Comments on: Blog from the top of the world

Blog from the top of the world

turbanhead — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:17:26 -0800

Blog from the top of the world A blog from Everest could prove to be the most remote location for a web diary yet.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:23:54 -0800

It'll be interesting to see how his composing/typing skills deteriorate as his brain cells start to die. Enough about Everest, already. Not a bash on the post, but just the media's obsession with this very high but (from a mountaineering perspective) actually quite dull mountain. It's becoming the geographical equivalent of Michael Jackson. Or maybe it's a good thing - focus attention on this peak and leave the rest of the interesting, aesthetic, and/or truly challenging ones alone...

By: plep

plep — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:25:22 -0800

[this is good] There's at least one weblog from Antarctica.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:27:23 -0800

Surely they must have done one from space, by now. I'm sure Kottke would volunteer.

By: mattr

mattr — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:47:25 -0800

The Antarctica Log is excellent....brilliant photos....I like the bit right at the bottom where she talks of 10000 yr old ice for her Gin and Tonics...

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:00:48 -0800

gottabefunky: Why is Everest dull from a mountaineering perspective? What makes a "good" or an "exciting" mountain? What are some of those mountains? you've peak-ed my interest...

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:16:08 -0800

For those that are interested, read Outside Magazine's archive of Everest stories, or visit the first internet cafe at the base of Everest.

By: ciderwoman

ciderwoman — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:19:59 -0800

If you'd like to see more of Everest then try out these 360 degree pictures from base camp 1 up to the summit. Requires Quicktime and rather pretty.

By: dglynn

dglynn — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:35:19 -0800

Everest isn't considered as challenging a climb as peaks like K2. It's also crowded, dirty, and tends to be covered with amateurs paying people to drag them up the mountain. Of course, it can still kill you just as dead as any other pile of rocks, but mountains like K2 and others are considered more difficult. In fact K2 pretty much tries to kill you for just even looking at it. A climber named Greg Child has some interesting writings on big peaks and different climbers. Of course, Krakauer's Into Thin Air is what got mountaineering writing into the mainstream.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:40:11 -0800

from my limited understanding, everest is not a challenging CLIMB - the CLIMBING itself. assuming you are taking the 'standard' route, what makes everest a bitch is it's remoteness, the distances involved and the toxic altitude. if you can survive the weeks of walking, the loss of appetite, the loss of the ability to sleep, and the fog of stupidity which descends around your cranium, all due to oxygen deprivation, the actual CLIMBING isn't that difficult - from an experienced mountaineers perspective. didn't some guy literally crawl up the north face solo a few years back? THAT had to be challenging. on preview, i learned most of this reading Krakauer's Into Thin Air.

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:49:03 -0800

Everest is no longer even considered "remote" what with the helicopter approaches and the internet cafe at base camp. The climbing doesn't even start until you're over 20,000 feet. If you take the 9,000 feet of actual climbing on the standard route on Everest you've got nothing but a tedious and dangerous (but not the 'fun' kind of dangerous) climb through an icefall, a long slog up a face, and a boring walk along a ridge. The only reason it's a challenge at all is because it's so high. Take many other 8,000 meter peaks (such as K2) and the aesthetics are supposed to be so much better. More remote, cleaner, less 'no fear' t-shirt wearing clowns, and much prettier terrain to be climbing in. Everest has become nothing but a trophy for the rich and "adventurous" and a cash cow for climbers who need to support themselves.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:42:13 -0800

What everyone above said. If you can climb a stairmaster for a week straight, wearing three sets of clothing and a 50-pound pack and breathing through only one nostril - and you're somewhat lucky - you can climb Everest. If you can afford it. Most mountaineering is much more difficult, and interesting, than that.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:47:53 -0800

Now I'm curious - any members done Everest? Which Mefite has gone the highest? I've hit 19,500' (5900 m) twice, on Kilimanjaro and Cotopaxi (Ecuador), and it almost killed me both times. Only thing the kept me going the second time was Billie Holiday on the CD player (What a little moonlight can do...) [/horn tooting]

By: jragon

jragon — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:05:16 -0800

Now I can understand how I must sound when I complain that Microsoft actually isn't that innovative, and there are plenty of other companies to admire (more) for their contributions to the tech world. Everest will always be mistakenly understood by the public as the biggest challenge because it has the highest elevation. Big deal. Microsoft, on the other hand ... ;)

By: joaquim

joaquim — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:25:17 -0800

From the BBC link: "Mr Gariano has a much more mundane day job - tending the pot plants at the KMI's laboratories. " "Dude, what mountain?"

By: quadrinary

quadrinary — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:39:38 -0800

i've hit 14,000 ft a few times, snowmass peak in colorado, the maroon bells, and a couple other random 14'ers in colo. i've climed a bit in the hindu kush outside the city limits of kabul a few years back, that was some incredible climbing, but no one had an altimiter or GPS, so i've no idea how high i actually was.

By: Songdog

Songdog — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:47:49 -0800

I've been just shy of 14,000 feet at the top of Mauna Kea on two occasions (by car, mind you), and I felt a little lightheaded there. It's hard to imagine what a sustained trip to twice that altitude would be like.

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:48:47 -0800

14,211 on Rainier and I've got the PEZ dispenser to prove it. My dreams of climbing Denali were interrupted by Real Life(tm).

By: culberjo

culberjo — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:33:02 -0800

That 360 degree pictures link is really cool. I'm keeping a mundane little blog for my friends and family while I'm at the South Pole (which incidently is at 10635ft). We use old military satellites such as LES and Marisat for internet connectivity. A lot of us down here are internet junkies, especially now that it's dark. We may have the "most remote location" thing in the can.

By: Songdog

Songdog — Wed, 30 Apr 2003 05:42:16 -0800

In this context, does remote mean farthest away (if so, from what?), or accessible to the least people, or something else? I wonder whether there's a blog from earth orbit ;) By the way, culberjo, great site (I like your photos!). You've got to be the most remotely located Mefite.