Slashdot Mirror
The Philanthropic Arm of Google
GoatJuggler writes "I accidentally visited google.org recently and ended up at a different Google site that appears to be a placeholder for Google's future foray into the world of philanthropy. A quote from Sergey Brin & Larry Page is there now, 'We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems.' Not much to see there now, but it's certainly refreshing to see a successful company leveraging their success to do good. Googling part of that quote led me to a blog that references the uniqueness of Google's SEC filing. The Google Foundation is referenced, and Google's job page now mentions that they are looking to fill the position of Executive Director for the Google Foundation. So, expect Good Things(TM) (like saving 3-legged kittens) from Google soon."
Google's first task for humanity should be to explain to us what philanthropic means.
i r baboon
just needed one of these damn things to say I did...
"The internet is a great way to get on the net." - Bob Dole
(see subject)
...saving 3-legged kittens) from Google soon.
Those damned 3-legged kittens keep getting themselves into trouble...
Deja Vu
n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
Is there any way to filter out stories about Google on Slashdot?
Google are already doing good, I searched for philanthropy, I now know what it means.
:D
Google also makes me look smart to the people that ask me stupid questions that take 3 seconds to find.
Ahhh... it must give them a warm fuzzy feeling inside
Skartel GamingOverload.com
We need to save three legged kittens from Google now? What, do they want to rip off the remaining legs? Are they going to come back to finish the job?
Now I truly fear the monstrosity that is Google.org.
--
RumorsDaily
If google is making enough money to give it away to boost their reputation, then I wonder how much tax they are paying. How much money in tax breaks to Google could have gone to building schools, money for hospitals, or even to pay down the deficit?
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
further proof that google is taking over the world. in a good way. if only there was a google arms confederacy, they could convince dictators and 'terrorists' to negotiate over a steaming mug of cocoa or something.
There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
It's the kinder, gentler side of Google. Oh wait, it's all kind and gentle, right?! :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
The important question is : will google.org get mirrored too?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Why do three-legged kittens need saving from google? What the hell are they doing with three-legged kittens?
Oh.
It was just a misplaced modifier. Whew.
sig not found
maybe one day they'll give as much and do as much as microsoft/bill gates has.
i dont really think the starving people in africa bill gates has fed really give two hoots about where the money comes from.
sometimes, being capitalist swine can be a good thing.
Not really surprising, the owners of google come from Stanford, Now they have made google the huge success they wanted it to be, they can move onto other things they want to approach.
It will be interesting to see what else these guys can come up with in the coming years
Business Voyeur
Though much maligned in our community, Bill and Melinda Gates and Steve Case have also set up charitable foundations.
Of course, it's up to the reader to determine whether their goals are truly philanthropic or whether they serve to extend the agendas of Bill and Steve. More to the point, is any philanthropic organisation ever agenda-free?
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
Are these guys married? This sort of behaviour almost always stems from the wives of the great men. Often the widows, sadly.
It is a word. Also, uniquity is a word. It would be refering to the unique qualities that differentiates one thing from another. There are varying degress of uniqueness (it IS a word) when looking at an object for its parts.
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
this is just one step closer to googledot.org
Webster's dictionary disagrees:
Unique U*nique", a. F. unique; cf. It. unico; from L. unicus,
from unus one. See One.
Being without a like or equal; unmatched; unequaled;
unparalleled; single in kind or excellence; sole. --
U*nique"ly, adv. -- U*nique"ness, n.
1913 Webster
Everyone on /. loves to discuss whether or not google's rather benevolent attitudes about technology, innovation and being a business is genuine or not.
Many like to say that google is somehow the golden child of corporations. That they are above all others, magically concerned with not only their own profits.
Others like to say its all bullshit; a happy face they stick on to look more appealing to the masses. After all, any corporation is as evil as any other, and their primary concern for their stockholders is obviously profit.
But who's right? I'd say that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. I think the founders of Google and its staff truly, genuinely wish to keep themselves untainted. People always get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear about businesses like Enron. And I for one would certain prefer to employ the business of a company who has this positive attitude, its refreshing. By virtue of this admirable reputation, they generate more business. Seems win-win.
One always has to be a tad skeptical with these corporate foundations; but weren't these tax deduction opportunities made to encourage just that? I think we should blame the US if they become overly powerful with said "write-offs."
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Google is now a publicly traded company. So by law they must put their stockholders interest above all. If their phylantropic action just spends money without any return on investment (tax, public image, publicity) they are liable to be sued by stock holders. The "Do no evil" mantra is now meaningless.
Read thr book or see the documentary:
http://www.thecorporation.com
It's too late for her now, because she passed away at a young age, but I hope that any future three legged kittens can be saved. :(
How and when did Slashdot become a press release spot for Google? Is this a technology story? The poster nor editor make any mention of other companies efforts in this area. Can we do something with 'Goole-giving' right now? Have they innovated the process? Do you think they'll have a 'Google-stock-picker' next, after all we're all need a little help?
This is _so_ old news.
The blog and of course the SEC Form S-1 were written in April, 2004. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since then except for a very brief coming soon website.
Nothing to see here. Move on! Move on!
The Yahoo Employee Foundation has been doing nice things in the Bay Area and region for many years also.
"Is there any way to filter out stories about Google on Slashdot?"
:)
Adblock + google = googleblock
Thats a firefox extension worth developing
Those software patenting, future philanthropic types.. Great guys, I tell ya! :)
Can blame Slashdot for reporting. Google's their great blue, red, yellow, and green hope.
Bill gets bashed all the time here (often rightly) but he's probably donated more to charity and good causes than the entire slashdot readership will ever do in a lifetime.
If your avarage slashdotter has spare cash, he (for invariably it is a 'he') is going to spend it on hardware upgrades and useless gadgets rather than thinking about 'the poor' or, 'the sick' either at home, in other countries.
Ok. I know that sounds mean, but tell me it isn't so!
I try to help when my concience pings me, but I don't have a lot of spare cash, and it's so easy to get distracted by all this very desirable, but ultimately worthless, trivia.
...but this story gives me yet another reason not to. I mean come on, a Google story once in awhile is valuable, as is a Firefox story once in awhile, or a Perl story every now and then.
/. front page.
.org version of my company's domain, and erect a similar site claiming that I want to do great things, would it be worthy of an entry on Slashdot's front page? Of course not.
But for the past month, it seems that every day brings a new Google story or three to Slashdot. Then we start getting "news" stories like this which aren't news at all, but instead describe features of Google which have existed for at least a year. I suppose that I could submit a story about Google indexing belly-button lint, referencing a two paragraph article that I posted somewhere, and it would wind up on the
This story is a non-story, like many of the Google stories lately. Google.org has a bit of text promising to be philanthropic, in some undetermined manner, at some undetermined point in the future. How in $DEITY's name is this a news story? If I were to buy the
Does OSDN get a kickback from Google for every Google article posted here? I really want to know, because it's getting ridiculous, and if Slashdot doesn't provide a way to opt-out of the multitude of unnecessary Google articles, there's no way that I'm going to start paying for this.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
their plot is to take over booble and make it open source!!
sounds like you need to start reading fuckedgoogle.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
Of course 'uniqueness' is a word. We use it in Maths all the time --- "By the uniqueness of the factorisation, it follows that...", "Because of the uniqueness of the solution, we know that A=B", etc. Basically, uniqueness of something means the fact that it is unique, in this context. Translated, the latter example becomes "Because the solution is unique, we know that A=B"
What domains does Google own?
Find domain names owned by companies or individuals
Been there, heard that before. From Bill G to Larry E. All say the same damn thing. Nothing beats the aura of being a Messiah.
And they fail to mention "the tax breaks" they get. Instead of parting with money in form of taxes, and let the govt do the job, they would rather spend it themselves and get the attention. Ah, it feels like god.
And what about the offshore dev centre they own in India -- two of them actually. Will they be doing some philanthropy in India too since they already get huge tax breaks for their development centre in India(being an EOU).
--
All our taxes are belongs to you.
frist psot!
I wish they would first live up to ther corportate motto. E.g. google has given up totally on policing their user's newsgroup access. Within the last few month Gougle Groups has become the largest source of newsgroup spam :-(
Google might save three leged kittens in the future. Today, however, they are pulling off the legs of kittens.
extremely funny
Is that even possible? Aren't they legally bound to the profit motive or something? (Then again, knowing those guys, they can probably turn it around and make billions off this.)
I for one would like to see them do something with thier .net next...
.Network if you will...
Maybe server stats? Or live query watching or something along those lines... A glimpse into the
It's not part of the American vocabulary.
well said
Philanthropy (n): 1. avoiding taxation via a "foundation", esp. when it comes time to organise inheritance; 2. returning the money you have taken in the first place (not necessarily by force, but see "de facto monopoly"), adjusted to suit you rather than the causes of those who took the money from. N.b. not to be confused with charity, which is not announced to the world. See "public relations".
www.google.mil - A nifty google search to that does the first part of "seek and destroy".
Now I can watch the watchers!
I'm interested to see if Google, using it's great clout and size, would try to get justice for those who are unjustly in bad positions (poor people in countries with corrupt governments, etc), or if they will simply toss money at the problems. I'm not saying that throwing billions at a problem isn't a good thing, but usually more good comes from people looking to enforce justice for those less fortunate than us.
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you
forget kittens, if google really cares, they will save Toby.
ôó
Personally, I'm hoping they'll take out Bill Gates first ;)
Gates Foundation /waits for the "OMG IT'S FOR TEH TAXES" response.
-- TRUST ME! I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!
It's depressing that a few posts here seem to suggest that philanthropy isn't a well known word among slashdotters. Philanthropy is quite prevalent in the Free Software and Open Source communities, so people should really know what they're involved with, if they want to explain it to others.
Sergey Brin & Larry Page say they will do Philantropy.
Conclusion: They, and Google, are the greatest on earth.
Bill Gates is one of the largest philantropes on the planet.
Conclusion: He, and Microsoft, is the spawn of satan.
Don't misunderstand my sarcasm above. I think that what Sergey Brin & Larry Page are doing is great. But lets keep things in perspective. And lets not keep a dual standard here.
I love Google, and I dislike Microsoft, but I know that to some extent I'm being irrational.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
...who became a three legged cat, and helped me write some stuff
Hmm... must update pages this millennium.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
I refuse to accept Ford Prefect as a man. He's supposed to be an alien, right?
If you want to look at their ballance sheet, go to a site that will let you surf through their SEC filings.
Or you could buy one share of google and request from them an annual report and find out the answers to what they are publicly stating they pay or owe or have as assets or credits.
So don't wonder, participate.
The tin foil protects better if you staple it directly to your head.
The widow gave a small mite (a tiny piece of copper) which was worth more than all that was given by the wealthy and powerful.
If Bill Gates wants to do some supreme act of charity then he and microsoft can open source windows and do us all a favor.
Charity from thieves is not really charity, is it?
He gives other people's money as his money is acquired through monopolistic chicanery and really seems illigitamite to me.
But, hey the powerful live with in their own delusions so why not Bill Gates?
What law is that which the neocon point of view projects that the corporation puts the stockholders first? That is a lie and it gets repeated over and over.
Being sued is not the same as being guilty.
You attempt to justify evil by making an excuse about stock-holders. Under your definition of a corporations responsibilities then corporations of Wahabbi muslims would have to try and convert all of their stock-holders because otherwise they will burn in hell. Utter nonsense to me.
As an exercise why don't you define 'stockholders interest'. Can't you see that is a subjective idea? So how can you justify what you say.
Please stop parroting the neocon lie which buts the corporation as Fuedal lord and master.
What do you get when you google Google?
The government (well the AU government anyway) doesn't want to apply tax to money you've earned that you give to charities.
In AU (and possibly other places), a "tax write off" doesn't really directly reduce your tax at all. What it does is reduces your taxable income, IOW, the income that tax is calculated against. For example, if, before tax, you've earned $30 000, and you donate $2000 to a charity, your taxable income then becomes $28 000. The government is being charitable itself, in saying that they don't want a tax slice of the $2000 you've donated.
Another way to look at it is that your taxable salary is your "profit" for working - you're allowed to make tax deductions on things necessary to generate that salary "profit". For example, being in IT, I can claim Internet access, IT Books etc. All these tax deductions are not reducing my tax, they are reducing the portion of my salary that I'll pay tax on.
So, if you want to pay no tax, give away all of your salary to a Charity until your taxable salary is below the taxable salary threshold eg. in AU, $6000 p.a.
I'm fairly sure that companies have the same general options - if they donate part of their profit to charity, they don't pay tax on their donations. Of course, they could give away all of their profit to a charity, pay no tax, but also not pay the shareholders any increase in their investment (dividend, increased stock price via stock buy back).
I'm not accountant so I could be somewhat wrong about the above. I am fairly sure about the concept of tax deductions not "directly reducing" your tax though - I used to think that way, as I think a lot of other people do. It's all about reducing your taxable income.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Corporations often do just what you say.
Do you ever read any perspectuses? If you did you would know that corporations often launder shares by issuing new ones. Net effect, per-share ownership is diluted and the corporate heads end up with a lot more stock. That is what mergers and acquisition do.
Or was your post supposed to be humourous, stateing something that was not true just to be funny?
I worked for a company that was issuing 10% more shares per quarter. This was all in the name of merger and acquisitions. And they would manipulate their prices so that deals would come out in their favor. And they made all kinds of rules about when people could sell their stock.
IF you ever have a public company don't ever agree to sell it without the option of dumping the new shares from the acquireing company as soon as you get them. Otherwise you will most likely be burned.
Their is a very old point of view from Southern Italy (old school imigrant Italian American) which sees the giant American charity as some dumb fool who doesn't do anything more than come and spread money and makes no attempt to help in any other way.
"Have some money and let me go back to my yaught in Isleboro Island. I know that there are sick people in need of nurture, and I am here. But really can't you hire someone to help"
If you see someone in a burning room you don't run to the bank and get a check to pay someone to pull the person out. A lot of American charity is thin generational attempts to hide money so that the super powerful progeny don't have to pay taxes.
It is like the guy who films the staving baby. If there is a baby starving in a ditch shouldn't you pick it up and nurture it. But the film is there saying 'send money'.
I think we do need to help by sending money. But money is not the only thing that charity is. Sometimes giving money hurts more than it helps because it ends up being pilvered and going to support local powerful people and the poor see none of it.
IE: in Europe after WWII the power elites set themselves right back up as the rulers and leaders. That was all money 'donated' by American Taxpayers. It reestablished the same rediculous families as the ruling class in Europe. Did this help the poor? It didn't free them from their caste system.
i made it myself
you people are so gullible.
Why stick up for big business?
I don't like Bill G that much, and I don't like public charity of the super wealthy. I do like private charity, giving of anonymous donors.
You may be too hard on Bill and his wife. Maybe they really don't know how their public giving seems to those of us who have been stung by the monopoly.
I am glad that Bill and his wife are being giving. Maybe they can sleep better at night. I am hoping and praying that Mr. Gates someday sees how much he has harmed so many and gives more.
But don't do this and tell me about it. Do it
and do it because it is the right thing to do and don't expect free press reports. 'Charity' that is publicised is in very bad taste and actually ammounts to free publicity. That is not saying that causes aren't good, they are. I think that they have chosen some good causes.
But don't look for me to forgive the monopoly by giveing to charity. If you hadn't charged so much for your operating system, Bill, then I would have more money to do my own charity.
Yes, Bill can fall down on the road and find God.
Aah! My virgin eyes! *rinses eyes out with acid*
Your post makes it appear that you think the tax deduction Google realizes from philanthropy would better spent by the government. I'm assuming that you think the government will make spending decisions that have a higher moral basis than the Google Foundation.
I'd suggest, then, that we implement a system of flat tax rates with no possible deductions. In that system we'll avoid deducting taxes spent on moral causes.
Another week, and another "Google is so great" gushy slashdot article.
Give it a break, okay? It's getting old.
The fact is, Google has scads of money just lying about the place. They can invest it, but sometimes the "return on investment" is better if that same money is invested in good works, such as scientific research, food programs, and the like. It depends on your definition of "return," I guess.
Regardless of what you think about their ethics or business practices, Brin+Page, Gates, Case, and the like have chosen to invest their capital in ventures that will (ideally) generate more than a capital return in the short-term. By doing so through a foundation, they're demonstrating both good business sense and laudable philanthropy. They shouldn't be condemned for either.
Thanks.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Although you might not find what the Slashdot option you are looking for.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Newsforge was on the scene to report on every grunt and movement. Witnesses report that the feces was stinky.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
That highly depends on how big/well-known your company is, I'd say. If you've just set up joe-bluecollar-the-carpenter.org, then it's probably not newsworthy; if the company in question is a major player, though, and ESPECIALLY if it's a major player in the IT sector, then it is news.
Here's another test: give me the names of five companies that have similar foundations (or plans to establish them). Can't think of a single one without Googling or otherwise searching for them[1]? That's just another reason why this is news.
1. No, Bill Gates' foundation does not count, as it's not related to Microsoft.
That's pretty silly, too - you're complaining because there's TOO MUCH news? It's not as if there'd magically appear other news stories if this (or others) were not published. :)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
So? All that says is that uniqueness is a binary property.
excuse me while I maneuver my recess in order to do evacuation.
Did anyone else read the headline as "The Prosthetic Arm of Google" at first?
"I would give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
The site is already slashdotted, here's the cache
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
TEH GOOGLE ISP!
Then expect the following:
google.musuem THE GOOGLEHIEM MUSEUM!
google.mail Gmail redirect!!
google.info Google Info!
google.jobs Google Jobs!
google.aero Google Air!
google.govGoverment google!
google.milGoogle military
and much much more to come!
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
Since the Google Maps topic on satllite images a little old by now. After fooling around on Google Maps, I came across the Captiol buliding. Just one problem, it's a GIANT PIXELATED BLOB! See for yourself: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.889713,-77.00903 2&spn=0.007317,0.011029&t=k&hl=en
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
Saving 3 legged kittens? Feline amputation pales in comparison to the hideous cruely inflicted in the sick art of creating bonsai kittens.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
The government is being charitable itself, in saying that they don't want a tax slice of the $2000 you've donated.
There's no such thing. It's your money. They take it. What's charitable about it?
Why not set up a "Charity Search" function with a full list of valid charities and the classic Google search interface?
There's much that's good about google, but one thing I always wonder about when I hear about "charitable" activities, is the motivation behind it. Is it really charitable, or is it a PR stunt with tax advantages? I'm willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt in this case. Had it been Microsoft, however...
They're being charitable by giving you things like free schools, roads, emergency medical care, etc. while not charging you for it.
that if it were not for you capitalist swine, the people would not be starving in africa. i dont believe they were starving before we went over there and f(*#@ed up their borders. i dont believe they were starving before we went over there and kidnapped millions of people. i dont believe they were starving before we went over there and robbed them of their natural resources (and still continue to). i dont believe they were starving before we went over there and exploited the f(*@ out of them.
you dont understand how much better off the world would have been without you capitalist swine.
mod parent down. his comments are ignorant at best.
There's no such thing. It's your money. They take it. What's charitable about it?
They take it because they force upon you the belief that you need to contribute to some "public" spending, i.e. police, safety (fire fighting), health (ambulances and publicly available ER facilities), infrastructure (maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels) and administration of these (bureaucracy).
This is what would happen if there were no taxes: The moment you are born (in a private hospital for example), your parents should be paying a kazillion dollars when they want to transport you from that hospital to their domicile (their private property), since they have to trespass through property that your parents did not pay to maintain. You yourself cannot leave the premises of your private property unless you pay to the "people" for using the sidewalk, or unless you pay to the "people" for using the road. And the best part about it is that the "people" can say "no" (i.e. trespassing will not be allowed even for money) and you can go shove it if you wanted to leave your private property.
As you can see based on the simple example, taxes are part of a social contract so that people can live in this world without losing privileges that they normally take for granted.
ynnuf ylemertxe
This may matter to your friends, but as far as the rest of the world and especially recipients of your charity, it doesn't really matter what's your motivation as long as you are doing good things. Tax breaks were introduced specifically to encourage charity. People cooking the books and claiming unreasonably high cash value for their donation is another matter entirely.
Thats all it is. Move along, nothing to see.
The people could say no to you using the road, but without any police or courts to enforce it, it might not get them anywhere.
Directly from the site:
"We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems."
- Sergey Brin & Larry Page
So Sergey moves one half of the mouth (and controls one half of the brain) and Larry moves the other half of the mouth (and controls the other half of the brain)?
'cause that's the only way how they could have both come up with ONE quote (and together)...
The people could say no to you using the road, but without any police or courts to enforce it, it might not get them anywhere.
That's exactly the point. The "people" have a police, so when the poor fellow who doesn't want to pay taxes wants to use the roads of the "people", the police hired by the "people" (using their tax money) will enforce that the non-payers doesn't trespass throught THEIR roads (unless he joins in on the social contract of the people and starts paying taxes).
Take away the tax break and people would never donate.
That you can see no good reason to contribute to the world's betterment than the lining of your own pocket is self-deprecation of the most tragic kind.
This somehow reminds me of K. W. Jeter's Blade Runner 2 & 3 books (sequels to Philip K. Dick's DADOES? book), and how the Tyrell shadow corporation eventually eclipsed the original one. Let's hope Google.org actually becomes a philanthropic organization that can kick off.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
Assuming you reside in the US....
Free????? What planet are you living on? We PAY for it. Emphasize the WE part. Increased teacher salaries? Get ready for a tax hike. Better police protection? Get ready for a tax hike. Badly needed road maintenance? Get ready for a tax hike. New schools? Tax hike. NONE of this is free. In fact, the next decade will be quite interesting...there will be a HUGE number people retiring, all expecting to receive their social security benefits. What kind of tax burden do you think that will place on those still working?
emergency medical care
This deserve a special mention. When have you ever received FREE emergency medical care? It's not free- they bill you for it like they do any other kind of treatment. It's an even bigger problem for people who are uninsured, because the hospital can charge whatever it damn well pleases.
This debt is your debt
this debt is my debt
from preemptive warfare
to the housing projects
from the wealthy tax breaks
to the corp'rate favors
this debt was made by you and me!
Huh? The topic of discussion is why the government is being charitable by not taking your money. I.e., in instances where they don't tax you. Jesus, did you even read the thread, or were you just so eager to show off the fact that you are aware of the the basic concept of taxes and extremely basic US macroeconomic issues that you couldn't be bothered?
But when Bill Gates sets up the biggest charitable organization in the world with $26 billion of his own money/stock, a group that pays for Doctors Without Borders and a hundred other great things ...
you all yell and scream about the horrors of it.
You're all nothing but a bunch of two faced hypocrite bastards.
The topic of discussion is why the government is being charitable by not taking your money. I.e., in instances where they don't tax you.
NOT taking money that is rightfully ours is NOT a charitable act- it's an act of restraint. To suggest that it IS charitable is like saying that a thief is being charitable if he decides not to rob you.
yeah whatever, like google are really philanthropists....
They're not taking your money, but they're giving your kids world-class educations, they're giving you emergency health care when you lack the money for it, they're giving you roads, they're protecting you against thieves and foreign militaries...how is that not charity??
Now, if you're averse to taxes of all kind then I suggest you take a basic high school economics class. There're little things called public goods that are very poorly provided for under the market mechanism. Things like the military - if you didn't have to pay for it, would you? No. And who would? People, individually, are powerless to pay for the military, and since the marginal cost to them is extremely high and the marginal benefit is almost nothing, it wouldn't make economic sense for people to willingly pay for the military when there isn't a guarantee that everyone else won't, too.
What are you, ten? You're in an incredibly small and stupid minority if you truly believe that taxes are theft, plain and simple. If you want to argue that there is impropriety within the government, or even a lot of impropriety within the government then that's one thing, but arguing against the fundamental concept of taxes? That's a losing battle, I'm afraid to say.
They're not taking your money...
Have you ever filled out a tax return? Have you ever seen those little boxes on your paycheck stub that denote money that you've earned, but is being withheld? Where do you think that money goes?
Put some serious effort to get some people who dont have the "Ivy League" background into Google working at the same level as those from those currently there. After they can get get a good deal of people not from exclusionist backgrounds, then they might consider funding a scholarship that no longer makes it "social connection or perceived merit" to get into the Ivy League type of university. After all, if they're "not doing evil", maybe they might want people that dont run things like Stanford, MIT or CIT (see gmail, Orkut, Ivy League and west coast equivalents).
I see uniqueness being used as a word. Therefore, 'uniqueness' is a word.
If the company decides to be charitable, it is doing so with other people's money. That's dispicable.
Philanthropy is a purely personal decision to make, and should be made with personal funds. Witness that Microsoft does not give to charity, but Bill Gates has given more money to charity than any other person in the history of humanity.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
That was a typo...it should have been "They're taking your money, but..."
They care, that's why they (like so many people around the world) are leery of accepting Monsanto's offer for seeds which farmers can't save (an ancient farming practice), and which mainly serve to line Monsanto's pocket instead of working with farmers to feed people. Many other large groups of people around the world are leery of genetically modified foods because of the control it places in few organizations (multinational corporations, no less), and how some of the testing of these foods are done by placing them in the market and seeing what happens.
Digital Citizen
I for one would like to see google bankroll X-Prize type programs that will advance the human race as a whole.
Competition is very good for innovation and if you put several millions into something, that could help to shine a light on a problem.
Not to mention that the paltry prizes offered by NASA are pretty much pointless.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
Not far off the track at all, but mind that Google was founded by some people at Stanford which has at best misguided philantropy, and at worst, deliberate harm to the community. They (Stanford) have used Highway 101 to divide themselves from the community around them, and sometimes the community got the short end of the deal when it appeared to be a good gesture. Looks like Google wants to go the same path given their history. That history, is far from what I'd call philantrophy, but pure fraud.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Yes, stockholders can sue the corporation if it is poorly managed, but where's the law mandating they follow the stockholders interest? And Google is not the only philanthrophic company around, the retailer gives to nonprofits. There's the Ford Foundation. The list goes on. Implying that law does not allow for corporate giving or that stockholders automatically think it's bad is ridiculous.
There's no such thing. It's your money. They take it. What's charitable about it?
They don't take it, the charity does. The government doesn't apply tax to the money you donate to the charity.
Governments could be nasty, and tax your all salary no matter what you did with it. However, they don't tax charitable donations - that seems chariable to me.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
If companies are giving money to poor starving people, thats a GOOD THING.
Is it still a good thing if the governments of those people are able to spend more money on weapons, because others look after feeding their people?
..don't panic
The left hand should not know what the right hand does...
[o]_O
From Google Fight:
:p
Google Foundation - 10,400,000 results
Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation - 224,000 results
I believe Google Foundation emerges the clear winner
Google are already doing good
That's the funniest thing i've read in a while...although I'm sure someone here is capable of coming up with a logical explanation for that, that doesnt involve the word typo.
And yes, i am drinking beer and reading slashdot. I'm sure im not the only one.
I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
Alternately, Google could focus on providing a functional search engine and leave the philanthropy to Bill G.
90% Professional Slacker
OK, maybe it wasn't that funny, but come on... hardly a troll :/
It was FUNNY - idiot.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating