiting top clients with just two carry-ons, beginning to end, for roughly eight top-level meetings. Her spouse does it with just one.
Twenty-one outfits at $1000/ea is $21,000. Including shoes. How many female /. readers have a budget that comes even close to half that for professional clothing? This isn't a queen we're dressing, it's the Gov of Alaska, who presumably already had sufficient toggery.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Saudi princes deserve to be rich and powerful. They are just wankers like the rest of us, only they happen to come from families that had land situated over a lake of oil. That's sort of typical, most wealth in the world is inherited. Bill Gate's mom got him that contract with IBM.
Given that the world is unfair, though, it's nice to be able to take some of their money back from them.
Also, nobody that I know of has come up with a way that's any better than capitalism at redistributing wealth. Of course, figuring out exactly how to regulate capitalism (laissez fair doesn't work any better then facism) is the big question.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
...the problem is with people like you who refuse to entertain the idea that your own selfishness and greed...
... as opposed to your message.
Why do you think it was bought by a corporation and added to a fleet? My guess is tax reasons. I have no problem with the rich being rich, but at least do it honestly and pay for it like you should. The whole company is nothing more than a tax shelter. Despicable.
You do realize that their purchase allowed several German engineers and airplane manufacturing workers to feed their families? Several maintenance personnel will also need to be employed. If that isn't unselfish charity, I don't know what is.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Don't worry. We're going to have our own prince to come in and spread the wealth around.
Heh! Didn't the owner of that company that made the Model-T make a lot of money and get rich and stuff? I don't recall that great upsurge of middle-class car makers from my history lessons.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Steve Balmer has his chairs.... so google go and buy a fighter jet - wonder what good ol' Steve's going to get next? Stinger missiles hidden as a sofa?
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
You people!!!!??? You racist. lol
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
I've got a symbol in my driveway
I've got a hundred million-dollar friends
I've got you a brand new weapon, let's see
how destructive we could be
- jack johnson
Agreed. While I verhemently don't want to see Palin elected, I'd be interested in comparing numbers with how much is spent on McCain's wardrobe (Or Obama's) before passing judgement. All those fancy suits and ties probably add up fast.
I would suggest that while meeting ten different clients can be done in one or two outfits, appearing every day in front of the same people in the same outfit doesn't work so well.
To play the devil's advocate, sure, purchases like these stimulate the "rich people's toys" industry, but at the same time, a kid who throws a rock through a window does the same for the glass industry... by diverting funds that would have gone elsewhere. Sure, Saudi princes are keeping you employed, but were it not for them, surely you'd find work elsewhere -- perhaps, to take a leap, building more efficient turbines for cleaner power generation.
If you take a step back for a moment, and recognize that a decent amount of human labor is dedicated solely to satisfying the whims of the rich, it seems just a bit wasteful. Why are we, the peasants, working the fields year-round just so the nobles can feast? Wouldn't society as a whole be better off if our labor went to support need, rather than excess?
Of course, the rich *do* offer a service to society, don't they? Would we have google and Windows and databases were it not for Brin, Page, Gates, and Ellison? Should we except these mens extravagances as a necessary price society pays for their unparalleled leadership?
The answer really depends on which schools of philosophy, politics, and economics you subscribe to.
Then he will have a cigar and call them "magnificent bastards".
I can only hope that the ejection seats are in good working order.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Learn2read:
From the Wiki you linked:
The presidential public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (the check off does not increase the filer's taxes, but merely directs $3 to the presidential fund).
It is *all* pulled from a fund that is 100% voluntary. Yes, the checkbox appears on your tax forms, but it does *not* come from income taxes, sales taxes, or any other form of tax.
Care to try again, genius?
If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as even less sophisticated.
Fixed that for you.
I respectfully disagree that the window parable applies, since there is no destruction of property involved in making a product for someone to buy. The fact that the customer is unusually wealthy doesn't make a difference, does it? I think that is capitalism working, to the extent that it does.
There are problems with inequity when the wealthy use their privilege to frustrate the ambitions of other not so wealthy people. But that's more about politics.
Is it simplistic to think that economics is all about supplying what people want? I think that's exactly what it is about. Whether it's a hamburger or a Gulfstream V, what's the difference, other than scale.
History has shown that, even if capitalism isn't perfect at allocating resources, people are much much worse. Ref. the Soviet Union. So while it might be "better" in some way if the prince doesn't get his jet, who decides? Those people who decide, can they be trusted with that power?
Which might sound like a position against taxation and government, which it isn't. Like all things human, politics and economics are not black and white. Fettered capitalism and effective democratic government (which is best represented by Western Europe these days) just seem to be the things that lead to people being the happiest. Isn't that what it's all about?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
His charity sucked. But his sense that shareholders get the best possible return on assets rendered is the point.
Then why was he the richest man on Earth? Obviously he kept quite some for himself - and kept keeping it to himself. And when he was dead, he couldn't take it with him. Great way to live your life - cheat you shareholders out of tons of money and don't have fun doing it.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
He made many people rich. His shares mushroomed. His heirs are now rich. You can't take it with you. His shareholders did very well, just like Gates did. Both Gates and Walton are very strongly criticized for evil business practices, too. The example is to try and show that a CEO's job is to value his/her customers, and then his stockholders.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
STEVE ANSWER ME STEVE!!!
I'm not voting for her either way, but I fail to see why people pounce on her for this. She's a public figure that is engaging in the mother of all popularity contests.
It's a big deal because that $150k came out of campaign contributions and she will (presumably) not be giving the clothes back at the end of the campaign. This means she is personally benefitting from campaign contributions, the same as getting a car, a house, or a cash payment. In a culture where Representatives have to reimburse lobbyists for coffee, seeing the VP candidate accept $150k in clothing from some PAC sets a lot of people's teeth on edge
The first jet to build the Air Force to defend Google's floating data center.
Where does the government get that three dollars you tell them to put into the fund by checking that box? Bake sales?
It's all tax money, brother, every dime of it. And that has to come from... what are they again? Oh, yea, TAXPAYERS.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Little airplanes are rather helpful w/the wealth redistribution as well. I went through a engine overhaul (etc) for my Turbo Arrow this year.
Which of course, isn't even in the same league as what you are describing. I'll be quiet now.
Yawn. These surplus jets are cheap and common. I personally know several people who have L-29's, some of which actually fly once or twice a year.
I wouldn't give you $5 for any of them.
Might be interested in a CJ-6 or Yak-50 though.
The way to reconcile this against the broken window fallacy is that the window being broken is like getting a jet instead of feeding a bazillion poor people. I hate to be trite, but it's a "window of opportunity" being broken.
I'm not coming out and saying that it's necessarily wrong, but I don't think that broken window fallacy is entirely irrelevant. What is clear is that it's better than Larry and Sergey keeping all of their money in pillowcases.* Or than breaking every window in California and then spending all of their Jet money in repairing those.
* Actually, if they just stored all of their money in pillowcases, that would essentially take money out of circulation, deflate the value of the dollar, and so be of net benefit to anybody with positive liquid net worth, and a punishment against those struggling with debts. So, that's worse than nothing :).
If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated.
Where did you learn ten dollar, elitist words like sophisticated, son?
Essentially, consider it part of the advertising budget. When you're trying to sell yourself to a nation packaging is important.
Seriously though, do you think wearing sophisticated clothes is more important than actually knowing something about the real issues? Maybe what's in the package is more important than how shiny the package is?
Replying to myself because I can't edit my previous post...
I misread the parent post as "i'm voting for her either way", so my reply doesn't make much sense. My bad.
Lazy journalists
The plane in the photo belongs to Qinetiq and flies from Boscombe Down in the UK, but at least it wasn't a raspberry ripple
Search for ZJ646
.
In his 1952 "Checkers" speech, Nixon spoke of his wife Pat's "respectable Republican cloth coat."
Today, it is Goodbye, Joe The Plumber and Hello, Neiman Marcus - and "CHARGE IT!!!"
$150K is eighty years worth of clothing for an average American family. 50 years of six-packs for the geek gone Blotto.
Not the story you want to air when campaigning in an atmosphere of primal fear among the middle class.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All that would be true and good if only she did not go on and on about how she and her family felt the same pain with the economic crisis as other middle class families. Its clearly hypocritical.
you beat me to it, great post :)
---
great post :)
---
It's expensive to own and operate a fleet of personal 767, 757, and top-shelf business jets, not to mention a military aircraft. And when you are obscenely wealthy, you no longer need to conform to conventional ethics in the sense of say, paying for your own bloated ego.
Owning and operating the jets in a separate entity allows Google's top 3 to have the personal use of the jets, yet have Google lease them from a commercial entity so this benefit does not need to be reported as taxable, as well as shielding them from personal liability if the 767 goes into a primary school in Palo Alto some day.
I would guess that not a single of these flying toys is owned directly by their beneficiaries.
The problem with that is that although you're employed, your labors benefit only a tiny number of people.
If these people had a hobby of say... building nice bridges in NYC.. that money could benefit millions of people and would still be redistributed.
Not saying I'm 100% against nice toys, but you're essentially trying to argue for trickle down economics and it doesn't work.
If I pay you to dig a hole and fill it back in again, yes money was transferred, but nothing useful was actually contributed to society. (Unless you're digging a grave.)
Life is too short to proofread.
ok so what's the point of these assholes driving priuses like they give a shit about their carbon footprint if they're just going to fly private jets everywhere?
"Seriously though, do you think wearing sophisticated clothes is more important than actually knowing something about the real issues? Maybe what's in the package is more important than how shiny the package is?"
Tell that to all the people voting for obama.
I haven't really heard why people are actually voting for him..beyond vague and simplistic ideas such as "change".
It makes me realize just how easy it is for a population to hire somebody like hitler into power. I just hope that when the US goes to complete shit, the people that vote obama into office take the blame.
Perhaps one should first learn what AlphaJet really is before describing it as a fighter. Wikipedia may help.
Now their stock lottery money buys them the right to fly a jet over my house... ;^(
F*ck capitalism!!! F*ck GOOGLE!!! F*ck them all!!!
So you think Obama doesn't have good or bad policies so much as no policies at all. Do you support McCain, and if so which if his policies do you like?
G..G..G.. I can't even bring myself to say it.
And then there is Thunder City, a company operating from the Cape Town International airport in Cape Town, South Africa. Quoting from Wikipedia:
Admittedly there are no "big boys" like Migs, but personally I don't think the Electric Lighting or the Buccaneer is anything to be sneezed at... :)
It brings a whole new meaning to the term "Google bombing", doesn't it?
will these liberal communista who complain about corporate greed CEO's who so called waste monies complain or congratulate the Google boys?
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
For what it's worth, you can get a damn nice truck if you have enough money. While mine would be somewhere in the realm of a 600hp Lightning with a leather interior, you can probably do quite a lot with a Mark LT or Escalade (perhaps rolling on dubs, also consider being iced out like hockey). Just sayin'.
Your ad here.
I'm voting for Kevin Mitnick.
Seriously. I'll take a picture if they let me.
Your ad here.
" If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated."
This is clearly not possible.
Those are certainly no weekend sport planes. It'd be really cool to rescue, maintain, and fly anything of that sort. The Hawker Hunter they list is a nice plane, too. The paying passenger flights and air shows in these planes are a cool thing to do with them. They'd probably work pretty well in the role of combat training planes if Thunder City could get such a contract. As you said, they're no Migs, but additional or alternative plane configurations wouldn't be a bad training idea.