Slashdot Mirror
Google Project 10^100 Reaches Voting Phase
An anonymous reader writes "In autumn last year, Google announced Project 10 to the 100, through which it aimed to commit $10 million to implement the best philanthropic idea. The project was suspended indefinitely after receiving more than 150,000 submissions. Google has now announced sixteen finalists — each of which was inspired by many individual submissions — and issued a call for votes. The voting deadline is October 8 and the Project 10^100 advisory board will then select up to five ideas to be implemented."
Google's googol garnering a gaggle of generous gentlemen.
What a bunch of lame ideas.
Many of them appeared to be: ...)
- Things that should already be done by well-defined organizations (usually governmental).
- Things that shouldn't be done (because the downsides, like creating databased of personal information that can be used to harm individuals, violate Franklin's rule: (He who trades freedom for safety
- Things that have proven cost-ineffective (such as public transport which, except in special circumstances, tends to cost far more per ride - in money, risk, and rider lifetime - than individual vehicles).
But a handfull of 'em did look useful, rather than just politically correct but probably counterproductive. (My pick: Free online educational materials.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's not unfortunate if they're effective. The way we're living now is simply not sustainable, fossil fuel being an obvious example. Some say, "don't worry, technology will increase the carrying capacity without limit," and then whine at every proposed investment in said technology, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
There is not one single idea in that list that could have a significant global impact.
First of all, all the idea submitters are people that have internet access. Letâ(TM)s not forget that ONLY 24.7% of the WORLD has internet access. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
This means that the people that really need help isn't heard on this 10^100 Project (75.3%)
So I wonâ(TM)t vote for this. or maybe I was expecting something else.
Like
1. Develop an accessible not fossil fuel dependant vehicle
2. Create an organization for exchange guns for [insert exchange here]
3. Offer developing countries support, with technology and money to invest in agriculture related projects
4. Create a free technology exchange portal, where countries can access for free
5. Destroy de Guantanamo Base
i don't know but nothing on that list, what do you think?, what coulld really change this world for the better?
I mean. If that is what 150000 people submitted to make this world better, we are DOOMED..
1) Obviously the point of investing in new public transport technologies is to improve them. You seem to be ruling out any potential technology that could be called "public transport" out-of-hand, which makes no sense
2) There's no reason public transport might not rely on individual vehicles. Heck, that's what taxis are.
3) There are economically viable public transportation systems all of the world, including the US (commerial air, for one). Dismissing them all as "special circumstances" is a loophole big enough for a double-decker bus.
4) I'd love to know what you were thinking when you said public transport is more risky.
Don't get me wrong, the bus service where I live is a huge time waste and I never ride it. That's why I'd love it if somebody invested in finding something better.
Hell, you could use the $10m to kick start a bunch of bike sharing programs in various cities.
Some americans have some pretty funny ideas about things which they don't have well implemented but work quite well elsewhere. Where the hell do you get these ideas about public transport? A car is in 99.9% of all cases more risky and more expensive for the owner. Of course you don't have as much freedom as with a car and, unless the place you're going to has no parking spots, a car will always be faster, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't have a good subway network.
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
If the bus service near where you live is a waste of time that might be because you live in a place that can't be well-served by public transit. Public transit is efficient when it consolidates common trips, and can become convenient when trips are common enough for frequent service. With common trips into dense areas parking becomes a hassle, so driving is inconvenient and expensive also. Those things don't happen in areas without a focal downtown, or places that are quite dense. When I lived in Silicon Valley I almost never used public transit (exceptions being Caltrain to San Francisco, and taking the shuttle bus to San Jose airport because I'd rather walk the two miles to the bus stop than mess with airport traffic and parking). When I lived in Chicago I almost never drove (only when I needed to carry lots of stuff or go to the suburbs).
As far as changing the nature of public transit, there's always PRT... If you think Google, with no public works experience, will figure out PRT, you're high (although I wouldn't be surprised if they tried). Tons of money has been blown on studies, and it's resulted in one system that partially implements a very simplistic version of the concept: Morgantown, WV. Morgantown's half-PRT works more like a tram during busy periods anyway, because it couldn't handle the volume otherwise.
Or lives in a place that is *underserved* by public transit - as is the case for many US cities.
There is an issue of critical mass with public transportation - gradual adoption doesn't make sense. Most people don't use it because they *can't* use it, because the routes are too few, inconvenient and unreliable to depend on them. But once you reach critical coverage on an area, and you don't have to wait >=1 hour for the bus anymore - things are *qualitatively* different and you have a chance to scale.
I understand your point that some places are too sparsely populated to make it cost effective. But the argument that you need a focal downtown and high density frankly doesn't make sense - many places in this planet don't match that description, and yet 'public' transportation is both omnipresent and effective far into the suburbs and small towns.
I put 'public' in quotes because often it is a mix of private and government-funded mass transit. When there is no public monopoly, it's often easier for small entrepeneurs to extend the official transit network into underserved areas at a smaller scale, for a small profit margin - since they don't have to deal with the politics (or the guarantees of service).
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...