Google To Fund Ideas That Will Change the World 165
Peace Corps Online writes "This week, as part of their tenth birthday celebration, Google announced the launch of project ten to the 100th, a project designed to inspire and fund the development of ideas that will help to change the world. They have called on members of the public to share their ideas for solutions that will help as many people as possible in the global community, offering a $10 million prize pool to back the development of those chosen as winners. 'We know there are countless brilliant ideas that need funding and support to come to fruition,' says Bethany Poole, Project Marketing Manager for Google. 'These ideas can be big or small, technology-driven or brilliantly simple — but they need to have impact.' The project's website asks entrants to classify their ideas into one of eight categories listed as Community, Opportunity, Energy, Environment, Health, Education, Shelter and Everything Else. Members of the public have until October 20th to submit their ideas by completing a simple form and answering a few short questions about their idea."
First Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Idea (Score:5, Funny)
a gun that shoots cookies. either at 600f/s or just gently enough to hit my mouth.
Noo! that would be the ultimate weapon. Armies would drop their weapons to be shot! Children would run into war and battlefields thereby preventing the armies who refuse to give up their arms to stop shooting to not hit the children.
No sir! Your idea is extremely dangerous and anti-American! Why peace would break out along with our waistlines!
What next? C-130 tankers with milk?!? And then what?!? It'll escalate. You'd have others inventing pizza guns and then tankers with beer! There would be no end and our planet would degrade into obese partying!
Someone call the cops on the parent degenerate.
Re: (Score:1)
it is well-established historical fact (Score:1)
that the belgians defeated the german blitzkrieg in world war ii with waffles
the feared waffen-ss was helpless before the onslaught of delicious belgian waffles. yes, you heard me right, waffling defeated wafflen
it is so like you neocon warmongering americans to deny that Pastry Promulgates Peace(tm)
Re:First Idea (Score:5, Funny)
I tried that once, but apparently being grounded does not legally count as false imprisonment.
I'll get you one day, Parent Degenerate! Shakes fist at basement ceiling.
Re: (Score:1)
Google is watching! (Score:1)
Who profits? (Score:3, Insightful)
So who actually profits from this? Does Google sift the data and then start up in-house projects or do they run a program like the MacArthur genius grant, where the money is provided with little to no strings attached?
Given the earlier controversy over their EULAs containing clauses to forfeit all rights to your IP, this isn't just an idle question.
Re:Who profits? (Score:4, Informative)
Terms of service
Google created this call for submissions to engage Google users and the global community in a discussion about how to change the world. Participants are invited to submit proposals about how best to improve our world in a variety of key areas. Users are asked to vote on their favorite proposal. The most popular ideas will be put before a panel of experts to be considered for implementation by Google.
By participating, you agree to be bound by the Google Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS [google.com]) and the Google Privacy Policy (http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html [google.com]), both documents herein incorporated by reference, as well as the following additional terms (altogether "Terms"). If you choose to include a video, you also agree to be bound by YouTube's Terms of Use (http://www.youtube.com/t/terms [youtube.com]).
1. Participation: Google will post instructions, restrictions and guidelines for this call for submissions on the Project 10100 website. You agree to adhere to these materials. Google reserves the right to reject your proposal or terminate your participation should you not adhere to these materials or the Terms. Google will email you if your idea is chosen as a finalist.
2. Intellectual property rights: You warrant and represent that any content you submit is your original creation and does not infringe any third party rights, including without limitation, copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, privacy, and publicity, and that the content is not otherwise illegal or made or submitted in violation of any contractual obligation you might have with a third party.
As between you and Google, you retain ownership of any intellectual and industrial property rights (including moral rights) you have in and to your submission.
As a condition of participation, you grant Google, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display your submission and the proposal provided therein (1) for the purposes of allowing Google, the advisory panel and users to evaluate your idea for purposes of the call for submissions, (2) in connection with advertising and promotion via communication to the public or other groups, including, but not limited to, the right to make screenshots, animations and video clips available for promotional purposes and (3) for the purposes of putting your submitted proposal into effect.
You agree that Google has final authority regarding this call for submission and the selection of the ideas to be considered for implementation. You acknowledge that your submission might be similar to ideas submitted by other participants and/or proposals independently developed by Google, and that Google does not need to recognize your submission should your idea not be the source of the proposal or proposals ultimately implemented. You further acknowledge that even if your proposal is selected by Google, Google is not compelled to implement your proposal in its entirety, or at all. Google reserves the right in its sole discretion to incorporate your proposal or any other ideas into the project or projects finally selected for implementation
3. Privacy: You agree that personal data you disclose as part of this call for submissions, including name, phone number, and email address, may be processed, stored, shared and otherwise used for the purposes and within the context of the call
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
you grant Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display for the purposes of putting your submitted proposal into effect.
This looks rather dangerous. Since IANAL, can somebody explain whether this would mean that Google would be able to implement the idea themselves?
I think that's the *point*, actually (Score:3, Informative)
Notice this, right at the start:
Google isn't giving this money to the folks with the winning ideas. They're using the money themselves to enact your great idea.
This is clarified by the FAQ -- once the ideas are chosen, they will start an RFP process to choose who will do the implementation (I would assume they will also have Google people involved in the implementation at various levels). You (as th
Re: (Score:2)
Why not read the TOS before spouting stupid questions...
You must be new here.
Re:Who profits? Peek at the Terms of Service (Score:2, Informative)
"As between you and Google, you retain ownership of any intellectual and industrial property rights (including moral rights) you have in and to your submission."
It would seem that the creator of the idea *may* profit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Q: What do I get if my idea is chosen? A: You get good karma and the satisfaction of knowing that your idea might truly help a lot of people."
Doesn't sound like profit is the name of the game here.
Re: (Score:2)
"Q: What do I get if my idea is chosen? A: You get good karma and the satisfaction of knowing that your idea might truly help a lot of people."
Doesn't sound like profit is the name of the game here.
Not for the idea submitter, no. Google may profit from the implementation of the idea -- they're handling that side of it, so this isn't anything like the MacArthur genius grant, etc -- but I think primarily in terms of image.
Basically, they are looking to splash out some money implementing a cool philanthropic project (which costs some money but gains them cred and image), and to get the coolest possible idea they are asking outside people for suggestions as well.
It's not evil -- in the end, the world doe
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the ones they immediately fixed? Are you one of those paranoid whiners who has no problem with Microsoft but points out all the evil things that Google must be doing?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you but most Microsoft fans are pretty clueless as a whole. It seems a bit ironic that you're include calling Google out on a problem or citing a historic problem with Google (that was not fixed "immediately" by any definition though I'll take "quickly" if you'd like but let's agree on the English language from here on out) as being someone who uses a Microsoft product or is somehow related to being a fan of Microsoft.
If a Microsoft problem shows up we all scream that we know what they di
Re: (Score:2)
How could you possibly have a problem with Google doing something like this?!
Re: (Score:2)
This? Oh nothing. Yet. That doesn't mean that I won't remain skeptical.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would you encourage the moderators to give you an Overrated mod? Flamebait can at least be meta-moderated, unlike the much-abused Overrated.
Disconnect between incentives and goals (Score:2)
The site says they've got $10 million sitting ready to implement these ideas.... but the idea submitter gets zero (or even any involvement in the process). So they're basically crowdsourcing the brainstorming step, and then will do a normal quote/bid process beyond that. So they've already made a disconnect -- people with truly great ideas are going to want to 1) have something to do with seeing them happen, and 2) want to benefit personally. (Even non-profits pay good salaries!) So I don't think this m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd be surprised at how many people would offer up their "wouldn't it be cool if...." ideas. I've submitted one already that probably won't win, but I have no knowledge of how to go about getting it implemented and wouldn't ever try, but if it were implemented, I could see how someone would benefit.
Any idea that people have that they would follow through with, sure, they'll keep it.....but if you aren't going to do anything with the idea, why not submit it and at least get credit for the idea.
My
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's assholes like you that prevent the world moving forward. Everything has its price in your world, even blood. Just maybe there are people out there who want better things for less fortunate people - no payment needed thanks !
Re: (Score:2)
people with truly great ideas are going to want to 1) have something to do with seeing them happen, and 2) want to benefit personally. (Even non-profits pay good salaries!) So I don't think this model provides adequate benefit to the idea owner to relinquish control of their intellectual property. Will the really good ideas come out?
If your idea is a slam-dunk winner for profitability, or if you expect to make money on an idea, go talk to a VC firm. If you've got a good idea you should be able to get it funded. The current system already works for this kind of idea.
What about all the ideas that could help many people, but require substantial investment and would at best break even? Outside of philanthropic efforts (such as this contest), the current system fails. VC firms won't touch something that won't turn a profit, and charitie
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe some of us aren't money grabbing assholes like you? Possibly (like Google) we want to give our ideas so that those less fortunate then us can benefit.
You sound like the kind of guy that asks for a pay check when sending a patch to an open source project. GTFO.
5 simple things (Score:1, Interesting)
1: Some renewable energy source that actually can handle dense loads 24/7. Solar can't. Nuclear really can't because contractors are too inept or corrupt to do a job right. Pretty much, fusion is the only thing we got going.
2: Batteries (supercaps preferably) with an energy density approaching gasoline.
3: Automatic pilot for cars so dense highways can be created to allow for the maximum density out there, so one drunk driver wrecking doesn't hamstring thousands of people.
4: Reliable, reusable space v
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, if you have fusion going, then wtf are you doing applying to google for some share of a 10MM grant?! You could have billions in VC funding.
EMC2 corp... (Score:2)
Dude, if you have fusion going, then wtf are you doing applying to google for some share of a 10MM grant?! You could have billions in VC funding.
You really missed the begging Bussard did between the time he DID have fusion going and the time he died, didn't you?
He even begged Google. They put his talk on their web site [google.com] and didn't give him any bux.
= = = =
Eventually the Navy dribbled out enough money for the next set of lab work, which should have been done as of last month. Now we're waiting for the Navy t
Re: (Score:2)
1: Some renewable energy source that actually can handle dense loads 24/7.
SIMPLE things?!? You mean "Simple in concept but impossible in reality?" Yeah, fusion fits that bill. Another idea: the prepetual motion+ machine. Not only does it move forever, it turns a turbine to generate power. From nothing.
Also zero-point energy. That sounds interesting. I'd be suprised if someone hadn't proven it is impossible, or a misunderstanding of some physics concept.
Perfect solutions to energy problems probably will always be fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
3: Automatic pilot for cars so dense highways can be created to allow for the maximum density out there, so one drunk driver wrecking doesn't hamstring thousands of people.
Don't drink and drive: spill and you might short out your autodriver.
Re:5 simple things (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let's see, that means that you're simply going to dismiss the technology because you assert that the people doing the work aren't capable of doing it correctly. Do you have any proof, or are you just expressing your own anti-nuclear bias. Oh, and before I forget, fusion is a form of nuclear energy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck burning coal in your power plants without involving any atom nuclei.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar doesn't cut it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar power is the only form of practical fusion power we have now, it is likely to be the only form of practical fusion power for the next several decades at least, and it scales from small dedicated solar powered devices to multiple megawatt sized solar farms. As for it being 24/7 we don't need that so much, the grid itself doesn't run peak capacity 24/7. We typically get larger demands during the heat (and sunshine) of mid day, when solar really rocks. As an adjunct to what we have now, a few billion pan
You are incorrect, solar is 24/7 (Score:2)
"Some renewable energy source that actually can handle dense loads 24/7. Solar can't. "
Wrong, look into solar thermal. They store the super heated liquid so it can spin the turbines all night. In fact, there is talk of it being able to be a base load.
"Nuclear really can't because contractors are too inept or corrupt to do a job right. Pretty much, fusion is the only thing we got going."
I can't even imagine where you get this idea.
Also, look into the IFR.
My idea... (Score:2)
10. What one sentence best describes your idea? (maximum 150 characters)
Build a complete set of social and computer networking tools that can be distributed on/via USB Sticks.
---
11. Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words)
CBBS opened a new vista of social networking in 1978, which lead to Fidonet, to parallel UUCP, etc.
Build a set of tools which allow the modern update to it, with sneakernet as the backbone.
This could be used by families to share photos. Researchers with huge data sets on the l
Re:My idea... (Score:5, Funny)
How ironic, here was my entry
10. What one sentence best describes your idea? (maximum 150 characters)
Beer Sandwiches.
---
11. Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words)
Ever since that first man drunk a fly infested bucket of rancid water and fermenting honey, alcohol has been a mainstay of society. If we were able to fuse the brilliance of beer with the genius of the sandwich, the possibilities would be endless!
---
12. What problem or issue does your idea address? (maximum 150 words)
Beer is an aqueous solution which is prone to spilling. A "sippy cup" would address the problem, but will leave the user humiliated. A beer sandwich is the most logical solution
---
13. If your idea were to become a reality, who would benefit the most and how? (maximum 150 words)
Most importantly, people who drink and drive. You see, a beer sandwich is a food, and there are no laws against "eating and driving". It would take stress off of the courts and put less innocent people behind bars.
---
14. What are the initial steps required to get this idea off the ground? (maximum 150 words)
Someone needs to cross beer and sandwiches. Is it really that hard? You're freaking google!
---
15. Describe the optimal outcome should your idea be selected and successfully implemented. How would you measure it? (maximum 150 words)
Everyone around the world gets to enjoy beer sandwiches!
Wrong name? (Score:3, Funny)
The prize pool is only ten to the 6th.
Re: (Score:2)
After some brainstorming, they go with Google - a play on the word "googol," a mathematical term for the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.
http://www.google.com/tenthbirthday/#start [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to freak if somebody says "whoosh" on Slashdot one more time
Whoosh.
Now get your freak on...
my idea (Score:1)
Re:my idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't you know? Only the smart people read the warnings.
So removing the warnings would only kill smart people; stupid people already kill themselves.
If you really want that effect, you should remove legislation such as helmet and seatbeat laws.
You missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Google isn't asking for profitable ideas or anything like that.
Sure, some of them could end up being profitable, but that's not the point. They want to invest in nice ideas which could improve the life quality of people. From the video, you can clearly see they're interested in ideas that could, for instance, ease the burden put on poor people in countries like Africa. You can hardly profit from that.
This is called philanthropy. And it's amazing how people from the US find this so absurd.
Sometimes, there really isn't a catch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes, there really isn't a catch.
Just like its ok to blindly accept a EULA because the company certainly only has your best interest in mind. Call me jaded, but I have see one too many "no strings attached" offers turn sour
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or improve the quality of education in countries like the US...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the video, you can clearly see they're interested in ideas that could, for instance, ease the burden put on poor people in countries like Africa.
1) What they are clearly showing us, is not necessarily the big picture. In any case, I hope that Google profits from this, it is a company and in order to do more projects like this it needs to profit.
2) Africa is not a country.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sometimes, there really isn't a catch.
You think this statement is going to make you look all socially-conscious, but I can see right through your little angle.
Here's a simple one (Score:1, Insightful)
Term limits for all Congresspersons.
That by itself should result in the solution of a whole host of problems.
one better (Score:2, Insightful)
Term limits for all governmental employees, every single one, plus no pensions. Make all of government be forced to compete and live in the real world eventually and you'll see a lot less bullshit out of government.
Education (Score:5, Insightful)
Use Google's infrastructure and clout to combat censorship and surveillance of dissidents by oppressive regimes.
Not AI -- AS. (Score:1)
Artificial sentience.
11. Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words)
Beyond artificial intelligence, this project aims to create a sentient being. Using recent advancements such as ultra-fast processors, massive storage capacities and object-oriented coding, this being would be a conglomerate of interacting objects, each representing an aspect of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Put simply, it would be your standard AI, w
Re: (Score:2)
Not bad, but I (and others, see numenta) are working on that already in far more realizable terms, and we don't really need Google Inc's money for anything. Except we need beer. And hardware. And hookers.
And blackjack.
Open Source Voting (Score:2)
Failure (Score:2)
By imposing the terms Google has, they have ensured that only a small subset of ideas will only ever be submitted to them. No commercially viable ideas can be proposed, and their instance that they can ignore the creator means they will only get what nobody really cares about.
Google should get a clue, up the funding by an order of magnitude, ensure the individual benefits ($1m minimum) AND maintains control and then they might get something worthwhile. If you have a solution to the energy crisis you will no
just throwing this out there... (Score:3, Funny)
Search.
You know, that works really, really well.
I know, it's a crazy idea and I bet no-one at Google has thought of it.
I'm gonna run with my idea (Score:2)
Come On! (Score:2)
OhOh! How about a Universal Surface Detector! (Score:2)
We can do it on the cheap in Cali where you don't have to pay overtime!
You mean revolutionary ideas like... (Score:2)
... doing no corporate evil?
My humble idea (Score:2)
I posted four... but I do this for a living ;-) (Score:5, Interesting)
May those who help most win so they say.
I made three entries - the hexayurt, the infrastructure package, and the low cost medical care.
The Hexayurt
The hexayurt is a reasonably well tested next generation disaster relief shelter built on free/open source principles and industrial supply chains. It comes from work done at the Rocky Mountain Institute. The basic idea is to take 12 standard 4âx8â industrial panels, cut six in half diagonally and fasten them into a cone (see the site for pictures) and use six whole panels for the walls, giving a durable shelter of 166 square feet, big enough for 5 people at UN standards. These shelters will survive 80 mph winds easily.
The emphasis on using standard industrial materials is the key. Nobody can afford to carry extensive stocks of emergency housing for disasters in the developing world, which often displace millions of people. Airfreighting tents is expensive and inefficient, and tents are lousy shelter for long term use, which is all-too-frequently how they are deployed. The Hexayurt idea is that industrial cities near regular disaster zones (Bangaladesh, strife-torn areas of Africa, the hurricane belt) take their existing industrial infrastructure and add a few simple new skills so that before or after a disaster they can mass produce a simple, long-life shelter for affected populations. This is a step towards disaster relief self-sufficiency at a regional level, so that these areas begin to be able to cope without being so reliant on patchy and poorly-funded international relief effots.
The Hexayurt concept has been tested by US DOD, and is an integral part of the STAR-TIDES program. American Red Cross and Netherlands Red Cross both think it is a great idea and have supported its development, and AMURT is considering the system. All of this has been done by a persistent self-funded open source development effort.
http://hexayurt.com/ [hexayurt.com]
The Hexayurt Infrastructure Package
The hexayurt is a free/open disaster relief shelter which has its own entry. However, a shelter alone is not enough to really help people after a disaster. If you have 100,000 perfectly good shelters in a field, the next problem you face is water and sanitation: without some deployed solution, people will get sick and die.
There are lots of appropriate technology solutions to sanitation, cooking without wasting wood or generating toxic smoke, purifying water to drink. All of them are under-funded, under-tested, and under-adopted. Millions to tens of millions die every year because this âoeappropriate technology infrastructureâ is not being properly funded, and the result is needless loss of life.
The key is to understand that credible candidate technologies exist to provide all the same basic essential services that people enjoy in the developed world on a budget of maybe $200. Furthermore, the services can be provided house-by-house. For example, rainwater is collected on your roof, then purified using a biosand filter to give you safe drinking water, rather than having a water purification factory down the road and pipes. These systems are basic, and some need work, but some combination of SODIS, solar water pasteurization, thermophilic composting toilets, sulabh toilets, solar cookers, rocket stoves, gasification stoves, biosand filters, microsolar, microwind and microhydro will provide all the basic essential services of life in nearly any climate anywhere in the world. What hasnâ(TM)t been done is a global systematic program of testing each of these individual technologies in each region of the world, making local adaptations, cleaning up and publishing the designs, making training videos, running educational courses, and looking for chances to integrated, combine and synthesize systems into whole packages which are proven to provide all essential services in the field. This is our proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
Akvo is *definitely* the right answer for the "main drive" - places where things basically work and they've got resources to do capital investment, however small, on moving further forwards.
Nearly all of my stuff is pointed squarely at the frayed edge, the torn margin, where things have fallen apart too far for investment in conventional vehicles to help. I'm really focussed on people who can carry all they own, more or less.
Still, I shall be surprised if *nobody* I know wins one of these, and I suspect the
A triumph! (Score:2)
...in marketing. Make something difficult to understand to get people interested, put a lot of words around it. Doesn't matter what you're doing, the aim is to get people intrigued as to what the fuck you're on about.
Why don't you just fucking fund the projects already and quit with the sleight of hand and weasel words.
To this day the only software Google have put out that I've found better than the competition is their search engine. I'm sure there are other niche products but I hate Chrome, can't stand Pi
Some energy ideas, one partially of my design (Score:2)
These are worthy of mention...
The Aquanator captures power for underwater currents.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/26/1096137100758.html?oneclick=true [smh.com.au]
The Florida current has 30 times the flow of all rivers
of the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_stream#Possible_renewable_power_source [wikipedia.org]
The Antarctic current has 135 times the flow of all the
rivers of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current [wikipedia.org]
There are a lot of other underwater currents around the world.
This next idea has b
Attainability v Longevity (Score:3, Interesting)
Two of their five "criteria" do not sit well together:
The rapid implementation requirement kills anything I would want to bring to the table, that is stuff we haven't been able to fix in a generation though the need has been increasingly evident because it requires a more patient approach than markets will tolerate (even while they burn googillions in retirement savings without a thought that we might like some priority to investments which at least try to provide a "better" world we might retire into.)
Reminds me of Microsoft's Imagine Cup (Score:5, Informative)
This reminds me of Microsoft's Competition:
http://www.microsoft.com/nz/imaginecup09/about.aspx [microsoft.com]
In 2009, the Imagine Cup challenges the world's most talented students to "Imagine a world where technology helps solve the toughest problems facing us today."
I find the goal a bit too broad for a challenging competition, there are also a few requirements, some of which I find a bit odd:
We'll see... (Score:2)
... I doubt they will choose the best ideas. There are a tonne of great ideas with no voice to the ones who are capable of implementing them.
I hope for the best, but I'm a bit skeptical of this.
A global roll-out from concept to market - 10 mil? (Score:2)
It takes upwards of 20 times that much for a regional roll-out within the US, and they expect 10 mil to cover global development of this idea?
I doubt I could even market a simple molded plastic widget worldwide for 10 million.
form problems (Score:2)
The problem is either ".co.uk" is not accepted, or possibly that I have my own domain name.
Either way, it does not accept "anne@thwacks.co,uk" (or near equivalents) as an email address. Theyn will have to do better than that if they want to save the world!
They should hire support people (Score:2)
That would be a great thing for millions of people right there. Instead of a website which essentially says 'go away' - faqs faqs faqs everywhere, but never a human to see.
And they should redesign google groups so that those of us who no longer have perfect kid vision can actually see whats going on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You wouldn't let Google have the hassle of doing the footwork if they flipped you a few mil? I think maybe you lack some of the foresight/vision/humanitarianism that the contest seeks to capitalize on.
Just sayin....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The catch with all of those hidden competition is it let's the creator of the competition, access ideas from tens of thousands of people and keep all the ones it likes and never mention them publicly except to exploit them and only make few ideas public which it will only reward with a percentage of the prize money on offer. All of this while generating millions of dollars worth of free advertising whilst trying to create a false impression of google goodness in the public's eye.
The worship of all things
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some projects require resources no matter how you look at it: e.g. labs, connections with other intelligent people, test subjects, etc. Unless you are rich or have a project that requires minimal resources, you may have a hard time doing all of the research and commercializing all of the work on your own. Now if you can do such a thing, kudos to you; but, these grants (and that is what they are) are probably meant for grand projects that bring together specialists across many different fields. What I'm curious about is how their process will differ from what the government already does in terms of funding such projects. Will google be equally rigorous in validating the work that comes out of this, or are they just looking for the next gadget to earn them millions? It seems interesting, so I'll just have to wait and see how it pans out.
Agreed - If this is just another grant awarding body it's rather dull, and 10 million dollars won't go very far at all. Although most grant awards these days tend to go to short term projects with very definable and measurable outcomes, which is understandable for the sake of accountability, so maybe Google are going for some more blue-skies thinking and they won't care too much if they see anything come of each award or not.
Good on you bub! (Score:2)
So I can see how much prize/benefit you've reaped.
My guess: You can't program for toffee. Oh wait, this is
Re:ok (Score:5, Informative)
I think the goal here is to give some funding to profit-losing ideas that help people. It's not hard to get profit-making ideas funded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming the "not not" was a typo:
I think you're only thinking of things that have near-term benefits. This would probably exclude reducing your environmental impact, not having kids to benefit mankind etc. And don't laugh, the reason I chose not to have kids is because I decided that this would probably be the best thing anybody but a genius could do for mankind. I wanted 3 or 4 kids when I was 19 and then read a report about projected global population growth and the terrible environmental impact it wo
Re: (Score:2)
well, the problem here is that "profit"--at least financial ones--are a form of immediate return/benefit, whereas things like environmentalism, altruism, and other progressive ideas are looking at long-term interests and long-term benefits. often times immediate personal interests conflict with the long-term interests of society. that's why making the world a better place isn't generally a financially profitable proposition.
but that's a very shortsighted and selfish way of looking at things. i mean, if ther
Re: (Score:2)
You could just have had 1 instead of 3 or 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, mathematically and statistically, you are not contributing to global population growth if you have two or fewer kids.
Replacement rate (steady state population) require 2.1 or so kids. If you have 2 kids, then you are actually contributing to population decline since a small portion of each generation is killed by accidents and such.
does that mean women should stay at home? (Score:3, Informative)
Its impossible for the vast majority of women to have 3+ kids and work full time.
So this whole 'promotion' of work/caree by 'communist feminists' is really an indirect
way to reduce populations. If 50% of women work, that means that 50% of families have less
than 2 kids or no kids. So we have negative population growth, hence the government reason
for increased wild immigration to offset the losses.
If taxes were lower and things not so expensive then it would be easier for people to have
single income families
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
Like in France the *average* number of kids per family is close to 2 (198 for 100). The activity rate for women is close to 75%.
Main difference : social infrastructure. You can have your kids looked after.
Don't want to burst your bubble with a real world "impossible" example though.
Re: (Score:2)
Except France also has higher taxes, lower productivity, and higher unemployment. Always good with the bad.
Higher taxes, higher *hourly* productivity but less worked time, and possibly higher unemployment although it's presumably not counted the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
If taxes were lower and things not so expensive then it would be easier for people to have single income families and also to have 3 to 4 or more kids, with much less needed immigration.
You assume women who have 3+ children 'plan' to do so. This is rarely the case in developed countries, even the US. Women in developed countries who have more than two children overwhelmingly do so regardless of the practical or economic implications. Usually, the explanation is either ignorance, religious belief or a c
Re: (Score:2)
If you define ignorance absolutely, then you're right: either there is or there isn't a god out there, and belief has nothing to do with that, only knowing whether or not that god exists. However, ignorance is usually measured as being relative to what society as a whole knows. And, as much as we know about the universe, we can't even nearly claim to know everything.
You can be an educated person and still believe that a deity of some denomination or another is the answer to at least part of the remaining qu
Re: (Score:2)
The cia factbook will tell you the average growth rate of many countries.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't need to state any sources it made perfect sense. If you have a mother and a father and they have two kids, statistically a lot of these kids will die of disease, accidents, premature birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not clones. Clones may have only a mother (we can't do father-only yet .. but we're close).
Re: (Score:2)
I think that your personal decision not to have kids affects little. The current demographic growth is measured in millions per year, and most of surplus population comes from areas you've never been to and never will. And even there the population density doesn't grow beyond a certain threshold - the excesses die out due to starvation or illnesses.
Besides, why should only a genius have kids? Mankind as a whole needs healthy and strong guys and girls no less than it needs geniuses.
It could be also summarize
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, why should only a genius have kids? Mankind as a whole needs healthy and strong guys and girls no less than it needs geniuses.
Eugenics?
Hitler?
Godwined in not quite record time but you beat me to it. The GP also believes that the lumps on their skull is an accurate measurement for a variety of things and that there is a master race.
(Really... I jest...)
Re: (Score:2)
How many? That remains to be seen. The current population level would be impossible to reach with 18th century technology (nor the current technology level would be achievable by a population less than 1bn large). I can't say what will come next: orbital hydroponics, cleaning nanomachines, but an advance like this will raise the cap several times. Maybe, nothing revolutionary is invented in the observable future; that means that we have nearly hit our population cap.
Who makes it *my* job? I'm sorry, the w
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you read the TOS?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, because... (Score:2)
Why don't the companies that own patents on say... water powered cars, finally manufacture some of these gadgets.
Because it's easier to be a patent troll. Just sit and wait for people to actually go out and get their hands dirty and their pockets empty doing the actual work. Then pop up out of nowhere and demand your royalties! It's the American way.
Granted, it's only slightly less ethical than beating up nuns for crack money, but in this day and age it's par for the course.
Bloodshed (Score:2)
[...] a gigantic orgy would commence. [...]
Imagine: no more bloodshed on the battle field.
Unless it was accompanied by rapid technique training (something highly unlikely that the US military would think about) there might still be plenty of blood shed from certain parts of the anatomy.