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."
Alliterate people annoy me.
Alliterate people annoy me.
Agreed. Alliterate assholes.
The tax option looks interesting, but a little too in line with typical ideas of the conservative right in the United States to win my vote. Eliminating income tax and taxing consumption directly through sales tax would severely detriment lower income brackets and reward the affluent. The research on sales tax being more detrimental to lower income groups is pretty solid. I was actually surprised Google passed this idea through given its obvious politics.
The transportation option, on the other hand, while somewhat far-fetched, would revolutionize commerce and local economies if it were widely adopted.
Since all of the ideas are a bit of a long shot, I voted for what I would like to see in an ideal world. In addition, the idea of riding blimps to work is just too cool to pass up.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
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.
Now we know why there were sixteen finalists. It's 10^100 in binary (a.k.a. 2^4 in decimal).
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
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.
All these projects depend on the Make government more transparent. Without this one, the governments will limit all other projects. This is exactly the same reason why Lawrence Lessig is fighting corruption and not copyright problems. He was fighting people that couldn't hear him. So, I vote for it.
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.