Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Spurs Plethora of Problem Solving Prizes

Posted by samzenpus on from the gaming-the-system dept.

coondoggie writes "Got a complicated problem? Hold a prize competition to solve it. That's the basic idea behind the America Competes Act, renewed by Congress this week. According to the White House's Office of Science and Technology, the Competes Act gives every department and agency the authority to conduct prize competitions. Prizes and challenges have an excellent track record of accelerating problem-solving by tapping America's top talent and best expertise."

140 comments

  1. History repeated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Prizes posted by royalty were used in previous centuries to solve things like finding longitude whilst navigating at sea.

  2. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow this time you are just flamebait

  3. Only one winner! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only one winner - the government. The vast majority of those who enter will be wasting their time and money - you don't get paid for coming second.

    1. Re:Only one winner! by windcask · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but one could argue incentive for critical thought and problem-solving skills among today's youth pays dividends down the road.

  4. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by spazdor · · Score: 1

    govern according to the actual interests of your constituents.

    You can make my cheque out to "cash."

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  5. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck-off, ye Troll with dozens of consecutive /. accounts:

    http://slashdot.org/~MichaelKristopeit300

    ... 300 -- 320 ...

    http://slashdot.org/~MichaelKristopeit320

    and now beyond 320.

  6. and lowest expense by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Prizes and challenges have an excellent track record of accelerating problem-solving by tapping America's top talent and best expertise." ... and are cheap too because instead of paying people to solve it, you let a multitude of people do it in their free time, and then you pay the winner a set amount regardless of how long it took or what it actually cost. Everyone else gets nothing, regardless of how much time they spend, or what their expenses were.

    I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.

    We're already seeing prize models for logo and website design...

    1. Re:and lowest expense by femto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A critical question is: Who owns the result? A prize should be about promoting development, and NOT about acquiring ownership. Any prize recipient who transfers ownership is a bunny. The sequence should be:

      1. Win prize (prize posted to promote development.)
      2. Use prize money as seed funding for business
      3. PROFIT! Prize giver has a solution and developer has money.

      The reward for the 2nd, 3rd, .. place getters is the opportunity to still develop a business, albeit without the benefit of the prize money as funding.

    2. Re:and lowest expense by drb226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.

      Some people actually *enjoy* their profession, and do not need to be paid for *everything* they do (e.g. open source?). Plus, even if they don't win, they at least strengthen their portfolio and skills.

    3. Re:and lowest expense by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some people actually *enjoy* their profession, and do not need to be paid for *everything* they do (e.g. open source?).

      So your argument is that people will compete for a cash prize because they aren't motivated by money?

    4. Re:and lowest expense by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I just asked the same question.

      And the answer is:
      "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

      Although that also means that Congress has the power not to do that...

    5. Re:and lowest expense by somersault · · Score: 1

      What if the solution to the problem has no direct business application?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:and lowest expense by somersault · · Score: 1

      The patent office also have the power to do it, and are a lot less capable of screwing you over.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:and lowest expense by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Then you should think carefully about that, and your chances of winning, before investing any time into attempting to win this prize (i.e., don't bother).

    8. Re:and lowest expense by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Er, not quite sure I follow. That line I quoted is from the Constitution and it is the one that allows the Congress to set up the Patent Office to that thing there with the writings and discoveries and authors and inventors and science and arts...

      I wonder if anyone ever challenged a copyright on the basis that the work of art it purported to protect was not "useful"...

    9. Re:and lowest expense by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Unless someone has a fat trust fund or something, or is retired, they still have to earn a paycheck to put food on their family's table and pay the rent/mortgage. So, how much time they can devote to what is essentially a hobby (even if it does intersect with their professional abilities) is usually limited. Contrary to myth, many, many open-source developers (and most of those working on big, important projects like the Linux kernel) are indeed working on these projects as their day job, for pay. Those that don't obviously spend less time on it, but these projects are still all ones where no special equipment or facilities are needed (other than a typical $500 PC and a place in your home to put it). Computing is quite special that way, so it has an extremely low barrier to entry, and someone wanting to do some coding in their spare time can set aside a couple hours every night to go in their room and work on it.

      These government prize-funded projects aren't like that. FTA, one prize is for technology to clean up devastating oil spills. That probably isn't something you can work on in your garage. Kevin Costner worked on some technology for that, but he's got a lot more disposable income than the average engineer. Another is for a treatment for Type I Diabetes. Even if you're a biomedical researcher, you still need all the facilities at your workplace to work on a side idea you may have, and your employers may take a dim view of that.

    10. Re:and lowest expense by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone ever challenged a copyright on the basis that the work of art it purported to protect was not "useful"...

      Unfortunately we're now bound by the Berne Convention which pretty much explicitly states copyright is automatic, regardless of merit, and applies 50 years posthumously.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    11. Re:and lowest expense by somersault · · Score: 1

      I thought you were quoting from the rules of this prize giving malarkey. I'm not American just in case you think I should have learned this stuff in school.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:and lowest expense by sea4ever · · Score: 1

      They may not be competing for the prize at all.

      Maybe they decided to participate because it's enjoyable to them. The prize is just a bonus that happens to be there. If there were no prize they would most probably still do it.

      This can happen, because people regularly participate in projects like this with no prize at all. (see open source projects) as a hobby.

    13. Re:and lowest expense by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not necessarily a bad argument. I've seen plenty of college clubs/programs that would happily apply their chosen talent/focus to a problem. They would even budget/fund-raise to make sure they could successfully pull it off. Why? Personal pride, sense of purpose, but often, if there is a cash prize, there's a round of photographs, news articles, and coverage in magazines and other media forms dedicated to their personal niche.

      The money may not be the motivation, but if there's an oversized check for $50,000, you can bet that someone's going to take a picture or two and write about it somewhere. For a lot of groups, that exposure is worth far more than the cash. Although the cash might be seed money for the next venture they jump into.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    14. Re:and lowest expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The prize submitter owns the result, unless specifically stated otherwise.

      The crux of this policy is to limit the endless milking under a contract or grant with no or limited results. In other words, the trust in the grant review boards and contract award protocols has evaporated. Instead of paying for action, action, and more action that leads to nowhere, we pay for results.

      As the inventor/innovator/producer, you are still free, unless specifically stipulated by entering the competition, to protect and commercialize your investment.

    15. Re:and lowest expense by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they decided to participate because it's enjoyable to them. The prize is just a bonus that happens to be there. If there were no prize they would most probably still do it.

      Of course. But then its a waste of money. There is no point in funding a prize to motivate people to do what they were going to do anyway. What exactly is the return on the prize? The same people who would have done it are still working on the problem.

    16. Re:and lowest expense by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      "Prizes and challenges have an excellent track record of accelerating problem-solving by tapping America's top talent and best expertise." ... and are cheap too because instead of paying people to solve it, you let a multitude of people do it in their free time, and then you pay the winner a set amount regardless of how long it took or what it actually cost. Everyone else gets nothing, regardless of how much time they spend, or what their expenses were.

      Well, that depends... There were prizes for various aeronautical feats back in the (19)20's and 30's for fairly pitiful amounts, but that didn't stop people and companies from chasing after them because the knowledge and experience thus gained fed back into more productive/profitable work.
       

      I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.

      That's because you hold the mistaken belief that if you're not the winner, you didn't accomplish anything.

    17. Re:and lowest expense by vux984 · · Score: 2

      That's because you hold the mistaken belief that if you're not the winner, you didn't accomplish anything.

      Not at all. But if I don't win, then it had better have been worth it to me doing it anyway. And if it was worth me doing it anyway, then I'd have done it anyway. And if I'd have done it anyway, there doesn't need to be a prize to motivate me to do what I'd have done anyway.

    18. Re:and lowest expense by wisty · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.

      Well, who else is going to pay a scientist to do public-good research?

      The only difference is that the grant money comes after results, not before.

      It would be good to have some information on what other teams are doing (or just who else is in the game), and a central clearing house where they can find less popular competitions, and maybe some analytics on the profitability of past attempts. But it's not all terrible. As long as people know the risks.

    19. Re:and lowest expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting to undo accidental downmod instead of upmod.

    20. Re:and lowest expense by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      And people compete for the Oscars even though they are not motivated by small hunks of metal

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    21. Re:and lowest expense by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Some people actually *enjoy* their profession, and do not need to be paid for *everything* they do (e.g. open source?).

      So your argument is that people will compete for a cash prize because they aren't motivated by money?

      More likely because they like to build things and to compete.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    22. Re:and lowest expense by sea4ever · · Score: 1

      I think the prize usually works as a sort of PR by drawing attention to your company.

      I think maybe they do it as a kind of reward to have a clear conscience and also to make the competition a little more entertaining. (Prizes are not required but they do make it more worthwhile)

      So something like:
      'We need this problem solved. Lets crowd source it and start a competition. Throw in a prize to make us look good and to make it entertaining."

      Remember that people are not as rigid as machines, and that corporations are run by people. They can do things which are a waste of money from time to time.

    23. Re:and lowest expense by schlachter · · Score: 1

      a lot of people play the lottery. great way to motivate science at a lower cost to the government.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    24. Re:and lowest expense by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That's because you hold the mistaken belief that if you're not the winner, you didn't accomplish anything.

      Not at all.

      Well, you sure go to great lengths to give the impression otherwise.
       

      But if I don't win, then it had better have been worth it to me doing it anyway. And if it was worth me doing it anyway, then I'd have done it anyway. And if I'd have done it anyway, there doesn't need to be a prize to motivate me to do what I'd have done anyway.

      In other words, if you don't win - you didn't accomplish anything, it's all about the tangible bottom line.

    25. Re:and lowest expense by vux984 · · Score: 1

      In other words, if you don't win - you didn't accomplish anything, it's all about the tangible bottom line.

      Wow. No. Not even close. Precisely the opposite.

      If I don't win, then the rewards are the intangible benefits. (Satisfaction of doing it, enjoyment of doing, having learned from doing it, etc.)

      Odds are high that I won't win. After all, by definition, nearly all contestants lose. So the individual potential contestants rationally should not be expecting to win.

      If they don't expect to win, then they for them to do it, it is for precisely those intangibles mentioned above. (And I think those are great reasons to do something, by the way.)

      HOWEVER, if they are sufficiently motivated to do something for the intangibles, then the prize isn't necessary. They would do it for the intangibles... and probably already are.

      Either you are doing it because you want to for the intangibles, or you shouldn't do it at all. Doing something when you don't value the intangibles, and only for the prize is almost irrational as you are then most likely doing it for nothing at all.

    26. Re:and lowest expense by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Not really. They already act in movies professionally. If the oscars were discontinued would anyone really care? What would change?

    27. Re:and lowest expense by Francofille · · Score: 1

      Plus we learn more from our failures than from our successes.

      When we don't try at all we learn nothing.

  7. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

  8. Design and Implement a new 20-year Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Design and Implement a new 20-year Copyright, to be implemented retroactively.

    Prize will be access to an enormous amount of works of cultural significance (sorry, only 1990 and earlier).

    1. Re:Design and Implement a new 20-year Copyright by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      That would be great... well, except for the Mickey Mouse porn.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  9. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit323 · · Score: 0
    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  10. Welcome to the casino gulag state by benjamindees · · Score: 2

    It was pretty much inevitable that reward of government contracts would eventually devolve into hand-to-hand combat.

    Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutamus.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Welcome to the casino gulag state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was pretty much inevitable that reward of government contracts would eventually devolve into hand-to-hand combat.

      There's enough material in your post for a scene in Idiocracy II.

  11. Tap that Talent, but more Talent to Tap? by FatalChaos · · Score: 2

    I'm sure having problem solving competitions accelerates the process of solving a particular problem, if for no other reason than drawing more attention and prestige to that problem. However, I'm curious if competitions really have an effect on the number of people who pursue careers in math, physics, etc. I mean does anyone really go "man, I'm going to become a mathematician and get rich through these competitions." I know people often go into the sciences for love rather than money, but I don't see how these competitions would make people love science and math more.

  12. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are Anonymous and we assfuck you

  13. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    slashdot should regex ban you MichaelKristopeit[0-9]*

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  14. Who owns the results? by blair1q · · Score: 1

    So I'm supposed to do a year's worth of work for a share of a dinette set instead of the $150K it should be paying me?

    1. Re:Who owns the results? by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No you're supposed to do it for a share of a dinette set plus the personal satisfaction you get from solving problems and the prestige and recognition of being the guy who beat everyone else at doing it.

      Fyi, people actually pay for the opportunity to compete in triathlons, and most of them aren't even expecting to win. The ones who do don't receive much in the way of compensation for the time they've invested in it. And yet hundreds of people still show up to do it.

      If you're not in the spirit of the game then it may not seem very equitable to you, but good news! It's 100% voluntary, so no need for you to worry about it.

      --
      When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
    2. Re:Who owns the results? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      No you're supposed to do it for a share of a dinette set plus the personal satisfaction you get from solving problems and the prestige and recognition of being the guy who beat everyone else at doing it.

      I get all that anyway, but I deserve $150K, not a fucking dinette set.

      Fyi, people actually pay for the opportunity to compete in triathlons, and most of them aren't even expecting to win. The ones who do don't receive much in the way of compensation for the time they've invested in it. And yet hundreds of people still show up to do it.

      That's nice for them. But the people who win make MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS doing it and rarely have to pay their own entry fee, besides.

      If you're not in the spirit of the game then it may not seem very equitable to you, but good news! It's 100% voluntary, so no need for you to worry about it.

      It's not 100% voluntary. The government is sucking the value of innovation out of the economy by paying in dinette sets instead of what it's worth.

    3. Re:Who owns the results? by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      Whether it's good or bad, it's not 100% voluntary if it's paid for with tax dollars.

    4. Re:Who owns the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sponsoring isn't any percent voluntary. But the criticism is that those entering are getting ripped off. Heck - to the degree that that's so, I'd say I'm getting a good return on my tax dollar.

      Entering is 100% voluntary, and this is what is relevant to the original claims.

  15. Jefe, would you say I have a Plethora of Prizes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would not like to think that person would tell someone that he has a plethora and then find out that that person has "no idea" what it means to have a plethora.

  16. xcellent track record... by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 2

    You have some data to back this up ?
    You have some real data to back this up, like some detailed comparison of 40 problems, with 20 solved by prize method and 20 solved by some other method ?
    I don't know if prizes are good or not; I know that argument by anecdote (x prize foundation....) is not a good substitute for thinking
    There is also a difference between a "solution" and a "solution" - it is easy to get something to work once for the prize committee; a lot harder to make it work many times, at a reasonable cost.

    1. Re:xcellent track record... by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      Don't think of them as anecdotes, think of them as case studies.

      Look at Netflix's contest. It seems to have been a big success. Netflix set a difficult goal in terms of improving on their recommendation algorithm. 41 thousand teams competed for the prize. Of those, over 5000 submitted valid entries, over 44 thousand in total. The teams published their progress and improved on each others' work. The winning team even published a variety of papers during the process. Eventually (three years later), the goal (a 10% improvement) was reached, and the prize handed out.

      The prize was $1m. With over 44 thousand entries, it's likely that millions of man-hours were spent on the contest. Clearly it would not have been possible to pay for the development that happened. On the other hand, a point might be raised as to if Netflix could not have paid to assemble a specific team to solve the problem with a $1m budget? $1m can pay for some pretty smart researchers for three years...

  17. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a homo, sir.

  18. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, who wants to sponsor a contest to come up with a form of democracy that isn't plagued by lobbyists and short-sighted leaders? I'm in for $50.

    1. Re:This is great! by pspahn · · Score: 1

      The idea is already there and quite possible to implement in a short time.

      The only problem is that not enough people are truly interested in politics for it to make an ideal amount of sense.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  19. DARPA Grand Challenge by Trip6 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a classic example of this trend. Various government agencies spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get autonomous ground vehicles off the ground (so to speak). For under $50 million, DARPA conducted three events from 2004 - 2007 and spurred technology that is now being deployed in trucks, cars, boats, for 3-D mapping, and many other uses.

    They say that to improve your user interface design add a high score file. Everybody loves a competition!

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:DARPA Grand Challenge by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      Maybe those hundreds of millions of dollars to academic and government research institutions in robotics and machine learning had a wee bit to do with the success of the teams who entered the competitions.

    2. Re:DARPA Grand Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, no kidding. There's a huge baseline investment. But for those hundreds of millions of dollars most of what you would have gotten under regular circumstances would be some nice papers written up in the journals, and maybe a few patents and a few prototypes. This way you get a full suite of functional prototypes AND you get to see how they all perform head-to-head under exactly the same conditions and rules that you set. It's that latter part that you probably couldn't get any other way. Not for such a relatively cheap price (e.g., compared to putting it out to tender and funding only the winning bid).

    3. Re:DARPA Grand Challenge by Trip6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Teams were actually prohibited from using any government sponsored technology.

      As someone very close to this, I can tell you that most of the notable developments that came out of the race were not derivations of previously funded technology.

      --
      I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  20. Very cool But by gearloos · · Score: 1

    Very cool. I wonder which Chinese Foreign Exchange Student will win?

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  21. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    I am still not sure if he is for real or a horribly failed AI experiment. He could be replaced with a very small shellscript, however...

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  22. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this would be well applied in the WTF previously announced today.

  23. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0

    Your script is failing. You used to be grammatically correct. You should that have checked out.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  24. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit327 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face are a homo.

    why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  25. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by somersault · · Score: 1

    Then he'd have won, as he only created the accounts to discredit the original. And apparently to provide an outlet for his NPD.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  26. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid of nuclear war and carnies. This is why I cower.

    You are a homosexual for various other reasons, and are pathetic in ways that science has yet to understand.

  27. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit327 · · Score: 1
    did your mother name you "Mindcontrolled"? why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  28. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I back your ability to create as many accounts as you can but you do realize that you're a loon, don't you? A total nutjob.

  29. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit330 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face're a loon.

    why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  30. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    ok then ban MichaelKristopeit[0-9]+

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  31. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Huh? That's exactly what American politicians do: they govern according to the actual interests of their constituents, the Corporations, who provide them with generous "campaign donations".

  32. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing more hilarious than when a infantile cretin with a tenuous grasp of the English language attempts to sound smart.

    i have children with my wife who will testify as to their conception

    Yes, and I'm sure they're very proud of their father at this moment.

    Troll some more, nub.

    You're completely retarded.

  33. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    Two lines, actually.

    head -c 200 /dev/random
    echo "you're completely pathetic"

    At least, I hope I'm not the only one with an insulting /dev/random. That thing can be down right mean.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  34. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

    Who's Rachel, your mom? Are you a basement dweller? You certainly do seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to go around telling people "ur mums face ", creating dozens of slashdot accounts and generally being a nuisance.

    Does your mom know you're a renowned internet troll? Maybe I should call and tell her...

    --
    Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  35. Reality TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh you mean the government caught up with reality TV that's so 5 years ago? I have a problem finding a boy/girlfriend so I'll just make a TV show and have people compete over me!! yearsbehind as usual =/

  36. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

    And there's the money shot. Right on cue.

    --
    Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  37. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit326 · · Score: 0
    keep demanding it of others.

    keep pathetically crying for my silence as you hypocritically and ignorantly spew nothing of value.

  38. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who are you wrong? Is you'r'e'e muom a money shot? why are you not responsibility for cower?

    cover some more feeds.

    your complete pathy.

  39. It'll work if they pay out. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, history teaches us that judges don't like innovative solutions to the problem.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison

    1. Re:It'll work if they pay out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't get your point. Harrison had an innovative solution and got paid for work multiple times.

  40. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit326 · · Score: 0

    you're an idiot

  41. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll some more, nub.

    You're completely retarded.

    I lol'd

  42. Greetings Starfighter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan armada...

  43. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by windcask · · Score: 1

    you're an idiot

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of victory. *bows*

  44. i herd you like challenges by nimbius · · Score: 1

    so heres an american science competition hosted by the defense department (who else has funding in america) and the rules are simple:

    1. no global warming...global warming is a theory, not a fact, and thusly we arent holding any competitions to fix something that may, or may not be occuring, according to american politic...er..scientists.

    2. no stem cells...we firmly believe life begins at arousal and will defend this conceptualized interaction of neurons to the death, or next midterm election, whichever we see fit.

    3. we're fat...seriously, and we've run out of options that involve us eating food so check out the myhealthypeople application developer competition. mostly this is just trying to improve retention and enlistment rates in the armed forces as well as reduce healthcare expenditures...for us, not you

    4. the FCC Open Internet Apps challenge: okay so we know there are at least 2 open source operating systems available with hundreds of thousands of open source programs and lots of creative people already working on this shit but lets ignore that for now....we, the FCC just passed a law that makes us look like shitbags so we'd like you to tie us up to something that makes us look like a worthwhile independent institution established to protect the consumer, not some lapdog for telecommunications conglomerates

    5. the NDU press holiday scavenger hunt: aaalright...who copy pasted their google calender.....


    .6. augmented reality photo contest: so not really anything as ass-crackingly earth shattering and life changing as our last big invention, the internet, but hey everyone loves photoshop...oh and you'd better have a licensed copy.


    7. veterans health wireless challenge thats right, we're openly soliciting as a challenge a project related to a healthcare system so broken, it should be criminal

    8. 2011 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards:oh, did we mention no stem cells? yeah, no stem cells...i mean dupont and dow corning cant make plastic tron figurines and happymeal prizes out of them, and theres a mighty big gap where BPA will ....uh...i mean its...a great challenge!

    9. Digital Manufacturing Analysis, Correlation and Estimation (DMACE) Challenge seriously okay, this one was just left over from some gin soaked napkin at a GOP convention packed with lobbyists...soooo...this is the science of figuring out how much, oh, say, a line of talking tron figurines will cost this year...you know...if you had to guess...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  45. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Shikaku · · Score: 0

    did your mother name you "Mindcontrolled"? why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  46. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit328 · · Score: 1
    did your mother name you "windcask"?

    why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  47. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit327 · · Score: 1
    no. i don't. i'm not.

    my name is Michael Kristopeit. i live at 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701. my phone number is 715-514-0916.

    you're an idiot.

  48. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you forgot to say: your athletic

  49. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by windcask · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I don't know. Why did your mother bother to conceive you? Why do you eat your own feces? Why do you rape cats, moles and other small vermin? Why is your penis so small it warrants measurement with a micrometer?

    There are some questions to which there are no good answers.

  50. But thats not according to the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    According to the story I've heard for years and years: Corporations create everything. Every good thing that ever came along, came from a corporation. Thats why they have patents and copyrights up the ying-yang. They have total control over every idea, and death to anyone who crosses them. The control is forever, and they have complete control over it. (Didn't you know?) So if the corporations are responsible for every good thing that ever came along, why do we need a prize for people to come up with good ideas? You don't need people, all you need are corporations. In fact, the corporations have people, but I think the corporations would be better off coming up with ideas without people. That way, people wouldn't be tainting the great ideas that the corporations come up with.

  51. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit327 · · Score: 1
    ur mum's face eat your own feces.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  52. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Shikaku · · Score: 0

    This reply proves it is a bot. QED.

  53. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit324 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face proves it is a bot.

    JZF.

    you're an idiot.

  54. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by windcask · · Score: 1

    What a coincidence! That's exactly what I said when I was penetrating your sister's tiny asshole last night. Strange she kept calling out your name. Were you watching, you naughty boy?

  55. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by somersault · · Score: 1

    I think the original had a number in his name too though. I can't however remember, nor do I really care enough to research it. If he wants to waste his life like this, let him :)

    --
    which is totally what she said
  56. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a child molester.

  57. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit330 · · Score: 0
    you are a pathetic coward attempting defamation through the act of broadcasting lies.

    i live at 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701.

    present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  58. Innocentive? by gringer · · Score: 2

    the Competes Act gives every department and agency the authority to conduct prize competitions

    Prize competitons, puzzles, solutions. It sounds a bit like innocentive, which is a more global thing that has been running for the past 9 years.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  59. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're apparently having a bad day.

    Take a breather?

    (I'm not the AC or midcontrolled, just a passing observer who sometimes finds it interesting to click the links to see how far these name calling contests go.

    Sorry for the noise. Carry on.)

  60. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit330 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face're apparently having a bad day.

    why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  61. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit329 · · Score: 0
    perhaps one day i could aspire to respond to such a person and spend my life doing as such.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    did your mother name you "somersault"? why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym? what are you afraid of?

    you're completely pathetic.

  62. plethora means "an excess" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as in, "too many", not "a large amount".

  63. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u mad?

  64. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit329 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face mad?

    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  65. That's not why DARPA did it by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DARPA Grand Challenge was actually Dr. Tony Tether's way of getting a message through to the academic robotics community - "get results or else". DARPA had been putting money into robotics work, and specific automatic driving work, at MIT, Stanford, and CMU since the 1960s, without getting anything that was close to useful. When the Grand Challenge was first announced, all three of those schools didn't intend to enter, and in fact, months into the competition, none of them had. Many non-academic entrants had signed up, but the big schools weren't in it.

    Then something happened. I gather that it was made clear to the major research groups that if the Grand Challenge resulted in better technology than what DARPA had received from academia, academic funding would be turned off. Suddenly, all three schools cranked up huge efforts, tying up a substantial fraction of their CS departments. Nobody had ever had 100-person crash programs in academic robotics before, let alone ones funded by the universities themselves.

    It worked. But it wasn't the carrot of winning that drove the major schools. The prize was only $1 million. It was the big stick of funding cuts.

  66. Why this works by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are a few options for a government or other large organization to get something important and difficult done.

    1. Assign the task to whatever part of your org chart this falls under. Uncountable billions and years later, you'll have a semi functional disappointment. NASA has proven this several times.

    2. Contract it out to a major company, picked in some bidding process. The results are slightly better than (1), but still very bad.

    3. Announce a prize of 1% of what you would have spent in (1), and you'll likely have a solution in 1/3 of the time.

    This is because with prizes, whoever is best suited to solve the problem, in the whole world, can do so without having to convince your bureaucrats of their ideas, and make a profit doing so.

    It's one of the very few effective ways to work around natural bureaucracy inertia.

  67. Do you know what is a plethora? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mTUmczVdik

  68. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mom's face may be mad, but at least I'm not a child molester, which is more than you can say.

  69. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit329 · · Score: 0
    i'm not a child molester.

    you're more than at least demonstrably wrong. you're an idiot.

    why do you attempt slanderous defamation through lies attributable to no one? why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

    the real question is, why do you choose to fantasize about child molestation? while not claim that you never were a child molester. why not claim that you never will be? is that part of your life over? do you lie about it like you lie about me?

    you're completely pathetic.

    present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgression

  70. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit329 · · Score: 0
    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  71. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why do you cower, are you afraid to show us your real email address?

  72. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit328 · · Score: 1
    i don't cower.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

  73. prize is copyrighted and patented by chronoss2010 · · Score: 0

    you owe back 999,999,999 dollars for the prize you get.

    1. Re:prize is copyrighted and patented by MichaelKristopeit330 · · Score: 0
      $1,000,000,000,000 - $999,999,999 = $999,000,000,001.

      you're an idiot.

  74. Labour abuse! by theNAM666 · · Score: 2

    What this is, is an excuse for government not to pay people for work. Prizes and challenges have an excellent track record of impoverishing America's top talent and best expertise, and making the next generation unable to afford to educate themselves to innovate.

    In short: fuck this; range your Congresscritter.

  75. Re: enjoying starvation, poverty and death by theNAM666 · · Score: 2

    And some people actually *enjoy* their starvation, and do not need food for their children in exchange for *everything* they do . Plus, even if they don't win, they at least get to believe that they did something to better mankind while watching their children be eaten by the rich.

  76. A modest proposal... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Got a credit problem? Sell your childrens' flesh to solve it. That's the basic idea behind the America Eats The Poor Act, renewed by Congress this week. According to the White House's Office of Poverty Elimination, the Eats Act gives every department and agency the authority to give poor people a small prize in exchange for each of their children that they fricazze or bake for the consumption pleasure of the rich. Eating poor children has an excellent track record of accelerating competitiveness and combating overpopulation by eliminating America's stupid, fat losers before they grow up."

  77. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

    Admit what I've done

  78. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You I am a retarded goat who is pretending to be Michael.

  79. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is more fun than knocking over kids' snowmen and stealing their woollen mittens

  80. Many puzzles? by Born2bwire · · Score: 1

    Would you say I have a plethora of puzzles?

  81. This is more important than just the prize by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

    Each contest is DEFINING problems, publishing their awareness of the issue, and looking for solutions. A few years of this, regardless of what the problem or prize is, will result in evolutionary improvements.

    Any organization that does this in good faith is worthy of my time and effort to help.

    (Unless they don't take this mandate seriously, and only post trivial problems and contests)

  82. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit328 · · Score: 1
    you're an idiot.

    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  83. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a homofag

  84. Re:$1,000,000,000,000 prize by MichaelKristopeit328 · · Score: 0
    good luck with that, coward.

    you're completely pathetic.

  85. First challenge: by Geminii · · Score: 1

    "Your challenge is to eliminate stupidity in America. Good luck."