In the worst case scenario, the Google page at Wikipedia would be locked after it was edited to say something to this effect:
Glory be unto Google, our Lord and Savior, who hath bestowed upon us a great abundance of pretty good search results, text ads, and banner ads that doth not flash. We thank thee, oh Google, for thine blessings of 2.6GB email storage, feed reader that canst play YouTube, and map API which hath enabled thine humble servants to build great and most holy mashups in your honor.
I'm fine with that, and it seems inevitable at this point anyway.
That's true, but I don't think a Nobel Prize is the reason the winners did what they did. It is just a pat on the back. I think where prizes are really effective is when they are very large, when there is a specific goal stated up front, and that goal can be reached in a relatively short period of time by a small number of people doing something a little innovative.
The VC firm, Kliner Perkins, announced that they will be awarding an alternative energy prize with a $100,000 award every year to someone that did something remarkable. That doesn't spur any innovation. That's just a publicity stunt. The Nobel Prize isn't as uninspiring as that, but its similar. I think its a nice recognition, but not a motivator.
A prize is simply a way to leverage more effort from more people to solve your problem. Look at the Darpa Grand Challenge: http://thinkorthwim.com/2006/11/19/robotic-racing- winning-the-darpa-grand-challenge/
They could have spent $2 million dollars funding each team, which is the way they'd approached funding in the past. Instead they spent $2 million for ALL the teams efforts, and it worked. What a spectacular bargain.
Prizes are perfect if you have a specific goal that's almost achievable, but you need to get a bunch of young innovative folks excited about it. In general, prizes are appropriate for engineering problems, not for fundamental science. Here's something else I wrote about why Google should use a prize to fund fusion. On the face of it, that sounds stupid, but I think it makes a lot sense if you think about it: http://thinkorthwim.com/2006/11/22/why-google-shou ld-go-nuclear/
"...Here's the cool thing you've just screwed up: your fans picked the very best stuff to share. Not only did they pick the best shows, they edited them down to the best segments. They chose those clips because they were topical, they were funny, and they were worth sharing. If I go to your site, I can watch the shows that you've selected, and they are not the same ones. Nice move.
Next, the YouTube video player works. Your video player? Not so much... Here's why:
1. You have tiny little videos that can't be resized. It's like watching TV from the next room through the keyhole of a closed door. 2. You use javascript to launch a popup window. Therefore, I can't send a link to my friends or put a link on my blog to direct people to the video highlight I want them to see. 3. Your popup window can't be opened in a tab or resized. Give me control of my browser back. 4. Your popup window has an obnoxious background that I'm afraid is going to give me a seizure. 5. Next to your video, there's an ad that's bigger than the video Firefox blocks it, but I can't decide which is worse: the hole that remains in the background, or the background. 6. When I open a YouTube page, the video starts to play. Isn't that cool? On your page, I sit and think about how much you suck while the video buffers. The video plays for about 3 seconds until it over-runs and starts buffering again....and that's with DSL. It must be completely useless at slower connection speeds. 7. With YouTube, I can embed the videos in my own website. When I visit a site I'm more likely to watch a video if its right there and I can just push play. You're at least five years away from developing that technology. 8. YouTube's search feature also works, conveniently allowing me to find what I'm looking for. At your site I end up looking through a list of videos..."
Slashdot Mirror
It's nearly complete. Look at their Logo.
In the worst case scenario, the Google page at Wikipedia would be locked after it was edited to say something to this effect: Glory be unto Google, our Lord and Savior, who hath bestowed upon us a great abundance of pretty good search results, text ads, and banner ads that doth not flash. We thank thee, oh Google, for thine blessings of 2.6GB email storage, feed reader that canst play YouTube, and map API which hath enabled thine humble servants to build great and most holy mashups in your honor. I'm fine with that, and it seems inevitable at this point anyway.
The Focus Fusion Society proposed it in 2004:/ x_prize/
h read/10/
u ld-go-nuclear/
http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article
Unfortunately, the X-Prize Foundation response in 2006 was less than encouraging:
http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/forums/viewt
Here's what I wrote about it:
http://thinkorthwim.com/2006/11/22/why-google-sho
That's true, but I don't think a Nobel Prize is the reason the winners did what they did. It is just a pat on the back. I think where prizes are really effective is when they are very large, when there is a specific goal stated up front, and that goal can be reached in a relatively short period of time by a small number of people doing something a little innovative. The VC firm, Kliner Perkins, announced that they will be awarding an alternative energy prize with a $100,000 award every year to someone that did something remarkable. That doesn't spur any innovation. That's just a publicity stunt. The Nobel Prize isn't as uninspiring as that, but its similar. I think its a nice recognition, but not a motivator.
A prize is simply a way to leverage more effort from more people to solve your problem. Look at the Darpa Grand Challenge:- winning-the-darpa-grand-challenge/
u ld-go-nuclear/
http://thinkorthwim.com/2006/11/19/robotic-racing
They could have spent $2 million dollars funding each team, which is the way they'd approached funding in the past. Instead they spent $2 million for ALL the teams efforts, and it worked. What a spectacular bargain.
Prizes are perfect if you have a specific goal that's almost achievable, but you need to get a bunch of young innovative folks excited about it. In general, prizes are appropriate for engineering problems, not for fundamental science. Here's something else I wrote about why Google should use a prize to fund fusion. On the face of it, that sounds stupid, but I think it makes a lot sense if you think about it:
http://thinkorthwim.com/2006/11/22/why-google-sho
http://grouper.com/video/daily+show
I sent this to Comedy Central last night:
...and that's with DSL. It must be completely useless at slower connection speeds.
"...Here's the cool thing you've just screwed up: your fans picked the very best stuff to share. Not only did they pick the best shows, they edited them down to the best segments. They chose those clips because they were topical, they were funny, and they were worth sharing. If I go to your site, I can watch the shows that you've selected, and they are not the same ones. Nice move.
Next, the YouTube video player works. Your video player? Not so much... Here's why:
1. You have tiny little videos that can't be resized. It's like watching TV from the next room through the keyhole of a closed door.
2. You use javascript to launch a popup window. Therefore, I can't send a link to my friends or put a link on my blog to direct people to the video highlight I want them to see.
3. Your popup window can't be opened in a tab or resized. Give me control of my browser back.
4. Your popup window has an obnoxious background that I'm afraid is going to give me a seizure.
5. Next to your video, there's an ad that's bigger than the video Firefox blocks it, but I can't decide which is worse: the hole that remains in the background, or the background.
6. When I open a YouTube page, the video starts to play. Isn't that cool? On your page, I sit and think about how much you suck while the video buffers. The video plays for about 3 seconds until it over-runs and starts buffering again.
7. With YouTube, I can embed the videos in my own website. When I visit a site I'm more likely to watch a video if its right there and I can just push play. You're at least five years away from developing that technology.
8. YouTube's search feature also works, conveniently allowing me to find what I'm looking for. At your site I end up looking through a list of videos..."
The entire letter is here: http://tinyurl.com/y66aav