Billionaire Boys Cup (America's Cup 2003) 327
morpheus 2001 writes "Wired has a story on
the fight to win the America's Cup
2003, a sailing race held every 3 years. The story carries the
title 'Billionaire Boys Cup', referring to both the competitors and the millions of dollars that it now takes to field a team. This time around the two US teams pit Craig McCaw and Larry Ellison against each other using their respective technological prowess to beat each other and the rest of the world.
The story mentions that all of the teams competing will drop collectively over $700 million, with $30 - 40 million to be spent on R&D (per team)
alone. The story gives an excellent description of how the use of technology and massive databases work in concert to give a team an edge of mere seconds, which can be the difference between winning and losing a race."
hmmmmmmmmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
30-40M R&D, at the end of the day, if the wind don't blow, the wind don't blow, no amount of R&D will make the wind blow.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm..... (Score:2)
I'd like to know... (Score:2)
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm..... (Score:3, Informative)
I've been in enough races where there is so little wind, that no one even starts. You just float, sometimes drifting backwards.
Sometimes, if you're lucky, there might be enough of a breeze that a half hour after the gun goes off, you finally make it across the line.
In the series that I raced in, there was a two-hour time limit to finish. Even with the race shortened to the first mark, still no one finishes. Usually those kind of races degenerate into water balloon fights once everyone realizes that all the tech in the world isn't going to get you moving anywhere.
Granted, these boats are nowhere near as advanced as the Cup boats are, but it is still possible to have so little wind that there might as well be none.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm..... (Score:2)
Sailing dinghies in the Ribble estuary, with something like the third strongest tides in Britain, this sometimes came in *very* handy - it could actually be hard to get from the jetty to the start-line, never mind sailing further from there! So on a light wind day, the trick was to walk up to the line early and just camp there for the next 5 minutes. The earlier you got there, the better spot you got (out of everyone else's wind-shadow).
Of course, on two-handed dinghies it'd usually be dads helming and kids crewing, so sonny boy always went over the side to hold it. Obviously that's the best use of a child, as an anchor!
Grab.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm..... (Score:2)
About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bringing in all sorts of high tech crap to make your boat/car go faster is one thing.
Sailing using your hands, eyes and ears instead, is something entirely different.
Given the choice between watching a bunch of Rich Borgs re-compile their trim calculation program in between tacks, and watching real men sale real boats, I'd take the real boats.
And I come from Perth (near Fremantle). We were *proud* to have made a technological dent in the history of the America's Cup, but frankly I think it was a bad, bad day when technology trumped the Americans. It just gave them fodder they needed to destroy the true spirit of sports like this.
Americas Cup = Formula One = Robo Wars. Same thing, different toys.
Yawn.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:3, Insightful)
The America's cup is the oldest international sports trophy in the world. And it was originally won by a boat that was way ahead of the other competitors in terms of design.
There is nothing new in the 'go faster technology' aspect of sailing - it's as integral to racing sailboats as the ball is to a football game.
Throw the technology out, and we'd all be floating round on partially submerged logs, holding up bits of trees in a vain effort to catch the wind!
Mike
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, it's all about getting a tenth of a percent less underwing pressure in medium-speed corners, or adjusting the enigine management mappings to suit the circuit, tweaks and tunings that we never even see.
Likewise, when Aus2 won the America's Cup, there was a new keel, you could look at it, you could play Monday morning engineer, you could try to understand why it worked better. Good stuff.
There's probably no way to go back to the past, tho.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2, Interesting)
boats which are as heavy as the AC yachts will always be restricted by their waterline length as to how fast they can go, to go substantially quicker you need to get rid of the lead!
boats such as skiffs and foilers will have no trouble beating the AC boats, they'd absolutely slaughter them for less than the cost for one of those mainsails mentioned in the article. Unfortunately the rules will never change to allow interesting boats to race, why would a team that has just won suddenly decide to give away all the advantage they have?
if it was to change to interesting boats (see above) then we could all visualise the forces involved and think up our own cool ways of minimising the drag, increasing the righting moment etc.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
No, it was still cars going around in a circle. Driving cars may be fun in the right situation, but watching someone else do it rarely is...
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
For me, the actual race of Formula One is pretty boring. Actually, I find any sport (not to say that I'd consider racing as sports) boring to watch.
But the geek in me finds all hi-tech involved in those competitions very fascinating and the tree-hugger in me likes seeing so much high-tech in a non-combustion vehicle. (Don't stop me raving by reminding me of the construction of those yachts)
When it comes to actually sailing one, I dislike sailing any yacht or boat, where your own body weight has no (noticable) impact on heeling.
But still, there is still a tremendious amount of nautical expertise necessary to judge the winds and judging the other yachtsmen.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
Previously it made engines faster, stronger and influenced cars. But now we have 500 HP monsters on the road. So I ask you what are you going to do with a 500 HP monster? Only in Germany can you semi use that speed, but even then it is dangerous. My car is limited to 250 KPH (cheaper insurance) and 250 KPH is damm fast. My average speed is probably about 160 KPH (traffic, other people, etc).
The fuel limit was dropped so fuel efficiency is not important. The body of the car is made with kevlar, carbon fibre, which has about a snow's ball's chance in hell in making it to regular cars.
In other words Formula 1 like sailing has become the modern day version of polo that nobody will pay that much attention to, but rich people come to be seen.
Now about sports being boring to watch? Hah, not watched something like Hockey, eh?
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:3, Informative)
No Formula 1 is extremely boring. The problem with the tech is that it really doesn't not bring any benefit anymore.
OK there's a double negative that's a little tricky to parse, but I'll assume you meant "it doesn't really bring any benefit anymore", you're wrong.
Previously it made engines faster, stronger and influenced cars. But now we have 500 HP monsters on the road. So I ask you what are you going to do with a 500 HP monster? Only in Germany can you semi use that speed, but even then it is dangerous. My car is limited to 250 KPH (cheaper insurance) and 250 KPH is damm fast. My average speed is probably about 160 KPH (traffic, other people, etc).
There is more to improving an automobile's performance than increasing horsepower. For example as far as engines are concerned: driveability in the form of a flat torque curve over a wide range of rpm is useful in racing especially in F1 where circuits typically have tight corners connected by straight sections so being able to accelerate out of a corner is key to victory. In a road going car this helps in giving you the ability to accelerate when merging onto a highway without requiring you to floor it and potentially fishtail. Mercedes Benz engines of the last 10 years are noted for particularly flat torque curves, is it any surprise that Mercedes powered McLarens dominated F1 in the latter half of the 90's. Fuel efficiency is still a concern since in racing it opens up your options for pit strategy. Since most forms of racing have displacement limits volumetric efficiency is still a concern which has led to the highly efficient yet powerful 100HP/liter engines from Honda, BMW, and Ferrari available in their road cars. However engine technology is not the primary focus in Grand Prix and other high end racing anymore, the two key technologies to victory are aerodynamics and tires. With the F360 and 550 Maranello Ferrari has started to apply racing aerodynamic technology to increase high speed stability of normal road cars. Porsche has also paid a lot of attention to the high speed stability of their road going cars. Regardless of national speed limits, the real factor limiting driver speeds is comfort with the car's handling at speed (I have a link for this but can't find it right now). Admitedly this technology is only available on high cost automobiles but like nearly every other automotive technology of the last 30 years: ABS, traction control, airbags, in car navigation systems, active suspension etc. it will trickle down to cars available to the general public over time. Perhaps the biggest change in automotive technology over the last decade is not from the major manufacteres but the tire companies. Off the shelf I can buy Pirelli POne and PZero or Michelin Pilot tires which can improve the handling capabilities of my car by nearly 10% over typical (cheap) OEM tires. Winter and rain tire technology has improved even further. In fact, modern supercars like the Ferrari 360 and Dodge Viper can nearly match pure race built GT cars (I'm talking about nonstreet legal versions of cars like the 911, RX7, Mustang etc. that you see bringing up the back of the pack in the ALMS series or in the Speedvision GT series not GT prototypes) of 10 to 15 years ago off the showroom floor without having significantly more horsepower or lighter structures. This performance advantage is not as apparent in more mass market cars like the Accord or Camry because chassis engineers have used the extra traction to provide softer damping rates for a smoother ride. Using aftermarket shock and spring packages on these cars quickly demonstrate how much more capable they are than their previous generation models.
The fuel limit was dropped so fuel efficiency is not important. The body of the car is made with kevlar, carbon fibre, which has about a snow's ball's chance in hell in making it to regular cars.
Again, untrue. Audi is already building lightweight aluminum unibodies for the A8 and will probably move the technology down their product line over time. Lotus (which has close ties to GM) also is doing pioneering work in lightweight chassis and bodies with the Elise. The Opel Speedster that GM may bring to the US uses the same technology. You can get road going cars with Carbon Fiber bodies from Lamborghini (although their space frame construction makes it unlikely that anyone else will adopt their approach) or BMW (in the M3 CSL although only some portions of the car are Carbon Fiber). For those of us with incomes closer to the median, there are plenty of aftermarket suppliers for carbon fiber body panels for production automobiles like the Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Honda Accord etc.
Also there is a de facto fuel efficiency limit in Formula 1 since you are required to make at least one pit stop. Given the sensitivity of a modern Formula 1 car to fuel weight, in some circumstances it pays to run a lighter fuel load and make more pit stops. If you are not fuel efficient then you'll have to carry more fuel on the multistop strategies slowing you down. CART has a de facto fuel efficiency limit too since there is a minimum number of laps one is allowed to run between stops and a maximum tank size in the rules.
As for boring or elitist entertainment. That's almost entirely a matter of taste. The wealthy tend to prefer to be with people in their own income group and one method of excluding the nonwealthy is to choose pursuits in which they cannot participate. They can then use their wealth to further exclude participation by increasing equipment costs. Golf and Tennis are two examples of sports which should be relatively cheap (if Golf equipment was cheap stainless steel instead of hard to forge titanium heads on highly engineered carbon fiber shafts, and likewise for tennis racket materials) but aren't. On the other hand, I can play chess but have little interest in devoting a lot of time to watching it, but I can imagine how a more devoted fan would find a well played game very interesting to observe.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
Mine is about 30kph (bike, city, still as fast as most cars).
Granted, faster and stronger cars are no benefit for normal people, actually I'd rather say they are counterproductive.
But there is more to a car than a strong engine.
Not beeing into cars, I don't know what technological advancements come from racing.
It wouldn't surprise me when ceramic and carbon fibre brakes, Traction Control, ESP and the like would be the resulted from the extreme conditions in racing.
> The body of the car is made with kevlar, carbon fibre, which has about a snow's ball's chance in hell in making it to regular cars.
What would you've said 10years ago? The body of these cars is made of Aluminium?
> Now about sports being boring to watch? Hah, not watched something like Hockey, eh?
It's not the action that I find lacking.
The fun part about watching sports is, that you're able to feel with the team and share their joy in their accomplishments. I seem to lack the ability.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
You've obviously never done any car racing, otherwise you'd know that, especially at the top (WRC, Formula 1, CART), peak physical condition is an absolute requirement of all the drivers. For one, it strengthens you against injury, but the act of driving requires incredible mental awareness and tremendous upper body strength if you're going to yank the wheel from side to side for 2 hours straight.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a sport that's more physically and mentally exhausting than top auto racing.
I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how much technology is on the boat or how many computers, you still sail with your hands, eyes, ears, and instincts.
Technology gives you improved perception-- a better idea of what the wind is likely to do, better knowledge of what the wind is doing mid mast rather than just on the deck or at the top, a better idea of what sail trim you should have....
But you still have to use your mind, body and muscles to execute the excellent control over the boat necessary. You make it sound like they could sit at home and tell the boats to sail themselves. They probably could if they outfitted the boats with the autopilot stuff that's available, but they would LOSE and LOSE BAD if they did.
I'm not the biggest fan of sailboat racing-- I think boats are more fun cruising around away from the mass of humanity-- but I have raced and I have raced on relatively high tech boats at a level that -- if sailing were as popular as football is-- would be televised.
All the technology in the world can only give you an idea of what the current situation is with the wind, water, and boat. But you can't win a race knowing the current situation-- to win you have to know the best tactics and use the your best judgement about whats *going to happen* to change the current situation, and execute those tactics flawlessly.
The televised america's cup racing I've seen has been a blast, and rather exciting-- I just wish they gave us more on the boat coverage and less quick cutting of the races.... to hear the crew chatter about tactics and where they think the wind is going to go during a race and then to see how it actually goes and how they handle it would be wonderful.
But so it goes. Sailing is one of the last competitive sports where so much technology is *necessary* to compete at that level, but still so ineffective compared to the human level. Ball games are low tech, hockey is low tech. Technology doesn't matter for them. Formula one racing-- technology makes a huge difference but you know where the track is and you just go-- and there's one driver so he has perfect coordination of his actiosn.
With sailing you have to have both the best technology and the best human brains and the best coordination of your team in order to win. IF you seriously lack any of those, then you loose.
You're wrong-- The americas cup is still about real sailors. Anyone who enters the americas cup without the stamina and fearlessness and judgment of a free climber combined with the technical prowess of your average programmer is going to loose.
It is not a sport for the idle wealthy, weak, easily scared or technically ignorant.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
It is not a sport for the idle wealthy, weak, easily scared or technically
ignorant.
Isn't Larry Ellison doing it????
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
Yep, and that tells you Larry Ellison is none of those things.
I'd sail with him. Given the inherent risks in sailing, that's saying something.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
Are you referring to the whole "water, water everywhere and not a drop drink" thing? 'Cause they have bottled water lil' Larry could carry on his boat.
And if you consider drowning a risk: about 60 years ago some really nice guy invented life preservers. And I'm sure the Coast Guard would be more than happy to pick up Larry.
Bottom line: I'm being extremely sarcastic, because spending $700 million on a boat race is idiotic and asinine in this day and age of rampant starvation, disease, civil war, genocide, and illiteracy.
Hey, but if it sells a couple more pairs of Sperry Top-Siders and a bottle or two of Zima, then by all means $700 million is justified.
Now, before you flaim me, know:
1) that I do indeed enjoy sport and competition and would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the Cup Race, if the amount of money spent on the boats and crews were more realistic: say 5 to 10 million (about what a Nascar or NHRA team spends in 3 years). But we are talking about rich, spoiled children and their need for the biggest toy on the block.
2) I am not bashing sailing. Sailing is wonderful and a great way to spend a couple of days. I live a stones throw from the Pacific and enjoy its beauty everyday.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
I understand now. Your complaint is that you oppose human rights, not sailing.
The ironic thing is that people like yourself who think that the rich owe them something, when you suceed, what you create is rampant starvation, civil war, and illiteracy.
Better to let Larry reinvest the money-- hell that $700Million will do more to fight poverty than the same $700M spent by the feds on schools.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
Not sure from where you got that... moving on.
The ironic thing is that people like yourself who think that the rich owe them something, when you suceed, what you create is rampant starvation, civil war, and illiteracy.
I don't believe anyone owes me anything. I do believe that it is important for us to take care of each other. And it saddens me when someone like Larry has so great a potential to do good, yet fails even to recognize the need.
Better to let Larry reinvest the money-- hell that $700Million will do more to fight poverty than the same $700M spent by the feds on schools.
Not sure what industry he is supporting other than a select few that cater specifically to the Cup race. And I'm not sure how that $700 million helps kids in this country learn how to count and read or puts a meal into the stomach of a child in any East African nation or buys medicine to combat any number of diseases in South East Asia, etc...
In the end it is Larry's money and he is free to do with it what he will.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
Free climber? Surely you must be joking. The difference between free climbing and sailing is profound. Last time I checked the sailing magazines, they don't run obituaries as part of the regularly featured contents.
Sound of sailing hitting the water: SPLASH!
Sound of a climbing hitting the rock/ground: SPLAT!
Please don't confuse climbers with a bunch of rich boys and their oversized bathtub toys.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
You haven't been reading sailing magazines. (Score:3, Insightful)
As they do have obituaries regularly. People are lost at sea all the time. Some are merely injured, but it is easy to be in life threatening situations.
You say "splash" as if the water is warm. Where I sail, inside of 15 minutes unprotected in the water you are looking at serious consequences and possible death.
When you've been in a small boat in 50 MPH winds and 5-10 foot seas, then you can come tell me its nothing like rock climbing.
Re:You haven't been reading sailing magazines. (Score:2)
Larry ellison has done ocean racing, not just America's cup.
Hell, in the little regattas we have here we have intense dangerous experiences.
Don't let the fact that it is the Americas cup have you assume along with all the rich-hating bedwetters posting here, that Larry isn't a real sailor.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
The OMB.
Cutting taxes increases tax revenue becuase the money that would otherwise be wasted by the government is invested, and that capital allows growth in the economy and job creation. Said job creation not only increases average wages but also increases the income to the federal government in income taxes at the lower level.
It sounds like you've been buying the anti-rich conspiracy theories of liberals... unfortunately they don't fit the real world economic model.
Re:I'm guessing you're not a sailor then. (Score:2)
And its a symptom of dyslexia you insensitive bastard!
(Seriously, though I'm joking about the bastard part.)
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
Each crew contains a pair of strong armed men to run the winches.
They are rich boys, let them have their fun. The competition has bred some innovation in the boats and their design, proving the ol' adage that racing improves the breed. Which is something the business world needs to keep in mind.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to say this, but normally the best sailors still win the America's Cup. This is why once it finally made it to New Zealand, all the New Zealand sailors got bought by foreign conglomerates. New Zealand's not a rich country, but not only does it boast many of the world's best sailors, it also has one Bruce Farr, one kickass sailboat technologist. So we got a double edge. Not now though, cause Russell Coutts and others all belong to Japanese and other outside interests.
Just look at the Volvo Ocean Race (formerly the Whitbread Round-the-World Yacht Race) and you'll find New Zealanders on every single boat. Not bad considering there's only 3 million of us.
Some days I'm so patriotic it scares me. Go on,f find an Australian to mod me down
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2, Interesting)
I especially admire the national spirit and pride behind New Zealand's boats (not to leave out the Australians, I just can't remember a specific.). I remember either one or two cups ago when the Kiwi boat had a spinnaker signed by school children from all over the country. That was quite a symbol of national support. Most kids in the US don't even know what the America's Cup is.
As for who's better, New Zealand or Australia, I guess we'll find out in next year's cup.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can hardly say that it is just technology that wins. This guy has been sailing Optimists and P Classes [freehomepages.com] since he was a young lad. You can hardly call a 1947 and a 1923 desgined boat state of the art. The optimist is a complete pig to sail and he still won in that, even though all the boats were one design
What makes him a good sailor is years of skill, practice and a city where sailing is part of your school ciriculum from when you are 10 years old.
Also technology is making the sport a lot better to watch check out the Virtual Spectator [virtualspectator.com] software. cool.
Rock on Team New Zealand and hope we can keep the cup again!
Typo's do not make a fan make. (Score:2)
Still stand by my point: The use of technology in sports kills the sport every time.
Re:Typo's do not make a fan make. (Score:4, Insightful)
Naah. Sailing is technology - even a raft. Cars are technology too. If you banned technology from sports, you'd basically be left with running and fighting. Not even jumping - what are you going to jump over? Tech. is required to build the obstacles.
Agreed that F1 is dull now, but that's due to the rule changes as much as anything. My own opinion is that everything went downhill when refueling was introduced and it became possible to pass in the pits rather than having to do it on the track.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Typo's do not make a fan make. (Score:2)
What I mean, though, is electronic technology.
As soon as computers enter into a sport, its game over.
I can't think of a single sport that got *better* as a result of computer involvement - can you?
If so, I'd love to know.
At this rate, we're going to have to teach our kids how to throw dwarves
Re:Typo's do not make a fan make. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah - F1, the one we both agree is dull today.
When computer-designed models were being stuck through wind tunnels, F1 was still exciting. Remember the Piquet/Prost, Prost/Senna Prost & Senna/Mansell battles? All good fun. And technology was high.
Then the artificial restrictions started coming in. Active suspension was banned (Lotus brought in active suspension in the 80s). Traction control - banned. Telemetry - certain forms banned. Planks of wood started getting nailed to the bottom of cars. Tyre technology was thrown backwards when slicks were abandoned. Turbos - out. Six-wheeled cars? Not allowed.
Unless there are clear safety reasons why a device should not be used (Brabham's suction fans spring to mind), in my opinion in a tech-based sport you should just step out of the way and let people get on with it.
Ironically, all these restrictions were brought in to help the smaller teams who had no budget. They are much further off the pace today than they were at the technological heyday.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Typo's do not make a fan make. (Score:2)
Passing has become more difficult, and that holds for many other races too. What they need is a fork on the road with the track merging back up a mile down. You can make both tracks different yet quite challenging (turns, chicanes, straightaways) and see who comes up ahead at the other end, where the two tracks merge once again.
Drivers would choose either one depending on their skills, car setting, current fuel load and tire freshness.
Re:About as boring as Formula One is now... (Score:2)
On the other hand, these are all also reasons why the AC should be more interesting than F!, because it is so impossible to refine everything. If we are a long way from a comupter winning an F1 race then we are ages away from having a computer win a sailing race.
Kiwi sailors are fine ... (Score:2)
*bah-dumpsh*
Thank you, thank you very much! I think we've about exhausted the subject, so she's now free to go
Forget about the race ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Forget about the race ... (Score:2)
Re:Forget about the race ... (Score:2)
All the millionaires I know are fabulously boring, petty, grabby individuals whose only topics of conversation while boating are the price of real estate and the cost of legal services.
Re:Forget about the race ... (Score:2)
It always was about technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course tactics, knowledge / better prediction of the weather and sheer luck are also factors, but none of them are as important as how fast your ship is. In the long run the fastest ship with a competent shipper wins.
Just the fact that it looks more high tech these days doesn't mean technology wasn't there before
As a sailor... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure thing, these machines are really awesome, at least for 5 hours of consecutive sailing.
But the the real thing, at least in my opinion, are long distance races.
The Volvo Ocean Race, Cape Town - Rio, Jules Verne Trophy and so on.
The greatest thing about the AC is not the real sailing but the High Tech Stuff that drips down to other races and classes.
Vendee Globe (Score:2)
Sailing around the world, alone, in 100 days is a lot more exciting than any Americas Cup. And it doesn't have the jingoistic aspects either.
Re:Vendee Globe (Score:2, Insightful)
However, one must not forget that they are not really alone. They are in constant contact with people on land that will study the wheater and suggest better route. They people on land will also have a list of the things that must be done on the boat to keep it in top shape.
Yes, they are alone in handling the boat (and suffering all the bad thing that can happen on the boat - especially in the south) but this is really a team effort.
Yes and no. (Score:2)
OTOH, it can be a bit like Apollo 13, especially when they are in the deepest parts of the southern ocean -- they can be in constant radio contact but nobody can do anything to help you.
And doing a spinnaker gybe on a 60 foot boat alone in the southern ocean truly is an amazing feat.
Re:As a sailor... (Score:2)
And the BOC Challenge, or whatever the Around the World alone race is now called.
Those rock!
Talk about "real sailors"!
Re:As a sailor... (Score:2)
A couple of day race, in classes, so yachts of almost any size can compete.
Two 'billion' dollar articles in one morning (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody over as OSDN must have had to pay bills last night.
* = That would be the Royal We.
Don't mind the Us Navy.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wonder how much that cost the tax payers.
Kiwi's have the America's Cup (Score:3, Informative)
Only then does the winner get to sail against the Kiwi defenders.
Take a look outside those borders - there's more to the America's Cup than 2 yanks with too much money.
Re:Kiwi's have the America's Cup (Score:2)
However, the contest to represent America should be called the America's Cup. It's the name of the final that needs to be changed.
Re:Kiwi's have the America's Cup (Score:2)
Racing as a skill (Score:3, Interesting)
And for real interest watch old working boats racing, slow as hell and there is always a crash or near crash.
Forbes (Score:2)
Am I the only one that finds it interesting that Forbes didn't mention [forbes.com] this as one of the ways to spend a billion dollars [slashdot.org]?
Must've been a slip-up there somewhere.
ObThreadMerge (Score:2)
30 to 40 million R&D? (Score:2)
And I would have enough left-over that we could re-introduce the school lunch program... but I know, I know it's important to show the youth of America that we can win the cup.
I'm suprised (Score:3, Funny)
Another good reason to fight software piracy (Score:2)
A couple of facts (Score:5, Informative)
The America's Cup is not held every three years. There is no set schedule. At the start of each cycle, the Defender and the Challenger of Record sit down and negotiate a schedule. This time around, Team New Zealand and Prada decided on a three year schedule. Last time around, Team New Zealand and the New York Yacht Club agreed on a five year schedule. To my knowledge, the shortest schedule was one year (with the New Zealand "big boat" challenge against Dennis Connor's catamaran - what a fiasco!) in 1988.
Second, there are three American syndicates this year. The poster was correct that two of them are backed by Larry Ellison (Oracle BWM from the Golden Gate Yacht Club) and Craig McCaw (OneWorld from the Seattle Yacht Club). However, there is a third American syndicate this time around: Dennis Connor's Stars and Stripes campaign, from the New York Yacht Club. Dennis Connor (aka Mr America's Cup) has participated in every America's Cup going back over 20 years. He's lost the cup twice, and won it four times. This is also the first time in several America's Cup cycles that Dennis Connor has had the money from his backers to support a two-boat campaign, making him very dangerous to retake the cup.
I also want to take issue with the tone of the original posting. Yes, it takes a lot of money to run a competitive America's Cup campaign these days, but that money isn't being thrown away. There is a lot of community service being done by most of the syndicates. Also, the research done into boat design does trickle down to the common man, making sailing more fun for everyone else. Plus, it's a good venue for advertising and since each syndicate by definition must represent its home country, a good way to be patriotic as well. Most of all though, it's a grand spectacle. Why not sit back and enjoy the show?
Halmonster
Re:A couple of facts (Score:2)
Billionaire Boys - Bad Name Choice, Murder (OT) (Score:2)
There are three American teams, not two (Score:3, Insightful)
Team New Zealand currently holds the America's Cup. The challengers all compete in the Louis Vuitton Cup for the right to challenge NZ. The complete list of challengers is available here. [lvcup.com]
As sports go, you'd be hard pressed to find one with more history, integrity, and passion than sailing. If you've never been in a sailboat race, then you have no idea the exhiliration that sailing provides. There is nothing like it.
No matter how many millions are spent, sailing is still much more art than science. How do you know where the wind is going to blow next? How can you know what your opponent is going to do next? Sailing is equal parts skill, training, and smarts - with just enough luck thrown in to make sure it never gets dull.
This isn't tiddlywinks, either. People get hurt, and people die. I was once almost knocked out and thrown overboard when a spinnaker pole came crashing down on me while I was working foredeck. When a 10-knot wind fills 300 sq. meters of sail, you're talking about some serious energy that has to be dealt with.
And if you're still not convinced how hardcore this can be, check out this site. [aroundalone.com] One person. One boat. All the way around the friggin' world. There's a simple beauty there that is rarely seen in the world these days.
NZ didn't spend that much to win/retain the cup (Score:2, Insightful)
Money helps but it also comes down to ideas and being a nation of sailors.
Get your red socks on
No red sock campaign
Re:a limit ? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I agree. I think infinity is a legitimate upper limit. The solution to poverty is not stealing from Peter to pay Paul but to bring captialism and democracy to all countries. You will notice that poor nations are those with dictators and tyrants not Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Second of all, what is passed as capitalism and democracy does not cure powerty, take a look around, I can see tons of poor people in the western countries.
But thinking that the "rich" is the reason for poverty is taking the easy way out, just like Hitler blamed the Jews or Bin Laden and his brainwashed follows thinks that america is the reason why so many suffers in the middle east.
I have my own theories as to why the world is the way it is, but I will keep that to myself.
Totally unrelated but much more to subject, $700 million could probably build you one really neat OS. When will there be an American Cup in OSes???
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Yes, we have a name for them. Lazy idiots. One of easiest things to do in a Western country is break the poverty line. That's why floods of people from non-Western countries flock to the US and Europe. They are not lazy idiots but suffer from economic oppression in their home countries. If they can do it, not knowing our language, culture or geography, why can't a bunch of white people do it?
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Sorry, its not my responsiblirty, nor is there bandwidth here to educate you in economics.
But you should go take some courses if you really care about this subject.
I find it interesting that you can say things that are flat out wrong, and known to be wrong by everyone with a basic economics understanding, without providing any reason or evidence to support them.
But when I point out that this is wrong, you demand proof.
You engage in a wholesale denial of reality-- look at india which has eliminated more poverty in the last 20 years than the US ever has, in terms of number of people-- and insist that I prove to you that the world exists.
And on top of that you try to insult me-- as if it wasn't patently obvious that you don't have a reasoned response, you have to try and get a dig in there to prove it.
Heh.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Its not thought that proves a point, its action. In the last 100 years, the countries that have adopted a capitalist economic system have prospered and those that have adopted nanny-state socialism and planned-economy communism have failed. That's why former Russia was a failure with communism and modern Russia is kicking economic butt with capitalism--got to love their flat tax system...stolen from Reagan Republicans no less!
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Yea, Sweden [instapundit.com] is such an economic powerhouse.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Sheesh. The US didn't put Pinochet in power, he came to power himself.
The US *DID* manage to send Milton Friedman there to reform their economic system. Uner pinochet capitalism was allowed to exist and as a result Chile is a rather modern country with a relatively robust country.
I've been there. I'd feel safer living in Santiago than some US Cities (like Houston.)
I love it when liberals cite examples that prove them wrong as evidence for their point-- it makes me secure in the assumption that liberalism is based on complete ignorance of economics, rather than some rational worldview I havent' come to understand yet.
Note that Germany is kicking Frances butt. These post war nations that adopted more capitalistic approaches did better than those that adopted socialistic approaches (like france.) France is no USSR, but its no USA either.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
You're sidestepping the point. Twice even.
Countries that adopt capitalistic systems economically beat those that adopt socialistic systems.
Even an unfree country like Chile did very well when it took Milton Friedman's advice.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
I cite history.
You call my dogmatic and claim I am wrong.
But you provide no reason or evidence to support your position.
Anyone who has studied economics DOES know this. That doesn't meant there aren't economicts without scruples who will lie and ignore reality to try and suck at the government teat a bit longer.
You have yet to explain india away. Its appropriate that you just ignore it.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
I'll take that as concession that capitalism has done more for the poor worldwide than any other system-- look at india, which you don't deny, a country with probably the most poor people next to china.
Anyway, what gives you the right to say how larry ellison or anyone else should be allowed to spend their money?
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Well, Milton Friedman's son certainly agrees with me, as I've talked to him. I can' say for sure about Milton Friedman, but given that I am repeating what he proved to the world, I can say with pretty high confidence that he does.t
Keynes was the source of the poverty you are trying to eradicate. Yes, pretty much all economists have agreed with Friedman in latter years--- sure they disagree on minor points-- but capitalism is not in doubt.
I note that you have failed to cite an economist that agrees with your position, Marx does not count.
OK, Marx does count- anyone can call themselves an economist, but he's been completely discredited. Yet he *does* agree with you.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Yeah, marry yourself to Keynes. That's a stone that's sinking.
I'm sure its just dogma that has doubled India's per-capita income level, starting the year AFTER they rejected Keynes mixed approach.
Keynes has been disproven, discarded, and discredited.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Pray tell, what would a bunch of former nomadic tribesmen in a desert be doing without western Capitalism's need for oil?
Oh, right. Still wandering around in the desert. An 11th century lifestyle might be fine for Osama, but it's not good enough for me.
Nor, I suspect, is it good enough for even the poorest of us. How come Japan (every city bombed to ash) and Hong Kong (a pathetic trading outpost) have become economic powerhouses, and Israel (probably the only goddamn place in the middle east without oil!) have managed to increase their citizens' standard of living while that of the Middle East continues to stagnate?
A hint might lie in the economic systems of the countries in question. One of these economic systems is not like the others.
> I was as horrified by September the 11th as anyone but come on! These things do happen for a reason. Do something about it.
You mean, something like "sieze the oil fields for our own use, since it's Capitalism that knew what the oil was good for, Capitalism that turned ugly pools of hydrocarbons into skyscrapers and airplanes and automobiles and color TVs and $0.99 cheeseburgers and $99 bottles of wine, and Capitalism that's raised the standard of living in every country it's ever been tried, and to hell with any two-bit tinpot prince and religious crackpot who stands in our way?"
Sure. I'm willing to do something. Where do I sign up, and when do we start?
Actually, scratch that. I "sign up" for that war every day, and I "start" when I go to work in the morning and guzzle down a cup of adrenaline. I do it with [the $0.60 I have left after Uncle Sam's looters steal "their" part from] every dollar I earn, and every dollar of profit my employer earns.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2, Insightful)
We have the richest poor people in the world in America -- our public housing comes with basic cable. Most of US poverty is related to extreme stupidity, drug use and mental illness -- not due to economic conditions within our nation. If you want to see poverty, head over to the third world. We do not have 100% capitalism due to the New Deal policies which the Democratic party keeps voting to keep in place. And no we do not have true democracy, I should have said Republic. If we had a true Democracy, we could just vote the poor out of the country since the middle class and rich out number the poor by a large majority.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
First, many people are ignorant. Stupidity is not the same as ignorance. You are may ignorant, but not stupid. How does ignorance relate to poverty? An example occurred in my city last year. A black high school student at a school in a poor area of town applied for a scholarship. It is generally accepted that she had a very good chance to receive the scholarship. However, she did not have access to a typewriter, so the application had to be hand printed. Because the application was hand printed, the school counselor did not submit the application. The parents should have known to find a typewriter, but they were ignorant of the consequences.
In my own life, information keeps me out of poverty even without a job. I know where to buy cheap food, I know were to buy cheap clothes, I know how to make things that I cannot afford to buy. My family knows how to play the money game to create wealth.
Second, the U.S. is a very rich country. However the wealth is very top heavy. First, though out public housing is good, it is not adequate. For instance, according to this Harvard University article, the waiting time is three to seven years [harvard.edu] in Boston. Boston housing may be a bit scarce, but it is really not much different in other major cities. In my neck of the woods, public housing has been systematically destroyed over the past 5 years.
As far as drug use is concerned, I know people who use drugs. Some of them have money, some of them don't. Some then can support $1000 a week habits legally, some can't. We see the poor crack users on TV because the rich cocaine users won't let the cameras into the country club.
Money is not distributed equally. I am not going to get into a argument about what money is where, and how much should be where. Suffice it to say that this 1999 census report indicates that a black household earns about 62 cent for every dollar a white household earns. Some of this may be education, because a high school education earns you about 64 cent for every dollar a graduate of a 4-year college earns, but that only applies if you believe black people are stupid. It is hard to get into college if you scholarship application is discarded by your counselor. [census.gov]
Finally, I am well aware of third world countries. People are not necessarily poor. The people I know are very rich. We have cars, mansions, country houses, chauffeurs, maids, everything. What is missing is a vibrant middle class. Your most ignorant statement is we could just vote the poor out of the country. The middle class is a drain on the rich. The poor are their servants. The middle class are the stockholders that are complaining to Washington about the stick scandals that destroyed their pensions. The rich are the one complaining to Washington that their sweetheart deals and multi-million retirement pensions are being outlawed. The middle class are the union workers demanding higher wages that can cut company profits. The rich are the one create fictitious trades to keep the stock up so that their enormous compensations are justified. The poor do nothing but work, consumer, sleep and die. The poor are no threat rich, so why would the rich bother to align themselves with the middle class, the exact people who threaten the prosperity of the rich, to expel a perfectly harmless and useful group?
If you are going to make blanket statement, at least cite some real references.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Don't want to start a flame war and you start out with insults? Good job. Why didn't you buy the poor African American family a typewriter "Mr. I. Care"? Geesh. You know this is happening, you do nothing and call me insensitive. Sheesh!.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
I am sure your are clicking, 'Fair'. Thanks!
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
We have the richest poor people in the world. Our poorest are richer than the average person in many countries.
And when you look at it, you notice that the difference between this country and those is that they were not free, or not capitalistic for the last 100 years.
You could line every country up based on how much democracy, freedom and capitalism has-- from very much to almost none. And whne you do so, you can then look at the average standard of living.
Without exception the average standard of living is a proxy for how free and capitalistic the country is.
That's why, say, france is poorer than the US-- rather free, but too socialistic and it hurts their economy.
To bring it on topic, France has a great boat building industry (worlds' supplier of luxury catamarans) and a hell of a sailing industry as well, second only to england in sailing tradition (or maybe ahead of england). But their America's cup competitors are less able to draw on the resources of large companies because they have fewere large companies.
In a sense, socialism will probably cause france to loose the americas cup again!
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Capitalism RELIES on cheap, almost-slave labor.
Actually that was the line fed during the cold war to people in poor countries, but it is not true.
Capitalism relies on finding more efficient ways to produce something through the works of a free market and competition. As material goods become cheaper the wealth of society and individuals in it increases.
People with capital have power, and as other people with power do, they often abuse it by invading countries, or underpaying for labour whenever they can get away with it, but that is equally true of the people who belonged to the aparatchik in the USSR or to the ruling classes in other non-capitalist countries.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Wealth should not be spread like butter on white bread, it should be earned either through labor or smart investing. Democracy/Republic and Capitalism has been proven to solve poverty. When it is practiced, people prosper. Communism, Socialism, Fascism and Monoarchies all fail their citizens. The third world is chuck full of those ideologies.
The falicy of the "Rich get richer and the poor get poorer" has invaded so many minds because of our anti-Western culture education system. In fact, the last 50 years of human existance has seen nearly 50% of the world's population reach a "middle class" income level of the average Portuguese citizen. No other time in history have that many people been able to have leisure time on our planet.
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
What is wrong with Portugal? Its a modern European nation and an EU member state. Not Bangladesh.
"Rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is backed up by hard numbers in many studies I've seen. What makes you say it's a fallacy? The thing I'm looking at is the relative gap between the rich and the poor and that does seem to be growing. In the US of course... I have no idea what you Portugese fellers are up to.
Hard numbers from whom? Organizations that what to redistribute wealth from Western nations to non-Western nations?
Re:a limit ? (Score:2)
Really? We put the taliban in power in afganistan and saddam in power in iraq?
Only if you think we're responsible for everything that happens in the world.
Those countries are not kept poor because we want them to be-- you don't understand economics. Those countries being rich is what we wnat htem to be-- then we could sell them everything.
Imagine if the average income of every person in china trippled overnight-- it would not only be great for china, fueling their economy, but would create the largest growth in US stocks we've ever seen in a matter of weeks. Because they'd all have money to buy our stuff.
Capitalism combined with democracys is the ONLY THING that's ever solved poverty. To deny it is to flat out deny reality. Look at india-- it had a socialist planned economy after independance for many years, and went nowhere. In the last 20 years they have moved to a capitalist economy and the *AVERAGE INCOME* of an indian (including ALL THE POOR PEOPLE) has DOUBLED in 20 years.
Democracy and capitalism are curing poverty in India. Why won't you let them do so here?
The idea that wealth "needs" to be spread evenly or that capitalism is unfair is nieve-- and a bill of goods sold to you by people who want your money.
The difference between them and capitalists is they use guns, and capitalists use free choice-- you don't have to buy their products, but you have to pay taxes. The "war on poverty" is an excuse to get you to not complain when you pay-- but don't be so stupid to start believing that crap.
Re:naive (Score:2)
Please explain to me why wealth needs to be spread evenly, and I should be allowed to sit at home and not work and expect my fair share of the wealth?
The I'll point out the mathematical problems with this, and maybe you'll see that those who are wealthy earned their money and those who are poor either haven't had a chance to earn it yet, or choose not to.
Some people choose to live in a sailboat travelling around the world on less than $5,000 a year in income.... they are "poor" and below the poverty line, but they have chosen that life and I say they have a right to it.
The liberal idea that the rich somehow stole the money they have is just bitterness at sitting on your ass and wasting your productive years.
Take responsibility for your own situation.
When I meet someone who's hard on their luck, my instinct is to help.
When I meet a mugger who wants my money by force, I either defend it or tell them to go to hell.
You are the latter, you are not talking about people who are hard on their luck and how we should try to help them. You are talking about the forced redistribution of wealth at gunpoint.
Which makes you, morally, no better than the average mugger on this point.
Re:Not to troll, but... (Score:2)
Did you read the article? (Score:2)
Also your defintiion of news for nerds may != mine despite us both being nerds. That's what makes the world grand correct?
Re:Unbreakable (Score:2)
Re:We could see a return to commercial sailing shi (Score:2)
Re:Total uselessness (Score:2)
I don't really know how one would criticize these people. It's a garish and selfish way to spend money...but it's their money to spend. As John Cleese once said, "If life were fair, Dan Quayle would be making a living asking 'Do you want fries with that?'"
Back to the grindstone.
Re:Total uselessness (Score:2)
TV show or movie you watched or a computer
game you played. Why did you spend hours
on it, instead of volunteering to fight
poverty?
Re:Way to help the economy! (Score:2, Insightful)
Say hard work for 10 years earns the guy $2 million dollars. Fine. You tell him to go donate $2 million to a poor country!
But you have been playing video games, family, socialing for 10 years. He has the same right to tell you to BEFRIEND, SOCIALIZE, AND HAVE FUN with everybody in that same country FOR 10 years (with no contact home)!
He's away from his 10 years of money, you're away from your ten years of family social and entertainment -- similarly striking to both of you.And, you both will have to rebuild your money / relationships all over again...
But now, the rich guy changes ideals. He now wants entertainment. So he utilizes his assets ($40M), giving up money. So what! And say you want money now. So you utilize your assets (friends social contacts, etc) and get another job, giving up some entertainment/family time.
See how it all balances out?
I never understand why people are jealous of rich / money-successful people. If you want to be rich, then do it. I'm not rich at all but let's be serious here.
Ignoring the fundamentals (Score:2)
It would accomplish something, but nothing in the realm of what you wish. Part of our (US/Europe/most of the 1st World) economy depends on free ownership of business. Ellison's/Gate's/Perot's extreme wealth does not come from his salary, but from his founder's share of the business. Most of Gate's wealth is not liquid, but depends on his trusting investment in the stock market. If Microsoft crashes tomorrow, Bill goes down the drain with it. If he tries to liquify his holdings, Microsoft goes down the tubes before he completes a quarter of his trades.
These kinds of guys would freely sacrifice their incomes in lieu of stock ownership. In fact, the ability for someone to create a business, assume financial risk, and either sink or swim (reaping the bene's if you swim) is one of the reasons that our system works so well. If you limit *this*, you destroy people's creative, entrepreneural tendencies and tank the Western world's economy as we know it. Simply put, there is no correlation between the highest wage earners and highest net worth; on the contrary, the highest wage earners would tend NOT to have the kind of money saved up to spend on the America's Cup.
Now, let's take your wage-limiting scenario; we still have the extreme rich that own the businesses, but now we have a working class that is totally unmotivated to reach for the top. I'll never make 3 times more than the janitor, so why should I go to med school? Why should I fight to improve this process? Why should I assume the responsibility of tech lead on this project? Our system thrives on people's willingness to assume *risk* and reap the rewards. Like it or not, you will not get enough people to perform the high performance/high stress jobs if you take away the lofty benefits. You want fries with that? Wealth will *always* be distributed on a bell curve, regardless the system. Get over it.