High School Students Send Lego Man 24 Kilometers High

It's been done by Squiddie · 2012-01-25 11:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

to death. Then again, I am more interested in FPV flights and UAVs than balloons.

Re:It's been done by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd be more impressed if someone found a way to NOT get into space with a helium filled weather balloon.
Maintaining a constant altitude, and thus preventing the balloon bursting, would be very cool.
Re:It's been done by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-25 11:21 · Score: 4, Informative

And it is cool every single time. Seriously, if nothing else, it shows that reaching space is something that anyone can do. Instead of complaining that it's being done to death, why not improve on it? I fully plan on being part of the me-too crowd of space-photography. Once that's done, maybe I can do something to improve on it. Who knows? Someone will probably beat me to the "cooler" part. But that's what makes it fun.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:It's been done by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-01-25 11:31 · Score: 2

People have gone on vacation to Maui before as well but that doesn't stop everyone else from going. Why? Because it's gorgeous and a bloody good time. Same with building your own balloon to space projects.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:It's been done by fotbr · 2012-01-25 11:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Sending a balloon to 80,000 ft is not "into space". So far, no one has actually managed to get a weather balloon to exit the atmosphere. Actually doing so would be much, much more impressive than "kids stuck camera, gps logger, and random object in a styrofoam box and brought back pretty pictures".
Re:It's been done by fche · 2012-01-25 11:56 · Score: 1

Doesn't mean it's news, or that it matters.
Re:It's been done by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 12:20 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it pretty much be impossible to use a balloon alone to get any object into space? Space is where there's no more atmosphere and before that point, the helium or whatever material makes the balloon lighter than air would start to become heavier than what it displaces thereby eliminating any buoyant force.
You could use a balloon to cover much of the altitude, but you'd need some other means of propulsion to get it to leave the atmosphere entirely.
Re:It's been done by gknoy · 2012-01-25 12:44 · Score: 1

Wouldn't you be able to do that by weighing it down enough that it would be insufficiently buoyant once it gets to less-dense altitudes of air?
Re:It's been done by dgatwood · 2012-01-25 12:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Maintaining a constant altitude, and thus preventing the balloon bursting, would be very cool.
AFAIK, that should be pretty easy. Just add ballast. Remember those helium-filled toy balloons that you can fly up and down with fans? They work because at the current altitude, the ballast approximately counterbalances the amount of lift that the balloon provides.
The amount of lift caused by lighter-than-air balloons is proportional to what's around it. Unweighted (and assuming a theoretical zero-mass balloon, zero-mass helium, and a spherical horse), it would rise until the point where the density of the air outside is equal to the density of the gas inside. Weighted, it rises up until the force applied by that density difference over its surface area becomes equal to the mass of the balloon and whatever is hanging under it.
Thus, the only reason the balloons burst is that they don't weigh enough to stop rising at a lower altitude. If they did, they'd just stay there at that altitude until the helium leaks out.
Alternatively, you can use a material that does not stretch as much. One of the reasons that balloons continue to rise beyond a certain point is that they expand at high altitude, thus lowering the density inside. If you limit the stretch, you limit the degree to which they can expand, making the density inside balance the density outside much sooner. Thus, they stop rising sooner (and they also don't explode because they don't ever get that thin).
Either way, there's just one problem: if they don't burst, they could potentially drift for thousands of miles over the course of several days (or even weeks) before they came down, and they could come down anywhere, at any time, into the engine of any passing aircraft, which is probably not what you want, hence the reason this is not typically done.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:It's been done by fotbr · 2012-01-25 12:49 · Score: 1

That would be my point.
Re:It's been done by Hadlock · 2012-01-25 12:59 · Score: 2

In theory you could create an ultra-low density structure that would reach escape velocity before it exits the atmosphere. Sort of like releasing a tennis ball from the bottom of a pool and watching it pop out of the water when it reaches the surface. We're going to need some serious advances in material sciences to scale that sort of thing up though. Also issues of aerodynamic drag, etc.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:It's been done by Dinghy · 2012-01-25 15:05 · Score: 1

I'd be more impressed if someone found a way to NOT get into space with a helium filled weather balloon.
Maintaining a constant altitude, and thus preventing the balloon bursting, would be very cool.
That happened just about a month and a half ago, with a balloon flight from California to the Mediterranean sea. The short version is that eventually the UV at that altitude will degrade the balloon's integrity and it will pop, but it did last several days.
Re:It's been done by flyingsquid · 2012-01-25 16:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Do I really have to explain this to you guys? When you play Lego, everything's in Lego scale. So for instance, if you send the cat rampaging through your Town sets, he's like a godzilla-sized monster. And the drop off the sofa to the carpet isn't a foot or two off the ground, it's like a huge cliff, and will totally kill your dude (and he totally will NOT survive that, no matter what my so-called-friend Brian Schwarz says, and that is why I don't play Lego with Brian anymore, because he's just really stupid). So are we clear now on how Lego scale works then?
OK, so let's do the math. Low earth orbit is 200-500 miles up, and a minifig is 1.5 inches tall, which is 1/44 the height of an average person. So in Lego scale, 88,000 feet is 3,872,000 feet, or like 733 miles, and so he's totally in space.
Re:It's been done by Digital+Vomit · 2012-01-25 17:50 · Score: 5, Funny

You could use a balloon to cover much of the altitude, but you'd need some other means of propulsion to get it to leave the atmosphere entirely.
Hmmm... What if you attached the whole thing to another helium balloon?

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Re:It's been done by Mabhatter · 2012-01-25 19:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, they're still in high school... They gotta start somewhere.
Frankly, they were irresponsible not to give their Lego dude (or girl) a helmet and air tank. Not to mention the OSHA violations being forced to stand on a ledge at 80k feet with no seatbelt or railings! I think the minifigures need some kind of union against these dangerous experiments.
Lastly, did they make sure their guy wasnt on a no-fly list. He looks European... But with those foreign sounding names national security should have been contacted... They even took pictures of how many people they put in danger!!! At least they didn't attach the balloon to any sharks... Teens and science are just irresponsible.
Re:It's been done by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-25 20:23 · Score: 1

I imagine it could be done by putting a compressor and small storage tank on the bottom of the balloon. Going to high? Turn on compressor and transfer some of that helium from balloon to tank. Going too low? Open the valve and let some back in. The equipment would be heavy though, greatly reducing payload capacity, and flight time may be limited by the energy supply for the compressor.
Re:It's been done by michelcolman · 2012-01-25 20:58 · Score: 2

Nope, wouldn't work.
Buoyancy in air is caused by a slight difference in the total momentum from collisions with air molecules below and above the object. The air above has a slightly lower pressure, which means the (lots of) tiny molecules slam into the balloon slightly less frequently (density) and/or with slightly less speed (temperature) than those below. This difference matches the weight of a similar volume of air, which is logical in a stable atmosphere. That's why objects lighter than air go up.
As soon as the balloon starts moving up, though, the equation changes very quickly. The speed vector of the balloon will increase the relative speed of the molecules above, and decrease the relative speed of those below. This will reduce and eliminate the buoyancy effect rather quickly, resulting in a stable speed after a few seconds. So this is not just a matter of making a better balloon, streamlining it, reducing friction, etcetera. Sure, friction doesn't help, but the real problem is much more fundamental. The very reason why the balloon is being pushed up in the first place, disappears as soon as the balloon reaches a speed that is still very, very slow.
Re:It's been done by rtb61 · 2012-01-25 22:45 · Score: 1

Not that complex really, a light weight pressure relief valve that opens and release pressure at a value lower that then tensile strength of the balloon. Then there would be a choice of balloon colour to absorb heat.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:It's been done by TheDarkMaster · 2012-01-25 22:46 · Score: 1

LOL! Thanks for the laughs. :) And I noticed that too, they were forgetting the astronaut's helmet?

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:It's been done by Ihmhi · 2012-01-25 23:12 · Score: 1

Pre-coffee stupid question of the morning: couldn't you have a few fans pointing in such a way that they pull the balloon downward? You know, like retro-rockets. Or you could just weigh the thing down enough to balance it out.
I bet if you had a sort of sandbag or water tank and a nice, simple, and cheap circuit board in a helium balloon, you could continually rebalance the weight as the helium dissipates. (So for example, when some helium is lost and the balloon starts descending, a bit of water or sand is automatically dumped until the balloon becomes level.)

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:It's been done by Dogtanian · 2012-01-26 01:21 · Score: 1

You could use a balloon to cover much of the altitude, but you'd need some other means of propulsion to get it to leave the atmosphere entirely.
Hmmm... What if you attached the whole thing to another helium balloon?
One more balloon might not be enough. You might need to add more. To those who would argue that this isn't going to work and ask "what's supporting the final balloon?", I'd have to say "You're very clever, young man, very clever... but it's balloons all the way up!"

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:It's been done by drinkypoo · 2012-01-26 01:52 · Score: 1

When you play Lego, everything's in Lego scale.
I can't be the only one who's used a 1x1x1 round on top of a 1x1x1 square as a smaller person... pretty iconic but it was good enough for Defender. Or for that matter, built epic scale lego miniature fleets.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It's been done by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-01-26 03:37 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that, in general, balloons aren't strong enough to exert significant pressure on their contents. So, close enough, the gas inside the balloon is always at the same pressure as the gas outside. And if the gas inside has a lower molecular weight, it's always going to be less dense than the gas outside.
You could include a compressor to move some of the gas into a pressure vessel, but that would add SERIOUS weight, not to mention power requirements.
Wonder if you could use hydrogen as the lift gas, and reversibly adsorb it to control buoyancy?
Re:It's been done by DerekLyons · 2012-01-26 04:03 · Score: 1

That's a very complicated and heavier way of doing what's already being done - using smaller balloons inside the larger one to alter the pressure (and thus density and thus lift) of the larger balloon. (Saving the weight of the storage tanks, which is the ruling factor.)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/blimp1.htm
Re:It's been done by Catmeat · 2012-01-26 04:16 · Score: 1

I think you're talking about a suprepressure balloon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpressure_balloon
Re:It's been done by AragornSonOfArathorn · 2012-01-26 09:23 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points. Awesome.

--
sudo eat my shorts

They're in Canada. by Bovius · 2012-01-25 11:11 · Score: 4, Funny

I glanced at the article and the first word was "Toronto". Apparently that's why this isn't a story about them getting arrested.

Re:They're in Canada. by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-01-25 11:45 · Score: 2

Apparently the safety regulations are pretty lax up there in the Great White North; the space man didn't even wear a helmet.
Re:They're in Canada. by fiannaFailMan · 2012-01-26 10:43 · Score: 1

I glanced at the article and the first word was "Toronto". Apparently that's why this isn't a story about them getting arrested.
Actually, their landing site was going to be in New Hampshire and they didn't like the idea of having to deal with Homeland Security. So they waited a few weeks for the conditions to change so that it would land on Canadian soil. So there's still an element of sadness to this very cool story.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Waste of helium by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:13 · Score: 1

We already know how these things go.

Re:Waste of helium by michelcolman · 2012-01-25 21:08 · Score: 2

You certainly didn't waste any apostrophes.

Three times the height of a jet? by mark-t · 2012-01-25 11:21 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm pretty sure that jet aircraft are only something like 15 or 20 feet high, measuring from the base. 80,000 feet is considerably higher than three times that distance.

If you mean to say 3 times the maximum altitude of most jet aircraft, say so.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Three times the height of a jet? by swanzilla · 2012-01-25 12:01 · Score: 1

If you mean to say 3 times the maximum altitude of most jet aircraft, say so.
Or the typical cruising altitude of commercial jet airliners. Regardless, very clumsily put.

--
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by Trogre · 2012-01-25 12:04 · Score: 1

Pedantic much?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-25 12:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Irregardless, for all intensive purposes its the same thing. We knew what he mint.
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by tragedy · 2012-01-25 12:34 · Score: 1

More like 64 feet high (for a 747). Nowhere near 80,000 feet, I'll grant you.
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by Cimexus · 2012-01-25 14:45 · Score: 1

Also, it's "intents and purposes"...
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-01-25 15:51 · Score: 2

Irregardless, for all intensive purposes its the same thing. We knew what he mint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
Also, it's "intents and purposes"...
Wow! A double WHOOSH. Is no one going to complain about "its" instead of "it's", or "mint" for a trifecta? Or both, so we can see the mythical quadfecta WHOOSH?
I suppose I may have messed that up. But I'm guessing that most pendants will probably be so excited about pointing these things out, that they will post their corrections before reading to my post. ;-)
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by michelcolman · 2012-01-25 21:18 · Score: 1

The jet I'm currently flying (A320, a pretty ordinary passenger jet) has a maximum cruising altitude of 39,800 feet, I've flown business jets at 47,000 feet and according to Wikipedia, a russian jet once made it to 123,520 feet. Now I'm sure there are probably a few jets who can only make it up to 26,600 feet, but I would hardly call that "most jet aircraft". So even that comparison is totally wrong.
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by karnal · 2012-01-26 01:44 · Score: 1

In-flight WIFI? sweet.

--
Karnal
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by michelcolman · 2012-01-26 01:53 · Score: 1

I knew someone was going to reply something like that :-)
OK, I admit, I was lying, I wasn't in the act of flying at that precise time.
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-01-26 03:38 · Score: 1

You mispelled "porpoises".
Also "new".
Re:Three times the height of a jet? by hawk · 2012-01-26 12:05 · Score: 1

>The jet I'm currently flying (A320, a pretty ordinary passenger jet)
For heaven's sake, put down the computer and pay attention to flying!
And I thought texting & driving was bad . . . :)
hawk

Good job by CompMD · 2012-01-25 11:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Good for these kids. I don't agree that this should be big news, as this is becoming a fairly common project for advanced high school students. I mentored a team of high school students in the Kansas City area that sent up balloons last fall. They designed and built the payload, fitting all the instrumentation and cameras. One made it to 97,000 ft. The other managed to fly all the way to Illinois. In both cases the payload was recovered undamaged. They got some *awesome* video and pictures.

Re:Good job by laejoh · 2012-01-25 21:33 · Score: 1

There's an awful lot of intelligent design going on in Kansas it seems!

Numbers.... by twotacocombo · 2012-01-25 11:25 · Score: 2

"80,000 feet — three times the height of a jet "

Oh, where to begin...

Per Wikipedia:

Height of Airbus A380: 80.2 ft

Highest known altitude attained by a conventional jet-powered airplane: 123,523 feet.

Re:Numbers.... by Mashiki · 2012-01-25 11:31 · Score: 1

I think the idea was the implied cruising altitude. Which is between 25,000 and 30,000ft in most cases.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Numbers.... by michelcolman · 2012-01-25 21:27 · Score: 1

Most cases? A320 (39800 ft), B737 (35000-41000 ft), B747 (45000 ft), hell, even a BAe 146 can make it up to 31000 ft! Oh, and the Concorde, a plane from 1969, could cruise at 60000 ft.
Re:Numbers.... by MachineShedFred · 2012-01-26 00:37 · Score: 1

NASA's X-15 hit 354,200 feet in 1963, after being launched off a B-52 (also a jet) at 45,000 feet. This is the author's "Libraries of Congress" moment.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Numbers.... by michelcolman · 2012-01-26 01:21 · Score: 1

The X-15 was rocket-powered, so not technically a jet. A jet engine takes outside air and adds fuel to it, the X-15 carried both the fuel and the oxygen. I know, I know. you could call the exhaust from a rocket a "jet" as well, but that's not what's commonly understood as the definition of a jet.
Re:Numbers.... by MachineShedFred · 2012-01-26 02:12 · Score: 1

Good point. However, the B-52 it was launched from was already above half the altitude this balloon burst at, and B-52s aren't exactly the height of today's aviation technology.
The claim of 3x the whatever of a jet is complete crap.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

I launched a GI-Joe once when I was a kid... by mark-t · 2012-01-25 11:30 · Score: 3, Funny

In 1976, I found a compressed CO2 canister in my schoolyard. When I got home, being the aspiring evil genius that I was, I secured it with tape and contact cement onto the back of one of my GI Joe figures (the 12" ones, not the dopey little 5" ones), and then I used some pliers to cut the end off.

I heard a small "woosh", and then I never saw it again. I have no idea how high it went.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

D'oh... hit submit too soon. by mark-t · 2012-01-25 11:33 · Score: 1

For clarification, I did the aforementioned experiment in my parent's backyard... not actually *IN* the house, which is how, rereading it, I can see it might be interpreted.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Lego Man... by Zephyn · 2012-01-25 11:35 · Score: 2

In this case he's redefining the term "Flying Brick".

Canadian Space Program by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:35 · Score: 4, Funny

It's aboot time...!

Re:Canadian Space Program by LifesABeach · 2012-01-25 12:05 · Score: 2

"God Speed Lego Man?", nope, doesn't have the same feeling. But cool work. I guess the next step is a "Second Stage" attached to the balloon? Maybe to collect some space debris?

At least this group is smart enough to not claim by fotbr · 2012-01-25 12:01 · Score: 1

that they reached space.

I assumed this was about a clambake roadtrip. by orphiuchus · 2012-01-25 12:30 · Score: 1

I guess I forgot this was slashdot and not erowid.

I hate to burst their bubble but by amoeba1911 · 2012-01-25 13:08 · Score: 1

Pretty much anyone with a few hundred bucks to waste on helium and a balloon can send something to 80000~100000 feet. It's fun, but it's not particularly amazing. What would be cool is if they combined this weather balloon with a UAV that could autonomously return to the launch area.

Re:I hate to burst their bubble but by inventorM · 2012-01-25 14:48 · Score: 1

True. My college freshman engineering class sent a balloon up 110,000 feet and recovered it, all for less than 250 USD. What would be newsworthy would be if the group built the equipment for a low cost, or achieved an extraordinary altitude. However, I am glad to see high school students taking an interest in engineering and science. Having worked on a similar project myself, I can say that pulling off this kind of project requires significant planning and teamwork, and I congratulate the students for their successful effort.

Re:It went sooo high... by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-01-25 13:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

When I saw the title of this story ("High School Students Send Lego Man 24 Kilometers High"), my first interpretation was that some students had built a 24-kilometer-high man out of legos, and then sent it somewhere... I was wondering how many legos it took, and how much the postage was!

I wonder how tall you could build a tower of legos before the weight crushed the legos making up the bottom level?

Re:It went sooo high... by Tsingi · 2012-01-25 13:38 · Score: 2

When I saw the title of this story ("High School Students Send Lego Man 24 Kilometers High"), my first interpretation was that some students had built a 24-kilometer-high man out of legos, and then sent it somewhere... I was wondering how many legos it took, and how much the postage was!

I got stuck on 3 times the height of a jet. That would be closer to 80 feet than 80,000.

Re:At least this group is smart enough to not clai by Lev13than · 2012-01-25 14:45 · Score: 1

At least this group is smart enough to not claim that they reached space.

Of course not, but the Toronto Star certainly has trouble understanding the difference between "very high" and "space". Two front-page news stories on this in one day - a bit silly all things considered.

--
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire

Re:It went sooo high... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 15:04 · Score: 1

Post would be about $3,000,000 or about £75

Skydiver by PPH · 2012-01-25 15:22 · Score: 1

So, there's this guy on his first solo parachute jump. When the plane reaches the drop zone, he jumps. When he reaches the proper altitude, he pulls the main ripcord.

Nothing.

After a few seconds, he remembers his training and pulls the cord on the emergency chute. Still nothing. Now he's starting to panic.

Looking at the ground rapidly approaching, he notices a figure rapidly ascending towards him. "Odd", he things to himself. Nevertheless, when this other guy comes withing earshot, he yells over, "Hey buddy! Do you know how to work a parachute?"

"No! Do you know how to light a Coleman stove?"

--
Have gnu, will travel.

I thought jets where typically smaller by TheInternetGuy · 2012-01-25 16:41 · Score: 1

Two high schoolers have launched a Lego Man to 80,000 feet â" three times the height of a jet

The tail height of a 747 is less than 70 feet. But a jet with a height of over 26,000 feet that is amazing. I wonder what altitude such a huge airplane could reach?

--
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame

LEGO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 21:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's called a "minifig". Get your terminology right, please.

Why not launch a rocket from the baloon by fervus · 2012-01-25 23:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

My calculations might be wrong here, but I've always wondered... If a high-school can launch a helium balloon to a height of 24km, and also launch a homemade rocket that can rise as hight as 30km, couldn't some high-school class launch a rocket from the top point of a helium balloon to reach geosynchronous orbit? Wouldn't that be a feat more worthy of commenting? What would be the problems with such a lauch?

Re:Why not launch a rocket from the baloon by MachineShedFred · 2012-01-26 00:43 · Score: 1

Well, for one thing, orbit isn't about altitude. It's about matching horizontal velocity to the perpendicular force of gravity, so that by the time gravity would put you into the ground, the ground isn't there any more. Altitude helps, because gravity has a lot more work to do at that distance.
Technically you could orbit at 50,000 feet of altitude if we didn't have an atmosphere and you had sufficient horizontal velocity.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Why not launch a rocket from the baloon by anyGould · 2012-01-26 10:00 · Score: 1

If you're willing to apply thrust you can orbit a lot lower than that.

Re:I used to enjoy slashdot by Ash-Fox · 2012-01-26 01:53 · Score: 1

all the crap that is posted and re-posted at the start of every comment page on every story

I don't know.. I haven't seen many "Does it run Linux?", "You must be new here", "Beowulf cluster" or "I for one welcome our" type posts in a while now. I remember those used to on every article.

Perhaps your memory is failing you?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by datavirtue · 2012-01-26 03:14 · Score: 1

AC is a necessary option to have that facilitates an open exchange of ideas.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Tsingi · 2012-01-26 03:22 · Score: 1

AC is a necessary option to have that facilitates an open exchange of ideas.

That sounds good in theory, so much so that I must concede a valid point.
However in practice, AC's seem to troll as a rule.

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by nitehawk214 · 2012-01-26 03:24 · Score: 1

Note, I am aware that GreatBunzinni could in effect be sockpuppet attacking himself in some sort of reverse-psycology attack on his enemies. In that case he will end up getting himself modded down often enough to make it a Pyrrhic victory. If everyone involved gets modded to oblivion, I will consider it... Mission Fucking Accomplished.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Slashdot is dead,rings an echo from mom's basement by datavirtue · 2012-01-26 03:30 · Score: 1

So what, and without Skynet..I mean Google...where would we be? Wallowing in an internet designed by Microsoft? I love Google, they deliver money to me while I sit back and twiddle with my website every now and again. So what if they looked the other way while prescription drug dealers used their ad system, crappy?, yes, evil?, no. I really don't care for the government regulating the sale of drugs anyway. So the whole thing being illegal is kind of moot in my book. Other than that, they have done nothing wrong, and if they have, the good they do far outweighs any negative behavior. It is a company full of a lot of people. Granted, they aren't perfect like you, but Google is putting pressure on governments and established wealthy strongholds just by their very existence. That is good thing for the progress of the entire world, something technology is good for and something which many other tech companies fail at because they are too busy learning how to fit into the political landscape. The boat needs rocked.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

Re:In the Canadian media by anyGould · 2012-01-26 10:02 · Score: 1

Yeesh - it's their first try at this. Can we let them enjoy the basics before we start bugging them about why they didn't create a million-dollar launch vehicle?

Making the front page just means it's a slower news day and it's a happy feel-good story. ("Kids did something useful! News at 11!")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_junk by Ear+Phantom · 2012-01-26 10:44 · Score: 1

Yay Kessler Syndrome! Thanks High School students for your contribution!

Re:I used to enjoy slashdot by fiannaFailMan · 2012-01-26 10:48 · Score: 1

Now it is an intensely irritating site with all the crap that is posted and re-posted at the start of every comment page on every story. For fuck sake grow up or fuck off and let some intelligent - and sometimes funny - comment return to what once was a great site.

Preach it brother! Every time something remotely cool is posted (like a pair of kids doing a cool science experiment just because they feel like it) along some the jackasses to piss on it or pick pedantic holes in the wording of the article or try to gain karma points by way of some sad attempt at humour. I used to come here to see informed opinion, nowadays I'm more inclined to just RTFA and ignore the inevitable inane comments.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Slashdot Mirror

High School Students Send Lego Man 24 Kilometers High

78 of 115 comments (clear)