Slashdot Mirror
Google To Fund Ideas That Will Change the World
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."
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.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
That's a hell of a lot of extra work to globally disseminate your idea to the world.
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....
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.
Use Google's infrastructure and clout to combat censorship and surveillance of dissidents by oppressive regimes.
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.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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 would have and decided that truly caring about mankind meant not to add more people into the pool. That was 30 years ago and I feel just as strongly about the correctness of my decision now as I did then.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
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.
GPL Deconstructed