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."
Are these guys Yahoos??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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
Yes, Red Bull is definitely evil. You can tell by the taste.
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!
Yes, Red Bull is definitely evil. You can tell by the taste.
Or by it's association with Jagermeister.
Red Bull: The Taste of Evil.
It gives you wings, but they don't say the wings are featherless...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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...
Fighter jet, which has been in "Beta" for years.
AA guns, with targeting system running Vista.
Ought to be a good show.
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
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**
who says the 2 are mutually exclusive. I would bet the google top execs contribute more to charity than this douche bag.
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.
Sam Walton is dead. It's difficult to drive a pickup while afflicted with such a condition.
So, a company owned by some people who can put a lot of capital up front has bought a fast jet, which they lease to NASA at a profit.
How does this translate into...
"OMG, the evil ones are spending money on fancy toys instead of giving all their money to disadvantaged kittens!!! EVIL... EEEVIIIIIILLLL"
Knee-jerk.
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.
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
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?
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.
Jag-bombs are huge, dunno where you've been. Bar supply stores make little plastic cups specifically for that drink.
http://barsupplies.com/bomb-shotz-jager-bomb-shots-p-761.html
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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.
They were going to buy a Hummer, but the fighter jet gets better gas mileage.
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.
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
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
So does Dillon Precision.
And to one up everybody else, it has functional 20mm canons. And they have a Hummer with a GE minigun sticking out of the roof. And a turret with 2 GE 50s (it might be 4, I don't remember exactly).
They shoot remote control planes with both the turret and the jet, and they shoot remote vehicles with the Hummer. It is ridiculously fun and ridiculously expensive.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
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.
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.
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.
Congratulations, you just gave everyone in the world $10. It will go farther for some than others.
I'm in the UK. Jagermeister's still mainly a German liqueur rather than a lifestyle choice, although you can see the odd emo kid with a Jagermeister sticker on his Macbook these days - you know, smashing the system.
Don't think JM and RB is that big in the UK, which - as I'm sure you're aware - is the world's capital of drinking. Pints.
Thank-you. It's hard to be the first smart arse here.