Slashdot Mirror


Baumgartner's Daredevil Parachute Jump From Space Put On Hold

Velcroman1 writes "For years, an Austrian daredevil named Felix Baumgartner has been planning to take a 23-mile plunge from the edge of space — and in the process, become the first parachutist to break the sound barrier, plummeting toward the ground at 760 miles per hour. The engineers and scientists behind The Red Bull Stratos project, an effort to break the record for the highest freefall ever, billed the jump as more than a stunt. The leap from 120,000 feet was to yield volumes of data that would have been used to develop advanced life support systems for future pilots, astronauts, and even space tourists. But a promoter feels that the jump was his idea, and filed a lawsuit in April to prevent the event from taking place. And now Red Bull has pulled the plug on the project, FoxNews.com reports. 'Due to the lawsuit, we have decided to stop the project until this case has been resolved,' Red Bull said."

248 comments

  1. WTF by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if someone tells you to jump off a bridge, you're not allowed to do do it if they suddenly decide that no actually it was their idea and they want to keep it?

    --
    which is totally what she said
    1. Re:WTF by AMindLost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? I jumped two whole steps on my way downstairs this morning and found the cease and desist letter already waiting for me on the doormat!

    2. Re:WTF by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it depends on the detail. If someone came up with detailed plans and engineering drawings of something that would enable you to jump safely off a bridge then they would have rights over this - though you would be free to come up with a different design and do it. I don't know if this is the case here though.

    3. Re:WTF by Fengpost · · Score: 1

      Only if you made money off it!

      --
      The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
    4. Re:WTF by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      Well, as it's a *promoter* that's suing I doubt the plaintiff has any involvement in the actual science or engineering of the project.

    5. Re:WTF by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      If you have enough lawyers and a weak enough legal system, you can stop anyone doing just about anything. From here, it's a short step to actually getting anyone to do whatever you want.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:WTF by Eraesr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but apparently commercial interest is involved as well. It's probably not about the sole fact of executing someone else's idea, it's more likely about the money involved with sponsorship deals and stuff like that. If Red Bull is going to get lots of commercial exposure with this and the other party wants a bigger slice of the pie because they came up with the campaign to begin with, then it's understandable that they don't want to be snowed under by a behemoth like Red Bull.

    7. Re:WTF by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the case. He claims he planned and devised the project, brought it to Red Bull, and they rejected it. They then took those plans and implimented them anyway.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:WTF by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's more like, someone comes to you with detailed plans on how to make a lot of money jumping off a bridge, you tell them to fuck off, and then you take the plans and try to do it anyway. And then they come along and point out that you've essentially performed corporate espionage by stealing their trade secret.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:WTF by somersault · · Score: 1

      Depends what kind of agreement they entered into before the talks I suppose. I don't know the relevant laws for automatic/unspoken/unwritten contracts between two parties in such a scenario. It seems like it would be a very hard business to make a living in, presenting your ideas before you are paid, with no possibility of any patents on your ideas.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:WTF by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The test for a cause of action for breach of confidence in the common law world is set out in the case of Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd, (1969) R.P.C. 41 at 47:

              * the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it;
              * that information must have been imparted in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence;
              * there must be an unauthorized use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

      Frankly I'd rather the "ideas economy" worked on trade secrets than on patents.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:WTF by smallfries · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: why shouldn't they? When did we grant Intellectual Property rights to plans for promotional stunts. How exactly does he feel that he has been violated - copyright (not applicable), patent (no applicable).... Unless he got them to sign some sort of contract before showing them the plans he has no protection..... and now I'll probably RTFA to discover which of these was true.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    12. Re:WTF by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Trade secrets. If someone brings a secret, non-obvious idea to you, in confidence, and you then exploit that idea to their detrement, then you've done something illegal. It's like a patent, except you lose your protection when the idea goes public. From that point it's open season.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    13. Re:WTF by smallfries · · Score: 1

      But trade secrets don't have any actual protection under law though - that was the original point of patents. Surely to qualify as a trade secret he would have needed a non-disclosure agreement, and that contract would have offered him the legal protection anyway?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    14. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if you can pay for it. If you need Red Bull (either to pay or to "give you wings"), you're screwed!

    15. Re:WTF by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      are you kidding me? So now you're saying that, if I have an idea to do or make something, but someone else beats me to the punch, I have a right to sue if I can prove the idea was mine first? Wow. IF that's that case, I could easily become very, very rich.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    16. Re:WTF by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      If you have enough Money and a weak enough legal system, you can stop anyone doing just about anything. From here, it's a short step to actually getting anyone to do whatever you want.

      FTFY...

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    17. Re:WTF by delinear · · Score: 2, Informative

      He doesn't necessarily have to have a winning case, he just has to have enough of a case for it to be worthy of a day in court, and Red Bull are saying they're happy to give him his day in court and are putting the project on hold in the meantime - it could be that RB signed some form of NDA, or that some part of this was covered by copyright or IP, or it could just be a case of sour grapes and the guy will get laughed out of court.

    18. Re:WTF by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Makes you think that science fiction writers should be suing technology companies the world over.

    19. Re:WTF by somersault · · Score: 1

      Something like "a skydive, but higher!" doesn't seem much like a trade secret though. I know there are technical challenges to be overcome, but they had already been overcome in 1959 for current world record. I don't see how the guy's suggestion is any more valuable than "how about attempting a world record bus jump by adding another bus to the end of the jump?".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:WTF by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I think what he's saying is that he's the one who suggested it to Baumgartner, he set the ball rolling and this project wouldn't exist without him.

      To me that seems like a reasonable complaint if he's now being cut out of the deal.

      --
      No sig today...
    21. Re:WTF by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, George Lucas was actually doing a bit of that recently over powerful blue laser devices, though admittedly more for the handle design than the actual laser..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    22. Re:WTF by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Huh, I was just about to say the same thing. See you in court.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    23. Re:WTF by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that they're right, I'm saying that it's probably not a case of patents or rights on using technology but a case of sponsorship deals and commercial revenues out of the event itself.

    24. Re:WTF by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      what does it matter? Perhaps he's bad at promoting good ideas. Happens all the time.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    25. Re:WTF by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dangit!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    26. Re:WTF by rossjudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      The WSJ story has a little more detail than the others. Turns out that Kittinger (the first guy to do anything like this, decades ago) used to work for Daniel Hogan as a consultant on the project. After the meetings with Red Bull, RB informed Hogan that the deal was off, and Kittinger started working for RB on a freshly minted version of the same thing.

      The right answer here is, as usual, "who knows?" It looks like there might really be something to the case, and it needs litigating to resolve the problem.

    27. Re:WTF by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      are you kidding me? So now you're saying that, if I have an idea to do or make something, but someone else beats me to the punch, I have a right to sue if I can prove the idea was mine first? Wow. IF that's that case, I could easily become very, very rich.

      I don't understand how this guy can claim this is his idea. It's been done before.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    28. Re:WTF by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Yes but eventually a sane and rational man realizes that the cost of hiring someone to pop a cap in your ass is less than the cost of litigating the frivolous ass shit you keep filing, maybe I should get a business method patent for assassinating litigious patent trolls. I'm not saying people should actually pop any of these pimples on the ass of humanity, but if they do get popped shouldn't I get a licensing fee for having the original idea?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    29. Re:WTF by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      So instead of praising NASA or even individual astronauts for going to the moon, we should really thank that the unknown guy who first told Kennedy "Hey, you know, the Russians are sending stuff into space. We should send somebody to the moon to best them!", because he's the one "to set the ball rolling"?

    30. Re:WTF by nizo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...there might really be something to the case...

      Like free publicity?

    31. Re:WTF by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Nope, you should thank Lenin. Without him, there wouldn't have been a Soviet Union to beat. In fact, the US owes winning the Cold War to Lenin and winning World War II to Hitler!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:WTF by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you are reasonably promoting a promotional event, and I use the promotion to boost my one similar event, then yes.

      If you are sitting on your couch with an idea, do nothing about it and then someone else implements a similiar idea, then..no.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:WTF by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do have protections. HOWEVER, if I happen to have the same idea independent of the person who has the trade secrets, then there is nothing they can do top stop me.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:WTF by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Unless he got them to sign some sort of contract before showing them the plans

      My guess is that's what happened (or Hogan believes it happened or virtually happened with a handshake or whatever). There's just no reasonable way this case could be over IP law. It's just gotta be over some kind of don't-use-my-idea or non-complete agreement, and the dispute will be over what was really agreed to by who.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    35. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhhhh..... you aren't supposed to disclose prior art.

    36. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's just give credit for the world history of the past two millennia to Pontius Pilate, as had he any sort of balls the Roman Empire might be still around today. Then again he may have been responsible for keeping it around for a couple more centuries and helping keep the spark of "western civilization" around for 2k years after his time.

    37. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you mean "or IP"?

      Intellectual Property is a meaningless term, which has the effect of clouding understanding and confusing people. There are specific laws for trademarks, copyright and patents. Each of those 3 things have different/distinct goals.

      Maybe read this:
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

    38. Re:WTF by Surt · · Score: 1

      Can you clarify why copyright does not apply to a written plan for a promotional stunt?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    39. Re:WTF by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Nah. According to the Schenectady Accords, science fiction writers won't sue technology companies (although their writings may serve as prior art in patent cases, see the waterbed and the communications satellite) for using their ideas and technology companies won't sue science fiction writers for using their ideas. It's something you sign on to when you become a SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) member.

      (And yes, I'm making this shit up. I'm an SF writer, that's what I do.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    40. Re:WTF by smallfries · · Score: 2, Informative

      While it would apply to written reproduction of that plan, it would not cover the stunt itself. Copyright is the right to control copying of the written word. Although it has been extended from the written word into other media (for example photographs), it does not yet extend to stunts.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    41. Re:WTF by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I say no to both situations, to be honest.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    42. Re:WTF by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I didn't even know of the prior art and still think the promoter is a lousy promoter, ESPECIALLY since it is prior art. Gah.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    43. Re:WTF by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was going to mention that guy. Totally insane; when he was up on the edge of space he noticed his suit glove wouldn’t seal. He didn't want to tell any of the experts on the ground out of fear they would cancel the mission. So he duct taped it up, his wrist swelled up on the way down and it sealed the suit. The only thing this marketing guy can claim is his idea is breaking the speed of sound on the way down, or that they are using it as a stunt for a soft drink company.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    44. Re:WTF by EricTheO · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem with intelectual property and patent law is that people acctually can have the same idea.
      Unless you act on that idea it should become invalid or at least not able to obstruct someone that can prove they didn't steal said idea/patent.
      Otherwise all you are doing is laying landmines for others to step on.

      --
      -Eric
  2. "Intellectual property" by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When saying "wouldn't it be cool to do a parachute jump -- from outer space!!11" gives you a monopoly on draining money off the people actually doing it, the concept of "intellectual property" really shows how childish and immature it is.

    1. Re:"Intellectual property" by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It worked for "... using a computer!11"

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:"Intellectual property" by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, as the links suggest, the guy had done a little more planning than just the basic idea. As this is mainly being pitched as a publicity stunt (albeit one from which some interesting scientific studies may result), I guess we're looking at something more analogous to presenting a planned advertising campaign to a company, having it rejected and then finding that the company is running the same campaign idea with another advertising agency. As to how advanced and detailed his plans were, I guess we'll have to see when/if the case comes to court. If it was just a simple idea, then it probably won't go far.

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    3. Re:"Intellectual property" by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's more likely a case of breach of contract, but I was trying to get first post.

    4. Re:"Intellectual property" by erroneus · · Score: 1

      To be fair, this sort of thing seems to happen in Hollywood quite a bit I hear. Someone pitches a movie idea, it is rejected and then the same movie is being produced a few weeks later. If someone has a good idea and even writes up a plan, it would seem appropriate that the people who make it happen should give credit and probably even pay the originator of the idea.

      That said, there are ample examples of this happening a lot. It would seem to me that if someone were interested in pitching their idea, they should do so with a signed NDA in hand. If they refuse to sign an NDA, the chances are good they either don't believe you have a good idea or intend stealing it. Whatever the case, if you have an NDA in hand, you can nail them for breech.

    5. Re:"Intellectual property" by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      1. Prior to presidential elections, get IP protection for all likely campaign elements.
      2. When campaigns start, send C&D letters to all parties.
      3. ????
      4. Profit.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:"Intellectual property" by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      There's too many valuable ideas being pitched without NDAs for that to fly. It's not worth the time and money, in attorney's fees to review the NDA, on the part of the recipient.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:"Intellectual property" by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Funny

      You should sue Somersault.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    8. Re:"Intellectual property" by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look up "outer space". It doesn't mean what you think it does.

      Not that the article blurb is much better, with a phrase like "edge of space". That's as meaningless as saying "the edge of an estuary". It's a gradual thing, but one thing is certain: This is well within the lower atmosphere, and not nearly far enough out to be considered space. A tall jump, sure, and impressive if pulled off, but it's not space, inner or outer.

    9. Re:"Intellectual property" by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Prior Art: Wasn't this the opening to one of the more recent Star Trek movies?

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    10. Re:"Intellectual property" by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Sorry for nitpicking your nitpicking, Mr. Asperger, but the "!!11" should give you a hint that it's not meant to be read in a serious tone. More like something a geeky kid could come up with.

    11. Re:"Intellectual property" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      YOu would be right, if that's what happened. It's not.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:"Intellectual property" by Philomage · · Score: 1

      Prior Art: Wasn't this the opening to one of the more recent Star Trek movies?

      If fiction qualifies as prior art, then I'd go back to HALO and way back to the Traveller series of RPGs in the 80s with their "orbital insertion" units. (Cue the Uranus jokes...)

    13. Re:"Intellectual property" by AJWM · · Score: 1

      That's why the WGAW (Writers Guild of America - West) registry exists. For a modest fee you can register your story, script, synopsis or even just concept with them (you don't have to be a member, but members get a discount). In the event somebody swipes (or appears to) your idea, it provides evidence of your prior claim. They don't guarantee that you were first. If someone else registered something similar before you and the studio licensed that version then you may be SOL, but the greater the specificity the stronger the claim.

      --
      -- Alastair
    14. Re:"Intellectual property" by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Or Heinlein's Starship Troopers

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  3. They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

    Prior art for the masses.

    1. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      The project has been around for a little longer, though.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    2. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by DarthBender · · Score: 1

      How long? Because ST Voyager had something similar. It was in the holodeck though. Torres(sp?) turned off the safety systems and simulated a jump from space. It was part of her self destructive phase or something.

    3. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they did that jump in the Sixties, and it was the Air Force that did it, though Star Trek was around at the time.

    4. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by EdZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Project Excelsior occurred even before that.

    5. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by MrFurious5150 · · Score: 1

      As I recall, an orbital skydiving scene was cut out of Star Trek Generations, though it remained in the novelization. Too bad...it might have made it a better movie. :P

    6. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

          I believe Joseph Kittinger and the USAF thought of it (and did it) before Star Trek was even thought of to be a campy space show that'd never last one season.

          {sigh} And fanboys know Star Trek, but they don't know about a guy actually jumping from the edge of space 50 years ago.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      I'm not that much of a fanboy, unless it has 7of9 or T'Pol in the episode. Then I love it.

    8. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers did it well before that

    9. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      See... you're the type of person to blame for the blatant, ham-fisted attempts to invoke libido to overcome a lack of creativity and ideas. Thanks a lot, you bastard.

      There's a little voice in me that thinks the thank-you should be sincere. But that's not the point.

    10. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1
      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    11. Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Just be glad they try to distract you with boobs and not add vampires to Star Trek. That would be a sad day.

  4. Pull the plug by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The promoter who claims it was his idea and Red Bull stole it is, as always, in it for the money. Red Bull should just abandon the whole thing leaving him with the square root of fuck all. It'd save them legal fees too.

    --
    while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
    1. Re:Pull the plug by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      ... which is exactly what they do as indicated in TFS

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    2. Re:Pull the plug by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They invested heavily in the project and the resarch to make this possible. Just to "pull the plug" because some asshole sues them does not only leave the asshole with the "square root of fuck all", but also everybody involved in this project.

      Unfortunately the US is such a big market, else I'd say they should simply pull their producs out of the country and let the sucker try to sue in a more sane jurisdiction.

    3. Re:Pull the plug by santax · · Score: 1

      Or they just find a suicidal dude, let him jump, make sure he doesn't open the chute and then sue that bastard for liability. It was his idea after all.

    4. Re:Pull the plug by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The promoter's claiming that he invested in fundimentally devising the project and how it could be pulled off, though. If Red Bull believed in this project so badly they could've launched it legitimately, instead of (allegedly) rejecting it and then doing it anyway.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Pull the plug by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Well, they stole it from the USAF (or was it one of the research agencies), breaking of sound barrier and all.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    6. Re:Pull the plug by YesDinosaursDidExist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but think about this: Why would they pull the plug just because the lawsuit is pending? If they thought they were innocent they would continue with the project and prepare as if the jump was going to happen. They are no where near complete with all the preliminary jumps and the actual jump could take place...so why stop gathering data now? I would understand if the "main event" was supposed to take place tomorrow...but thats not the case....it seems to me they may be pulling the plug in preparation for a guilty verdict.

      --
      Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.
  5. Solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok fine! It's your idea...

    Come on. You're going to space!

  6. You need to be a daredevil by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    You need to be a daredevil to go around with a name like Felix Baumgartner. I'll be buggered if I would.

    1. Re:You need to be a daredevil by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its a pretty ordinary name in german speaking countries. It basically means "The lucky tree gardener". Daredevil indeed.

    2. Re:You need to be a daredevil by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but in English speaking countries it comes across as "The man who trims arse hair".

    3. Re:You need to be a daredevil by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Well kinda. Felix isn't a german name though, it's latin. So in German it means Felix Tree Gardener, and maybe in French it means lucky Baumgartner.

    4. Re:You need to be a daredevil by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      At least he wasn't named Sue.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    5. Re:You need to be a daredevil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but in English speaking countries it comes across as "The man who trims arse hair".

      No it doesn't. Only in the same way that in English speaking countries Bilbo Baggins comes across as 'The man who sticks a vibrating replica penis up your bum'. Dildo Buggers!

      Do you giggle every time you read the words count, funk, ship and winker?

    6. Re:You need to be a daredevil by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about funk and ship, but winker is pretty funny.

    7. Re:You need to be a daredevil by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You need to be a daredevil to go around with a name like Felix Baumgartner. I'll be buggered if I would.

      what about the poor bastards with the reduced version of the name, "bumgarner"? sounds like prostitution for sure.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:You need to be a daredevil by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It could be worse. If my name was Poo holes or Dikshit I'd change it in a heartbeat.

    9. Re:You need to be a daredevil by rangek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its a pretty ordinary name in german speaking countries. It basically means "The lucky tree gardener". Daredevil indeed.

      Yes, but in English speaking countries it comes across as "The man who trims arse hair".

      That is one of the funniest exchanges I have ever read.

    10. Re:You need to be a daredevil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All depends on the language.. I had to LOL when I read about a scientist called Sundaralingam.

    11. Re:You need to be a daredevil by nanospook · · Score: 1

      Lucky how? *leering, waggling eyebrows*

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    12. Re:You need to be a daredevil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man who trims cat's arse hair.

  7. Joseph Kittinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nice to see TFA made a nod to Joe.
    Not sure why it was omitted from the summary.

    1. Re:Joseph Kittinger by worf_mo · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the first 1:30 of this video on youtube you see Kittinger's leap, and other videos show parts of the preparation. Truly impressive.

    2. Re:Joseph Kittinger by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      He flew the observation/chase plane which monitored flight surgeon Colonel John Paul Stapp's rocket sled run of 632 mph (1,017 km/h) in 1955

      Rocket sleds had chase planes? What did they expect to happen?

    3. Re:Joseph Kittinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wanted to perhaps observe and be near the rocket sled throughout the experiment?

      Nah, they just wanted to pull him over for speeding.

    4. Re:Joseph Kittinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He flew the observation/chase plane which monitored flight surgeon Colonel John Paul Stapp's rocket sled run of 632 mph (1,017 km/h) in 1955

      Rocket sleds had chase planes? What did they expect to happen?

      Well a chase plane makes sense. Not like you can just hop in the old Studebaker and punch it up to 632 miles per hour. As for what they expected to happen? No idea but I suppose they figured having film from a chase plane might be useful in case something bad or unexpected happened. You know, like (body) parts flying off or rockets suddenly deciding to go and get all explodey.

  8. Nice catchy title... by geogob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but 37 km is nowhere near space in my book. My personal boundary for space is the end of the Mesosphere. Official boundaries oscillate between 80 and 130 km.

    1. Re:Nice catchy title... by MosesJones · · Score: 1

      but 37 km is nowhere near space in my book. My personal boundary for space is the end of the Mesosphere. Official boundaries oscillate between 80 and 130 km.

      Now here is a person with serious personal boundary issues.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    2. Re:Nice catchy title... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as the human body is concerned, it may as well be space.

    3. Re:Nice catchy title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So's 30000 feet. Now what?

    4. Re:Nice catchy title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is still irrelevant. As far as a fruitfly is concerned, space is a lot lower still.

      If you're going to use the term "space", use the scientifically agreed upon definition of space of 50km's high.

    5. Re:Nice catchy title... by nanospook · · Score: 1

      What difference does it make, after 4 stories up, unless you are a baby or a toddler, you are gonna go *splat*

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  9. Sick of lawsuits by toQDuj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else sick of ridiculous lawsuits? Can we get a public vetting vote for lawsuits to determine whether they are worthwhile or not?

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    1. Re:Sick of lawsuits by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I refer the poster to YouTube. Pick a video. Basically any video. Now, look at the comments. Do you really want these guys deciding what lawsuits are "worthwhile"? I think they'd actually get more ridiculous. These people are the ones that sue when they accidentally kill their dog in a microwave.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Sick of lawsuits by toQDuj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, but you can appoint a weight to their votes through a short questionnaire at the onset of the vote (testing their relevant knowledge level). The questionnaire can be designed in parts, 1/2 general test, and the other quarters by the opposing parties involved.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    3. Re:Sick of lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but then you might as well have a judge decide on the merit of the case (as it is done now), because he would have the highest weighting anyway.
      We just need to have more critical judges who throw out more useless cases. Same goes for the patent offices, by the way.

    4. Re:Sick of lawsuits by aepervius · · Score: 1

      Baum=tree gartner=gardner, I guess you could call that an horticulturist, or similar (forester?).

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    5. Re:Sick of lawsuits by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Right, that should only cost a few billion dollars in administration costs and tie up the entire population of the United States in assessing and voting on lawsuits. There will be no time to sue anybody and no money to sue anyone with. Great idea.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Sick of lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the term you are looking for is shepard of the forest, or Ent.

      So did this lawsuit happy promoter come up with the idea of an Ent parachuting from space? I don't think so...

    7. Re:Sick of lawsuits by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine such a questionnaire:

      Question 1: Do you have all the relevant facts of the case and testimonies from the two parties?"

      a) No
      b) I left them in my other pants
      c) Screw testimony! I know exactly who's guilty!
      d) Of course I do; I'm the judge
      e) All of the above (mistrial)

      It would be effective, and it contains all the information needed to assess who should be assessing (judging, if you will) these cases.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    8. Re:Sick of lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure 12 year old girls won't be the ones deciding.

    9. Re:Sick of lawsuits by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I thought the a big part of the foundation of the united states (making the rather large assumption that above posters are US based) was that it was a democracy, of sorts, and that it was NOT just for the educated elite to control?

      But by all means, lets start preventing the unwashed sheeple from voting. What was that old saying, those who do not learn from the past....?

    10. Re:Sick of lawsuits by pinkwarhol · · Score: 1

      >>can we get a public vetting vote?

      In a day and age where almost everyone forms their opinion based on PR, media spin, and un-verified internet article claims, this idea sounds just as ridiculous.

      C'mon, a platform of "Change"? Really, that's a political platform? (and I'm NOT particularly anti-Obama)

      How did this get modded to 'Insightful'?

    11. Re:Sick of lawsuits by somersault · · Score: 1

      ...

      Contrary to popular perception, YouTube users are not pudgy teenagers pretending to be Star Wars action heroes, at least the majority are not. Rather, over half of them (54.5%) were in the 35-64 age bracket, according to eMarketer. And 25-34 subgroup comprised 19.1% of the total, while kids aged 12-17 made up only 12.6% of the total.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:Sick of lawsuits by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem on the general populace voting on what the laws are, but I do have a problem with them voting which cases are worthy of a trial. That's just sidestepping the law entirely.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Sick of lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, apparently he wanted to toss a dwarf into space and see him parachute down, but the dwarf in question objected.

    14. Re:Sick of lawsuits by KarrdeSW · · Score: 1

      You really think administering a large scale test to the public, calculating the weights for everyone's votes, and then conducting a separate vote on each and every lawsuit is easier and more efficient than just having a judge read it, laugh, and say "GTFO"?

    15. Re:Sick of lawsuits by KarrdeSW · · Score: 1

      it was a democracy, of sorts, and that it was NOT just for the educated elite to control?

      LordLimecat, I'd like to introduce you to some friends of mine...

      Electoral college, meet Limecat. Limecat, this is Electoral College.

      The US was designed to be controlled by the educated elite.

    16. Re:Sick of lawsuits by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I was really looking forward to Baumgartner's jump too, I say if this promoter's suit proves frivolous, we which a class action on him for delaying gratification; that'll teach these bums to not bring worthless law suits.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Sick of lawsuits by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, thats why the citizenry actually have powers that can bypass the electoral college entirely (ie, national convention to propose amendments to, or replacements for, the constitution). This is why we hear of things like "proposition x" (aka referendums), which bypass the electorate, using instead direct vote. This is why we make such a darned big deal about the popular vote during presidental elections (remember the hanging chad crap?).

      Yes, the Electoral college is there to bring control to the educated elite, thats exactly it. You conveniently forget that the electors themselves are directly elected, as are congressmen, and that electors who go against the popular vote can in many states be punished.

    18. Re:Sick of lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, look at the comments. Do you really want these guys deciding what lawsuits are "worthwhile"?

      Don't kid yourself. From the comments I read here on a daily basis, the same can be said about Slashdot.

    19. Re:Sick of lawsuits by somersault · · Score: 1

      True, but YouTube has a user base much more representative of the "general public" than Slashdot. I wasn't trying to say that Slashdotters should be deciding it either, in fact it's a bad idea letting anyone but a judge decide that a lawsuit is not worthwhile, otherwise there will be blatant crimes being unpunished all over the place.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  10. The future of IP by khchung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what you get for promoting the idea of "Intellectual Property".

    If you can, using IP, stop people from making and selling products, stop people from singing songs, stop people from telling stories that contain certain fictional characters. Then why not stop people from making a jump from space?

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:The future of IP by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I now see a future where you can't do anything at all unless you have the appropriate license from an IP holder.

    2. Re:The future of IP by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is saying: "Have a lifelong childhood dream? Well, that dream belongs to us now, and it is only fair because money changed hands, and we bought and paid for that dream."

      Thank god that Martin Luther King Jr. didn't accept sponsorships.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:The future of IP by SamSim · · Score: 1

      I had the idea to post that comment first, please remove it immediately.

    4. Re:The future of IP by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they didn't sue Kirk and Sulu too.

    5. Re:The future of IP by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Amarok once told me that it can show me the lyrics to John Lennon's "Imagine", because it somehow violates some shit. What an irony.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    6. Re:The future of IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least this answers the question, "How may lawsuit happy assholes does it take to ruin a dream?"

    7. Re:The future of IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had this idea of taking a lot of money from people and wasting most of it, giving it to friends and people that offer me stuff and so on... I'm suing the IRS!

  11. Orbit by symes · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that this guy could jump out of his plane and, rather than plummet, go into orbit? I want to know so that when I'm showing my kids the night sky I can point out Jupiter, Orion and Felix Baumgartner. Assuming, that is, this lawsuit goes away.

    1. Re:Orbit by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The main component of 'orbit' is speed, not height.

    2. Re:Orbit by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The short answer: No

      The long answer: Orbit is a condition where gravity and lateral velocity are sufficantly well balanced that the object keeps going arround without either reentering the atmosphere or flying off into space. The lateral velocity required for this condition is high enough that no conceivable accident with a stunt like this would put a human into orbit.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  12. Space = 100km above sea level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it possible for Slashdot to avoid the marketing-speak? Space begins 100km (62 miles) above sea level. 36km is not "the edge of space".

    1. Re:Space = 100km above sea level by zebslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're talking about a Foxnews report here... Scientific accuracy is not their priority.

    2. Re:Space = 100km above sea level by scsirob · · Score: 1

      It's a wide edge...

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    3. Re:Space = 100km above sea level by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can scratch Scientific from the statement.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Space = 100km above sea level by Surt · · Score: 1

      That's the formally accepted line to reach 'outer space', to reach just 'space' you can come in quite a bit closer.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  13. Why is this tagged Switzerland ? by dafdaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Baumgartner is (as the article says) Austrian, so is Red Bull... Ah, and by the way. The guy who sued Red Bull for 'prior idea' (or whatever) is named Daniel Hogan. More infos here.

    --
    To error is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the OS.
    1. Re:Why is this tagged Switzerland ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Felix Baumgartner and Red Bull are from Austria, so please change the tag.

      At least for once we are not confused with Australia! ;)

  14. It was my impression.... by f3rret · · Score: 0

    It was my impression that NASA already did this, and did it from a higher altitude.

    Oh yeah and they did it 51 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    1. Re:It was my impression.... by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      And as we speak, some promoter is trying to figure out how to sue NASA for fifty one years of back royalties.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:It was my impression.... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      31 kilometers is less than 23 miles, and he didn't break the speed of sound.

    3. Re:It was my impression.... by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah...imperial units. Damn those, always foiling my attempts at thunder stealing.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    4. Re:It was my impression.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the guy who did that jump (Kittinger) is an advisor to the project. (see Outside Magazine August 2010)

  15. Idea not original... by charleylc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one can tell me that others have not, at the very least, though about pushing the envelope for free falling from the edge of space and beating Air Force Captain Joseph Kittinger's previous record. Unless the promoter has filed for a patent on the idea of falling from that high, which I highly doubt (even if it is something that could be patented), I don't see what kind of legal claim the promoter would have. Truly, this sounds like an attempt at a greedy money grab. The Austrian skydiver, Felix Baumgartnen, is pretty crazy even considering a stunt like this, though. Breaking the speed of sound, which is apparently highly likely, without being inside an actual machine, is nothing to sneeze at. Plus, in the event of equipment failure, all kinds of fun physical maladies could appear, like the blood boiling and bleeding from the eyes due to low atmospheric preassure or freezing from -140F tempratures. You would think the promoter would be more concerned about the person actually taking the risk rather than his own bank account. But, I guess that would be too much to ask from the greedy corporate world.

    1. Re:Idea not original... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Could be a contractual thing, if Hogan had entered into some kind of agreement with Baumgartner or the engineers, then he could have a case to stop Red Bull from using his team.

    2. Re:Idea not original... by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read that Felix got in trouble for putting gel in his hair before a test run. I'd like to think he's got his head in the game, but more likely his head will be in flame...

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:Idea not original... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Plus, in the event of equipment failure, all kinds of fun physical maladies could appear

      Indeed. I just looked Kittinger's feats up on wikipedia, and in the first test he was strangled and lost conciousness. The second his pressure suit failed and his hand was frostbitten. It's not a safe thing to do by any means.

  16. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Joe Kittinger jump:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81gn2oLeC_U

    3

  17. This by Trogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why all Intellectual Property laws, with the possible exception of Trademarks, need to be systematically dismantled.

    Starting now.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:This by Eivind · · Score: 1

      I think that's overdoing it -- though absolutely zero protections would be preferable to the current situation for many industries.

      I favor a balanced approach. Say a decade of protection, similar to todays copyright, but with an explicit exception for private noncomercial copying, and for copying needed to format or timeshift a protected work, or to preserve it.

      One problem is, that this is much too LONG for some stuff, like software, while perhaps too short for some classes of works. Hell, if you look at games, the curve is even steeper. A typical $59 game falls to $19 in 2 years, suggesting that there's little comercial value in games over 5 years old. (there'll always be exceptions - monkey island is still making money - but the exceptions shouldn't define the laws)

    2. Re:This by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      ...

      ^^^ This is why people who know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand should keep their damned mouths shut.

      This is not a copyright or patent issue. This is a Trade Secret issue. The laws and limits on this one are *actually* somewhat sane. If the plans for the jump become widely known (without a provable source for the leak), the plans are then considered public. ...good luck on RB not getting sued if they do manage to leak though.

    3. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? You spend five years and employ 100 people to write an operating system. Or a video game...or a movie. And you don't think you should have any legal rights to the finished product other than a trademark? And presumably you think this would make the world a better place.

      I guess that's slashdot for you. Let's throw the whole damn baby out with the bathwater. Over a canceled parachute jump.

    4. Re:This by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No. IP laws are needed. That doesn't mean what we have now is correct.

      Copyright is too long.
      And the patents craziness stems from 1991. When the feds stopped funding the patent office. So they accept everything because they don't have the funds to pay for enough people and there bread an butter depends on accepting patents.
      Another republican move that hurts everyone but corporations. At least it helps them keep the illusion that they cut government spending.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. A story from Fox News? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh, did this come from their "It really, truly is news!" side, or from their "It is just opinion." side? I think I better wait for independent verification.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  19. Short step? by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you sure you don't mean "leap"?

    Wait... I'm being informed by my attorney that "leap" is too significantly similar to "jump", which is already another's IP. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

  20. I just got popped by re_organeyes · · Score: 0

    For walking out of the front door. Seems as though there was some guy from 235 years ago that came up with the idea.

    Go figure

  21. In other news... by srussia · · Score: 1

    GM scraps plans to launch its "Fuse" garbage-powered car, after receiving a call from one Robert Zemeckis.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  22. Which sound barrier? by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, is the sound barrier here defined as the speed of sound on earth, or the speed at the temperature of air 23 miles up?

    1. Re:Which sound barrier? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      "Breaking the sound barrier" is at any time defined as going from subsonic to supersonic. If you do that, you've broken the barrier otherwise you haven't, no matter what speed you've been travelling. So umm somewhere on the way down, at whatever the local speed of sound is there?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Which sound barrier? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

      Out of curiosity, is the sound barrier here defined as the speed of sound on earth, or the speed at the temperature of air 23 miles up?

      Mach one is determined by air pressure primarily and it does depend on altitude. Wolfram won't give me the answer below 0.1 bar of pressure. At 50000 feet the speed is pretty much the same as at sea level. I think 50k feet will be the point where the guy in free fall really starts to decelerate.

    3. Re:Which sound barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Mach one is determined by air pressure primarily

      No, no and no again. It is a function of air temperature.

      Debunk that myth

    4. Re:Which sound barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much wrong on your conclusions. It's primarily dependent on temperature, and it's the temperature varying with altitude that's important here. The air temperature at 50000 feet would typically be around -60C.

    5. Re:Which sound barrier? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, temperatures reached -70C, at that temperature the speed of sound is 286m/s, or 640mph. For Kittinger to have broken the sound barrier (he fell at 614mph), the temperature would have had to been less than -85.5C

    6. Re:Which sound barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no and no again. It is a function of air temperature.

      You say he's wrong, then post a link that supports his claim. If pressure and temperature go "hand in hand", then you can't say it's not dependent on pressure but only temperature.

    7. Re:Which sound barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity, is the sound barrier here defined as the speed of sound on earth, or the speed at the temperature of air 23 miles up?

      Mach one is determined by air pressure primarily and it does depend on altitude. Wolfram won't give me the answer below 0.1 bar of pressure. At 50000 feet the speed is pretty much the same as at sea level. I think 50k feet will be the point where the guy in free fall really starts to decelerate.

      The speed of sound in a gas is actually almost entirely a function of temperature and the composition of the gas (70% Nitrogen, 29% Oxygen, 1% Other for air). Altitude mostly determines the temperature, but pressure is generally ignored when calculating the speed of sound in near-ideal gases.

      Considering the nature of this jump, I would assume they've predicted his velocity throughout the entire fall based on the International Standard Atmosphere, with some safety factor to account for shifts in temperature due to weather, and established that he passes Mach 1 at some point in the fall based on the local temperature.

      For interest, the lowest temperature below 23 miles (37 km) is -56.5 degrees Celsius in the tropopause which yields a=sqrt(k*R*T)=sqrt(1.4*287*(273.15-56.5))=295 m/s versus the typical 340 m/s you get at sea level (15 degrees Celsius). Not enormously different, but different enough.

  23. The wrong payload!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we push a lawyer out at 120,000 feet?

    1. Re:The wrong payload!!! by DMiax · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if you somehow make it illegal to open the parachute. The if he makes it to the ground alive, disbar him. It's a win-win situation.

    2. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could, but the aim was to collect data on the effects on humans. If we use a lawyer that misses the point.

    3. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to spray the world with partly incinerated lawyer DNA? The bits that survive inceneration whilst falling at terminal velocity through the atmosphere will be the worst of the worst.

    4. Re:The wrong payload!!! by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      And without a parachute? Sure

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    5. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must find an answer to this question!

    6. Re:The wrong payload!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Can we push a lawyer out at 120,000 feet?

      That is so unnecessary. 1,200 feet ought to do as well for our purposes. If the economics work out such that cutting off a couple orders of magnitude from that number allows us to add even one order of magnitude to the number of times we will perform the experiment, so much the better.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Well, it would be the same type of data collection as when we use rats only with the upside of not hurting any cute rats (or having PETA on your case).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      1,200 feet = 365.76 meters, so......

      256 meters should be enough for anyone (to drop a lawyer from)!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Zembar · · Score: 1

      We could, but it wouldn't do any good. They're too full of hot air to fall at fatal velocities.

    10. Re:The wrong payload!!! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Just take the plaintiff up to 120,000 feet, open the door, and ask him once again for the record if jumping out of the plane at that altitude is HIS idea.

    11. Re:The wrong payload!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, you don't want to risk exposing a lawyer to cosmic rays.

  24. SS2 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Now that 120 thousand feet doesn't sound like much if you can jump from 100 km. I wonder if somebody will try it from SpaceShipTwo?

  25. Wait... by atari2600a · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    who the fuck keeps thinking it a good idea to cite Fox "News"?

    1. Re:Wait... by Ogive17 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is there something wrong with the article or do you just like to complain about Fox News?

      And yes, I understand what Fox News is and don't trust them either... but occasionally they do have real stories. If it's such a negative thing, don't read it.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Wait... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Whats wrong with these articles? They both cites sources, and even the points that people have been nitpicking in this thread (edge of space, blood boiling) are all cited (one from space.com, the other from the project lead). Theres not even any advertising that i could see, nor was it a multi-page disaster.

      Tell me, what was the problem here? Not bloggy enough for you? Too many facts, or sources? Not enough slashvertising?

      Or do you just have some unrelated axe to grind? I mean damn, we actually get a real article, and a couple of people start complaining, and then wonder why garbage appears on slashdot so often. Well, heres the reason.

  26. They changed to imperial units??? by Rashdot · · Score: 1

    In Austria???

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
    1. Re:They changed to imperial units??? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just remember the conversion rate - it's 1 metric fuckton to 1.68 imperial assloads.

  27. Not by a factor of 1000 by mangu · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that this guy could jump out of his plane and, rather than plummet, go into orbit?

    Short answer: No.

    Long answer: as others have pointed out, speed is necessary to achieve orbit, and the balloon from which he will jump is essentially standing still over the earth. In those conditions, he would only be in orbit at the geostationary altitude, about 36000 km high, which is about a thousand times higher than he will be.

  28. Trade secrets by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's actually saying that his specific plans for executing the jump were used by Red Bull after they reviewed and rejected the project. Those plans wouldn't be protectable if they were open knowledge, but given that he was shopping the plans around privately, looking for a partnership, the plans constitute a trade secret.

    Trade secrets are the antithesis of most IP law. Once an idea's "out there", the protection disappears, as it should.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  29. far from it by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Copyrights and patents NEED to remain. The problem with copyrights is that the shear greed is pushing for longer and longer time. And the issue with patents is that it went from physical manifestations that take long times to create, to being applied on software, and methods.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Space flight using a balloon? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    According to the article, he was going to go to space using a weather balloon (and then jump into 23 miles of "nothingness")

    For so many decades, nations have been spending huge amounts of money designing rockets and space shuttles, and now it turns out they could have just used a balloon!

  31. Oh, good... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Oh, good: another life saved.

  32. Ground Control to Major Tom? by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTA: Hogan claims the daredevil stunt would be worth $375 million to $625 million in advertising to any corporate sponsor.
    If this type of lawsuit was as prevalent in the past, NOTHING would be accomplished.
    Again, science and innovation are stifled by simple, unabashed greed.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  33. Uh, prior art here? by gman003 · · Score: 1

    Joseph Kittinger? Project Excelsior? 1960? Jumping from 102,000 feet? Pretty sure that gives the USAF the patent on "jumping from ludicrously high altitudes".

    1. Re:Uh, prior art here? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Also check out Manhigh as an early high altitude jump.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  34. Huh? by msauve · · Score: 2, Informative

    "but trade secrets don't have any actual protection under law"

    They certainly do.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Huh? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      So under American law: anything that a company attempts to keep secret for commercial benefit has federal protection, and it's a crime to spread that information? What a crazy country you guys live in. That is bizarre.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:Huh? by egamma · · Score: 1

      So under American law: anything that a company attempts to keep secret for commercial benefit has federal protection, and it's a crime to spread that information? What a crazy country you guys live in. That is bizarre.

      Do you think Coca-Cola would sell in any country that did not have similar trade secrets laws? Their financial success lies entirely on keeping the formula for their product a trade secret. Read your own laws, before thinking ours are stupid.

    3. Re:Huh? by smallfries · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Last time that I checked Coca-Cola do sell their product in the uk. Here is a description of UK law. So as I already said it is quite insane to pass laws to give protection to "secrets". The best way to protect them is to ensure that they remain secret, not having laws to punish people who leak them.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:Huh? by ultranova · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you think Coca-Cola would sell in any country that did not have similar trade secrets laws? Their financial success lies entirely on keeping the formula for their product a trade secret.

      Bullshit. Coca-Cola tastes identical to Pepsi or any other cola, so obviously it was unable to keep the relevant parts of the formula a secret. It's success is based on marketing and nothing more.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No.

      If I steal/copy/bribe... to get the trade secret, then I have broken the law. If I come up with it independently, then there really isn't much they can do about it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Huh? by Inner_Child · · Score: 1

      Coca-Cola tastes identical to Pepsi or any other cola

      Then your taste buds are pretty messed up, there's a substantial difference between Coke, Pepsi, RC, and other off-brands, and that's not even mentioning the debacle that was New Coke.

      --
      Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
    7. Re:Huh? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Similar is not the same as identical. I can tell the difference between Coke, Pepsi, and other colas. If they were exactly the same, why would anyone prefer one over the other? Different flavorings, different amounts of carbonation, different levels of sweetness. Try a Red Bull cola sometime, or an Africola. They taste very different from Coke or Pepsi.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:Huh? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      My hypothesis:

      If you do a non-biased double-blind test, where you don't ask the subjects to express a preference but rather to simply distinguish between the two beverages, you won't find a statistically meaningful result from the C-P groups versus the C-C and P-P controls. As many people will say one is "A" and the other is "B" when they are the same beverage as when they are different.

      I've never seen a rigorous "Pepsi challenge" and the Pepsi folks certainly never did it double-blind, and definitely wouldn't show you controls where both cups had Coke.

      I always preferred RC myself.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Huh? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      When I was younger, I did just that - a blind taste testing using Coke, Pepsi, and RC. I was able to correctly pick all 3 types on 2 separate tests. I was mostly going off carbonation amounts and sweetness - they are easier to differentiate than the flavorings. Of course we didn't try to get tricky and put more than one sample of the same cola or anything, just a straight up 3 unmarked glasses of cola and you had to guess which you thought each was. But yeah, out of the 7-8 kids that all did the test, only me and one other was able to correctly pick all 3 both times.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:Huh? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      So under American law: anything that a company attempts to keep secret for commercial benefit has federal protection, and it's a crime to spread that information?

      Yes, so if you hear something secret (not known publicly) in a commercial conversation in the US, ask for positive authorization to duplicate, convey, or sell that information to others.

      Probably good things to do with your friends as well.

  35. No surprise there by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    But a promoter feels that the jump was his idea, and filed a lawsuit in April to prevent the event from taking place. And now Red Bull has pulled the plug on the project, FoxNews.com reports. 'Due to the lawsuit, we have decided to stop the project until this case has been resolved,' Red Bull said."

    Lunatic claims he was the first to imagine the idea of freefalling from outer space, no doubt after viewing the intro to Mass Effect 2. Suicidal daredevil breathes sigh of relief, seeing a way out of this certain death stunt.

  36. Why do I have to read this story in Slashdot first by ammoQ · · Score: 1

    I'm an Austrian, and so far no Austrian news site has reported this. WTF.

  37. Ear Drums? by dragin33 · · Score: 1

    What happens to a person's ear drums when going through the sound barrier with very little protection on? - I mean what's he going to be wearing - a helmet and maybe some ear plugs?

    1. Re:Ear Drums? by macraig · · Score: 1

      He'll be listening to Def Jam on his iPod with custom Stratos earbuds on the way down.

    2. Re:Ear Drums? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain he's going to be in a full pressure suit.

    3. Re:Ear Drums? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      What happens to a person's ear drums when going through the sound barrier with very little protection on? - I mean what's he going to be wearing - a helmet and maybe some ear plugs?

      Todd said Baumgartner would reach Mach1 somewhere between 100,000 and 90,000 feet. But it wouldn't have been overly uncomfortable, due to the thin air. At that altitude, Todd said, "It will feel like putting your hand out the window of a car going 35 mph."

      Magic eight-ball say not much

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  38. only 20% short by Paul+Rose · · Score: 1

    Yes, but 31km (19 miles) is only 20% short It seems strange that hold IP on the idea of breaking 50 year old record by only 20%

  39. Deflector on! by macraig · · Score: 1

    No, it's having forgotten to activate and reverse polarity of the deflector dish during re-entry that will kill you.

  40. THANK YOU! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mod parent to +5 Informative! Articles talking about Bumgartner's jump ALWAYS say it's the first supersonic skydive, like Joe Kittinger's jump never happened. I'm totally behind Bumgartner's jump but I hate this historical revisionism / severe media amnesia thing that's going on!

    At least the media didn't forget about Yuri Gagarin when SpaceShipOne made its first space flight, so I'm hopeful they won't forget Apollo 11 when the first commercial moon landing takes place.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:THANK YOU! by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      The curious, interested, would-be, and retired skydivers (like me) will enjoy reading Joe Kitinger's riveting first-hand accounts of his jumps in the book he wrote: "The Long, Lonely Leap".

      Incredibly, the book is out of print and is an expensive collector's item! I'm not a big fan of digital books, but this one sure makes the case for digital preservation of a historical record.

  41. 121,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why not change the altitude to 121,000 and go on with it?

  42. This was Cheryl Sterns Idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strato quest was the idea of Cheryl Sterns, http://www.stratoquest.com/ she had tried to get funding for this project for many years before Red Bull apparently just took her idea. Very Lame move from Red Bull because Cheryl Sterns is more qualified for this jump. I believe that if Cheryl Sterns looked like Britney Spears, they would have used her. Red Bull is a publicity sell out.. its a shame.

  43. source by pooh666 · · Score: 1

    Fox News, on Slashdot, I think I will puke.

  44. Non Disclosure Agreement by mangu · · Score: 1

    Trade secrets are the antithesis of most IP law. Once an idea's "out there", the protection disappears, as it should.

    That's why NDAs exist. If he had previously had Red Bull sign a contract agreeing to keep his ideas secret, then I would have nothing against him suing them for breach of that contract.

    OTOH, if you tell someone "hey, listen to this, I had this great idea" you shouldn't complain if they use your idea. After all, you don't know, they may have come to that idea independently.

    Contract law is good enough and strong enough for businesses, only lawyers profit from aggressive IP law interpretations.

    1. Re:Non Disclosure Agreement by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is an example of something that sounds good in principle, but is difficult in practice. Imagine the scene:

      "Hey Red Bull, I've got a *great* idea for a promotional stunt!"

      "Yeah? What is it?"

      "Sign this NDA and I'll tell you!"

      "An NDA? Go away, kid, you bother me."

    2. Re:Non Disclosure Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can people please stop using "IP" for Intellectual Property on the Internet? Because here, IP means Internet Protocol.

    3. Re:Non Disclosure Agreement by mangu · · Score: 1

      "Hey Red Bull, I've got a *great* idea for a promotional stunt!"

        "Yeah? What is it?"

        "Sign this NDA and I'll tell you!"

        "An NDA? Go away, kid, you bother me."

      In promoting events, having a reputation is the most important part. A simple googling will tell you that Red Bull is better known than Daniel Hogan by three orders of magnitude. Perhaps someone hasn't been working enough on building his reputation.

  45. ideas shmideas already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the promoter invent any of the equipment involved? If so he might have a case for patent infringement.

    Did the promoter create any expressive materials - writing, artwork, or music? If so, he might have a case based on copyright.

    Is the jumper misusing the promoter's logo, name, or emblem? If so, there might be trademark infringement.

    I suspect the answers are no, no, and no, respectively. In which case he can just go pound sand.

    1. Re:ideas shmideas already by capnchicken · · Score: 1

      Did the promoter have a contract with Red Bull that was breached? If so he might have a case for breach of contract.

      In which case I suspect the answer is: better have the courts look at it.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
  46. THIS is the stunt by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    It's a publicity stunt. Now that Red Bull have your attention, they will wind up settling with the guy Baumgartner and the dive will proceed.

    Only in America.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  47. Some fun background on high-altitude jumping by sootman · · Score: 1

    Wired magazine, August 2001.

    If you google the names in the article you can see what happened to the folks mentioned in the last nine years. I wish there was a clickable "request followup" button on articles.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  48. Forecast by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

    Today we'll see high's in the mid-70's, sunny with a chance of showering human tissue.

  49. A "stolen" idea indeed by woboyle · · Score: 1

    Some 10 years ago, this idea was the theme of a Star Trek Voyager episode about sub-orbital free fall skydiving. So you have to ask, where did the writer of that episode get the idea?

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
    1. Re:A "stolen" idea indeed by InfiniteZero · · Score: 1

      Or as recent as the latest Star Trek where Sulu and Kirk jump from sub-orbit to detroy the drill set up by Nero.

    2. Re:A "stolen" idea indeed by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Some 10 years ago, this idea was the theme of a Star Trek Voyager episode

      25 or so years before that in "The Moat in God's Eye" by Niven and Pournelle.
      But FTFS, the promoter is not actually claiming a patent on the idea, so prior art (literally) is unlikely to be relevant.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:A "stolen" idea indeed by woboyle · · Score: 1

      Ah! Forgot about that. I read the book when it first came out. There are times indeed when I wish for a third arm like the "Moties". :-)

      --
      Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
    4. Re:A "stolen" idea indeed by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      On the one hand it'd be useful. But on the other hand, you'd have more fingernails to trim. And on the gripping hand you could use one hand to hold the finger to trim, and the gripping hand to grip the scissors.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  50. More prior art by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

    They did a space jump with a Corvette in Heavy Metal back in 1981.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  51. Specifics found here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Go up really, really high above earth.
    2) Jump off.
    3) Profit!!!

    Yeah, no one else would have been able to think of that.

  52. Breach of contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In others words, a breach of contract dispute, not a "it was my idea" dispute. (Damn crappy Slashdot summaries!)

  53. Yeah, well by Hugundous · · Score: 1

    Thinking of things is my idea anyway so everybody JUST STOP IT!

  54. CNN doesn't have its scientific facts straight ... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

    Regarding Felix Baumgartner, from CNN:

    His attempt will take him to an altitude where the atmosphere ends and space begins --

    The "Camera in Space" was even worse for CNN:

    Yeh and Lee are far from the first people, or even the first students, to send balloons into near-space to take pictures.

    ...

    When the balloon had traveled about 17 miles up, air pressure would cause it to pop, and a parachute dangling from the side of the cooler would lower the contraption back to Earth.

    So it would seem that with CNN "Scientific accuracy is not their priority" either.

  55. Already Been done Before.. many times by Snowlock45 · · Score: 1

    I recall reading about "ceiling" jumps before. Air Force Captain Joseph Kittinger did this back in 1960. A helium balloon took him to over 100,000 feet at which point he stepped off, falling at well above 700mph due to the lack of atmosphere. Modern ceiling jumpers use a kevlar bodysuit, if I recall, to distribute the heat caused by friction when you hit the air curtain and a modified scuba system that provides air. Jumping anywhere above the air curtain means you break the sound barrier because there is no terminal velocity restraint from air. How is this any different other than its a mile or two higher than previous jumps? This seems like bad reporting saying that this is somehow different than previous jumps.

  56. Re:CNN doesn't have its scientific facts straight by e4g4 · · Score: 1

    Journalists are often prone to relativism simply because it allows them to make slightly more sensational claims in order to draw eyeballs. 17 miles up is closer to space than the vast majority of things on earth have been, so as far as they're concerned, it might as well be space.

    --
    The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
  57. Re:CNN doesn't have its scientific facts straight by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

    So CNN being wrong is just journalistic sensationalism (everybody does it), but Foxnews being wrong is because they are Foxnews?

    My point was just the bias of claiming sloppy reporting on Foxnews (perceived as conservative) when CNN (perceived as progressive) does the same thing.

    FWIW, I don't watch either of 'em.

  58. Obligatory RTFA Article by anguirus.x · · Score: 1

    The man filing the lawsuit is claiming Red Bull stole 'plans' from him and that he pitched the idea to them in 2004. He cannot patent or copyright jumping out of a plane in space, but because he pitched the idea to Red Bull and it will be a Red Bull event the economic and fiduciary factors of IP law apply. That is why the court is bothering to hear the case I suppose. Still, the court *has* to find for the defendant. If this guy wins it means someone can work on an idea and just pitch it to a company and then that company is bound to deal with that specific individual if they ever decide to go forward with the idea, even if only in essence.