The line from Bladerunner about machines either being a benefit or a hazard pretty well sums things up.
I think the biggest concern is that machines are liable to be used to destructive ends by manipulative people. Right now machines with physical agency (like cars) have very little in the way of independent capability: they can't really function independently of a human operator. And machines which can function independently of an operator lack physical agency (like ATMs).
The problem with humanoid robots is that they combin independence with physical agency. Even putting the entire issue of AI aside, such machines could be extremely dangerous because they have the potential to be misdirected for destructive purposes by people. Imagine if a 12 year old kid or a terrorist could instruct a big SUV by remote control?
It's not so much humanoid robots that are the concern, but larger machines like vehicles that are a worry to me. Right now it is virutally impossible to remotely hack the controls of an airliner, for example, but if planes began to be made to follow instructions issued from less narrow sources of input - by voice or remote control - then the window for abuse opens dramatically.
As I said, I won't get into AI since that's way too big of an issue, but there is one more point worth thinking about, and that is human beings as robots. Where human beings are profoundly ignorant and very fearful, they are vulnerable to manipulation. That's where terrorists come from. From a certain perspective, suicide bombers are like robots that are being misguided by malevolent human manipulators. Since without highly advanced AI they will presumably be easier to manipulate than even the most ignorant person, robots with physical agency could very quickly become the tool of choice for terrorism.
I remember getting scolded by some fanboys for suggesting that lightsabers should cast no shadows (apparently they must cast shadows since shadows were present in Episode 4...) because the cutting edge - whether plasma or whatever else - would need to be hairline-thin regardless of temperature in order to slice through things without causing unmanageable explosions of melted and vaporized target material.
"By taking the money out of the secondhand market and injecting it into the market for new goods, regulation (of old products) and revivalisation (of the economy) would be achieved in one fell swoop."
Wow, that was a winner of an idea. I wonder why they didn't think to apply the same regulation to, say, used cars?
I think I have seen some genuine research out there about subsonic and ultrasonic noise having a measurable negative impact on health - maybe in Discover or Scientific American?
Anyway, to put 2 and 2 together, all the electronic equipment in our offices and homes gives off sound. Kids especially can hear just about every appliance that is plugged in, and you can hear - if not 'feel' - the difference in your house when the power goes out (its usually a relief for most people), which is sort of a deafening silence.
So maybe it isn't the EM radiation from electronic devices but the sound that is causing people problems?
I'm no computer expert - I'm a minority slashdot reader! - but isn't one of the selling points of the Cell processor supposed to be that it is modular in a simple way, so you can add 'cells' and gain parallel processing by offloading onto co-processors with much more ease than the traditional CPU + xPUs architectures?
How many people really know anything about their cars? My grandfather has exactly the attitude about cars that you have about computers - it infuriates and exasperates him that people don't bother to understand this tool that is completely central to their lives. But one problem is that they (cars and computers both) are so complicated that it genuinely is difficult for a non-expert to understand the intricacies of how they work.
For some people, there is joy associated with tinkering with your car. My grandfather still works on his mid-60s Cadillac, and loves every minute he has to put into to keep it running. But the vast majority of people just use their car to get from A to B. Similarly, the vast majority of people just use their computer to do a few straightforward tasks - internet, email, IM, word processing, digital photos.
The reason why I want to switch to Linux isn't because I want to be able to get under the hood, it's because I don't want to support Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter). I think monopolies and oligopolies are a bad thing. I believe in open-source software as a matter of principle, not because I'm an uber-geek computer programmer.
I have to say, it does make it hard to be supportive of Linux when so many people say to non-experts like me, "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault." I support the small car companies too, but if I can't just get in and turn the key and go, then I have to buy my car from another company. It really isn't about stupidity or laziness - it's about time. My time is more valuable than the money I currently fork over to Microsoft. And when something goes wrong, I pay someone else to fix it. The exact same thing is true about my car. When my grandfather says "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault" when someone's car breaks down people look at him a little funny.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. But think of the car analogy for a moment. Now how many people really know anything about their cars? My grandfather has exactly the attitude about cars that you have about computers - it infuriates and exasperates him that people don't bother to understand this tool that is completely central to their lives. But one problem is that they (cars and computers both) are so complicated that it genuinely is difficult for a non-expert to understand the intricacies of how they work.
For some people, there is joy associated with tinkering with your car. My grandfather still works on his mid-60s Cadillac, and loves every minute he has to put into to keep it running. But the vast majority of people just use their car to get from A to B. Similarly, the vast majority of people just use their computer to do a few straightforward tasks - internet, email, IM, word processing, digital photos.
The reason why I want to switch to Linux isn't because I want to be able to get under the hood, it's because I don't want to support Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter). I think monopolies and oligopolies are a bad thing. I believe in open-source software as a matter of principle, not because I'm an uber-geek computer programmer.
I have to say, it does make it hard to be supportive of Linux when so many people say to non-experts like me, "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault." I support the small car companies too, but if I can't just get in and turn the key and go, then I have to buy my car from another company. It really isn't about stupidity or laziness - it's about time. My time is more valuable than the money I currently fork over to Microsoft. And when something goes wrong, I pay someone else to fix it. The exact same thing is true about my car. When my grandfather says "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault" when someone's car breaks down people look at him a little funny.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. But think of the car analogy for a moment. What if you replace 'computers' in your comment with 'cars'?:
use cars everyday for their livelihood and entertainment yet want to know absolutely nothing about them?
Now how many people know anything about their cars? My grandfather has exactly the attitude about cars that you have about computers - it infuriates and exasperates him that people don't bother to understand this tool that is completely central to their lives. But one problem is that they (cars and computers both) are so complicated that it genuinely is difficult for a non-expert to understand the intricacies of how they work.
For some people, there is joy associated with tinkering with your car. My grandfather still works on his mid-60s Cadillac, and loves every minute he has to put into to keep it running. But the vast majority of people just use their car to get from A to B. Similarly, the vast majority of people just use their computer to do a few straightforward tasks - internet, email, IM, word processing, digital photos.
The reason why I want to switch to Linux isn't because I want to be able to get under the hood, it's because I don't want to support Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter). I think monopolies and oligopolies are a bad thing. I believe in open-source software as a matter of principle, not because I'm an uber-geek computer programmer.
I have to say, it does make it hard to be supportive of Linux when so many people say to non-experts like me, "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault." I support the small car companies too, but if I can't just get in and turn the key and go, then I have to buy my car from another company. It really isn't about stupidity or laziness - it's about time. My time is more valuable than the money I currently fork over to Microsoft. And when something goes wrong, I pay someone else to fix it. The exact same thing is true about my car. When my grandfather says "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault" when someone's car breaks down people look at him a little funny.
Well, I use Windows, but it's there when I pull the PC out of the Box from Dell and turn it on. (Told you I was a dummy!)
Another thing about Linux that people like me are aprehensive about is the idea that once the OS is installed, it takes a lot of knowledge and work tweaking it to get everything running properly - drivers for hardware, setting up a home network, and so on. Maybe that is no longer an issue for some distros, but the fear lingers...
As a non-computer-person hoping to shortly shift to Linux, here is what I and my fellow newbie dummies want/need:
1. Insert CD.
2. Click OK.
3. Done.
I'm sure that's pretty obvious, so the question is: how close are Linux distros to being to that level, and if the answer is 'not close' then what are the obstacles to getting there and how are they being addressed?
I think most of the Next Big Things are measured in terms of how they affect productivity. That is probably why most would agree that the most recent Big Things have been cell phones, the Internet, and computers. But going further back, things we take for granted in our society cause equally large paradigm shifts in their own time: water, electricity, and transportation.
I think one Next Big Thing will be in personal transportation: flying cars. Moller has been vaporware for a long time, but only because the guy doing it is a nutjob, not because the technology is fundamentally flawed. The ability to travel 500 miles as easily as you can travel 50 miles in a car today will have an enormous impact on societies around the world.
Transportation is inarguably a major factor in boosting human productivity. I've lived in a lot of different countries, both developed and developing, and in the developing countries it is mobility and the capacity for transportation that blows open the doors to productivity - much more than computers or telecom, as far as I've seen. Transportation is definitely comparable in importance to water and power in terms of its fundamental impact on productivity.
Through his foundation he's been extremely generous, but most efforts up to now have been directed at diseases, which I would call a symptom of societal ill-health. In other words, diseases like malaria and typhoid and polio are consequences of other underlying problems: lack of utility infrastructure (water, power, telecom) and social development infrastructure (education, health care facilities).
It may be tha Bill Gates regards infrastructure problems as the jurisdiction of governments, but if I had $50 Billion to spend on improving quality of life in the developing world, I would spend it addressing the underlying infrastructure problems first.
And lastly, improving health care and handing out food could create a population explosion - it will of course save lives in the short run, but in the long run more people may die if they are born into a situation where there is no infrastructure. For example, in today's news there is rioting and fighting in Kenya over water shortages.
Does anyone have any idea how format support will affect price? I mean, today the difference in cost between a CD-ROM drive and a DVD/CD-ROM drive is pretty small, but 5 years ago the difference was significant.
So if manufacturers make devices that will support both HD formats, how much more expensive will those be than devices which support only one format? (Obviously most if not all the devices will support legacy formats from CDs to DVDs).
Transportation systems are still lacking by western standards, though you can get just about anywhere by car. But as far as communication infrastructure goes, wireless (mobile phone) coverage is superb in Oman and the UAE where I currently live and work - much better than in Southern California, for example. Fast internet is available both through fixed line and wireless service, though it is somewhat more expensive than in the west relative to the overall cost of living.
This is quite a particular instance, and it is probably reckless to draw sweeping conclusions from it. As I understand it, the broader statistical data show quite clearly that sales of CDs, as well as overall music sales, have steadily increased during the same period that P2P file sharing appeared and became widespread (even after correcting for inflation and overall economic growth).
It therefore seems hard to argue that file sharing and digital distribution has a negative affect on music sales.
I've covered every responder's objections in my earlier follow-up post, and won't rehash them here. There is only one other thing worth mentioning, which is that it was probably a mistake for me to call our website a non-profit organization. In too many (ignorant) people's minds, an NPO can only be an NPO with 501(c)3 status. There are half a dozen or more other legal non-profit structures (though contributions to them, coincidentally, are not all tax deductible...), not to mention a myriad of other forms of organizations (PTAs, fan clubs, little league teams) who exist for a purpose OTHER THAN FOR PROFIT. One of those structures happens to be websites whose purpose is cheritable, like mine.
The reason why Google's policy is unfortunate is that it precludes contributing to any organization that does not have 501(c)3 status. That is a shame in the case of web-based organizations, since they stand to so readily benefit from Google's particular form of contribution: ad space on Google.
So for example, an organization in Iran that publishes a women's rights website to help women avoid horrid oppression and abuse in the form of sexual slavery, genital mutilation, and so on, would have to register as a 501(c)3 in the United States in order to be eligible. Ahhh, suddenly the responders' objections and rationalizations are rendered in an entirely different light. It is more than slightly revealing that ALL posters have assumed I am an American living in the United States and operating our site from there - no longer true, though it was when the site was made several years ago. In the case of the Iranian women's rights site, common sense says that Google could quite easily look at the site for 30 seconds and determine whether or not it was worth contributing to - and follow up with periodic 5-second checks to prevent scamming - but that is against policy. Why? Does their policy exist for accountability? Does it exist as a filter or quality control measure? Does it exist for their own legal protection so they don't, as one laughable responder suggested, imbezzle 'funds' in the form of free ad space to inside interests? Of course not.
Wake up people. It is for money in the form of tax deductions. It is simply a business decision guided by financial logic, and no more complicated than that. The other rationalizations responders are posting are like rationalizations for Bush's war in Iraq: naive, desperate, and sad. Google's CSR policy, guided by transparent non-philanthropic self-serving financial logic, is no different than that of any other major corporation. But that policy is inarguably hipocritical in the face of their saintly 'do no evil' mantra and their founders' claims that philanthropy is the primary concern, ultimate goal, and driving force behind Google.
1. NPO registration costs money and takes an enormous amount of time and upkeep - much more than designing and running a website. There is no reason for our organization to go to the trouble or expense of registering.
2. Accountability makes sense if you're handing someone cash. If you're a search engine giving a cheritable website hits, all you have to do is look at the friggin website to do your due diligence - which you are going to do in any case.
3. Complacency, duplicity, and hipocrisy lead to evil. Remember the civil rights movement? If you're complacent about racism, you're guilty of it. If you tolerate child sweatshops (by buying shoes from Nike, for example) you're guilty of supporting evil.
4. Google is donating services in kind in exchange for tax benefits. The goal of helping others is secondary. It is common practice in all large corporations. Shell, for example, gives vastly more than Google does. But the company makes no claim to 'do no evil', nor does it place philanthropy above profits as part of its founders' vision. And shell is not considered a philanthropic organization. They give with an agenda, and so does Google - they are buying more than just the satisfaction of doing good; they are buying something that has a dollar value. That is not philanthropy or altruism.
5. Nowhere did I complain that Google did not 'give' to my organization. I am pleased that they give at all, just as I am pleased that Shell and GM and Haliburton fund various NPOs. My problem is that Google is duplicitous and hipocritical about it (where the others mentioned are not), and if I didn't state that clearly enough in my first post it is because I overestimated the cognitive capacity of slashdot's readers.
I disagree. There is no neutrality in action; you either act in a positive way or a negative way. If you are able to help but do not, that is complacency, and complacency is evil's bedfellow. Complacency in the form of inaction - like when you stand by while someone is mugged/raped/murdered - is clearly a bad thing. Complacency was, for example, on of the main targets of the civil rights movement: if you tolerate racism or sexism, you are gulity of it.
Now if you actually do give $1 when you could just as easily give $10, that is not only complacent but righteous posturing - its purpose is as much to serve one's ego and advertise one's magnanimity as to actually bestow benefit upon another. That is giving with a personal agenda, and a gift with an agenda or with strings attached is no gift at all.
Sure, Google is not supplying arms to Nigerian rebels or using child sweatshop labor - it's not in the same league as Shell or Nike - but given its mantra of 'do no evil' and the emphasis on philanthropy as stated by its founders, there is absolutely no disputing their hipocrisy here.
Once again, following a private agenda under a masquerade of righteousness is a BAD thing. To take an extreme example, that is what suicide bombers do.
Here's a quick example of Google falling off the "do no evil" wagon:
I run a non-profit organization that is entirely web-based. Our website about emergency contraception IS our organization for all intents and purposes. We are not an incorpoated 501(c)3 NPO. Therefore we fail to qualify for any Google Grants or any other support from Google's non-profit arm. Bear in mind, support is not with actual dollar-grants, but in the form of free advertising on Google of course. That would be worth gold for us - obviously - and Google therefore measures the value of these 'grants' in terms of ad-revenue.
So why only support 501(c)3 NPOs? Because it's tax deductible. That way, Google can 'give' millions of dollars away and pat itself on the back for its philanthropy while simply switching profits from one pocket to another - in this case, from ad-revenue to the tax-rebates. And guess who does the valuation of their donations? Google does! Yay!
I find this more than a little slimy considering Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have stated that they ultimately want Google to have a greater impact on the world through its philanthropy than through its for-profit business. So, I wrote to them and asked them WTF? They replied, but refused to answer any of my questions and to date have not complied with my request that they clearly explain on their sitewhy they only 'give' to 501(c)3s.
So much for "do no evil". The most reprehensible evil-doers are those who parade under a banner of righteousness.
I know flexible LCDs are quite a ways off, but what would be nice would be to have a larger screen area than current PDAs provide. Given the void of uselessness in sizes between PDA and Vaio-sized laptops, it seems like the only solution is to have a dual-head PDA. I figured since Origami suggests folding, that would be what it was offering: a PDA that folds open into a double-sized display, so you can see a lot more information than all of the other current PDAs. A keyboard is also a definite must for me, so I was hoping for the new virtual keyboard or something like it, maybe like sidekick's foldout keyboard.
But I agree, it must all fit easily in your pocket, or there's no point in not havinga laptop. Especially for $500+.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the biggest concern is that machines are liable to be used to destructive ends by manipulative people. Right now machines with physical agency (like cars) have very little in the way of independent capability: they can't really function independently of a human operator. And machines which can function independently of an operator lack physical agency (like ATMs).
The problem with humanoid robots is that they combin independence with physical agency. Even putting the entire issue of AI aside, such machines could be extremely dangerous because they have the potential to be misdirected for destructive purposes by people. Imagine if a 12 year old kid or a terrorist could instruct a big SUV by remote control?
It's not so much humanoid robots that are the concern, but larger machines like vehicles that are a worry to me. Right now it is virutally impossible to remotely hack the controls of an airliner, for example, but if planes began to be made to follow instructions issued from less narrow sources of input - by voice or remote control - then the window for abuse opens dramatically.
As I said, I won't get into AI since that's way too big of an issue, but there is one more point worth thinking about, and that is human beings as robots. Where human beings are profoundly ignorant and very fearful, they are vulnerable to manipulation. That's where terrorists come from. From a certain perspective, suicide bombers are like robots that are being misguided by malevolent human manipulators. Since without highly advanced AI they will presumably be easier to manipulate than even the most ignorant person, robots with physical agency could very quickly become the tool of choice for terrorism.
I remember getting scolded by some fanboys for suggesting that lightsabers should cast no shadows (apparently they must cast shadows since shadows were present in Episode 4...) because the cutting edge - whether plasma or whatever else - would need to be hairline-thin regardless of temperature in order to slice through things without causing unmanageable explosions of melted and vaporized target material.
Wow, that was a winner of an idea. I wonder why they didn't think to apply the same regulation to, say, used cars?
"Revivalization" is a awesome word, by the way.
Anyway, to put 2 and 2 together, all the electronic equipment in our offices and homes gives off sound. Kids especially can hear just about every appliance that is plugged in, and you can hear - if not 'feel' - the difference in your house when the power goes out (its usually a relief for most people), which is sort of a deafening silence.
So maybe it isn't the EM radiation from electronic devices but the sound that is causing people problems?
Sorry if this is totally off or really dumb.
For some people, there is joy associated with tinkering with your car. My grandfather still works on his mid-60s Cadillac, and loves every minute he has to put into to keep it running. But the vast majority of people just use their car to get from A to B. Similarly, the vast majority of people just use their computer to do a few straightforward tasks - internet, email, IM, word processing, digital photos.
The reason why I want to switch to Linux isn't because I want to be able to get under the hood, it's because I don't want to support Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter). I think monopolies and oligopolies are a bad thing. I believe in open-source software as a matter of principle, not because I'm an uber-geek computer programmer.
I have to say, it does make it hard to be supportive of Linux when so many people say to non-experts like me, "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault." I support the small car companies too, but if I can't just get in and turn the key and go, then I have to buy my car from another company. It really isn't about stupidity or laziness - it's about time. My time is more valuable than the money I currently fork over to Microsoft. And when something goes wrong, I pay someone else to fix it. The exact same thing is true about my car. When my grandfather says "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault" when someone's car breaks down people look at him a little funny.
For some people, there is joy associated with tinkering with your car. My grandfather still works on his mid-60s Cadillac, and loves every minute he has to put into to keep it running. But the vast majority of people just use their car to get from A to B. Similarly, the vast majority of people just use their computer to do a few straightforward tasks - internet, email, IM, word processing, digital photos.
The reason why I want to switch to Linux isn't because I want to be able to get under the hood, it's because I don't want to support Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter). I think monopolies and oligopolies are a bad thing. I believe in open-source software as a matter of principle, not because I'm an uber-geek computer programmer.
I have to say, it does make it hard to be supportive of Linux when so many people say to non-experts like me, "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault." I support the small car companies too, but if I can't just get in and turn the key and go, then I have to buy my car from another company. It really isn't about stupidity or laziness - it's about time. My time is more valuable than the money I currently fork over to Microsoft. And when something goes wrong, I pay someone else to fix it. The exact same thing is true about my car. When my grandfather says "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault" when someone's car breaks down people look at him a little funny.
use cars everyday for their livelihood and entertainment yet want to know absolutely nothing about them?
Now how many people know anything about their cars? My grandfather has exactly the attitude about cars that you have about computers - it infuriates and exasperates him that people don't bother to understand this tool that is completely central to their lives. But one problem is that they (cars and computers both) are so complicated that it genuinely is difficult for a non-expert to understand the intricacies of how they work.
For some people, there is joy associated with tinkering with your car. My grandfather still works on his mid-60s Cadillac, and loves every minute he has to put into to keep it running. But the vast majority of people just use their car to get from A to B. Similarly, the vast majority of people just use their computer to do a few straightforward tasks - internet, email, IM, word processing, digital photos.
The reason why I want to switch to Linux isn't because I want to be able to get under the hood, it's because I don't want to support Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter). I think monopolies and oligopolies are a bad thing. I believe in open-source software as a matter of principle, not because I'm an uber-geek computer programmer.
I have to say, it does make it hard to be supportive of Linux when so many people say to non-experts like me, "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault." I support the small car companies too, but if I can't just get in and turn the key and go, then I have to buy my car from another company. It really isn't about stupidity or laziness - it's about time. My time is more valuable than the money I currently fork over to Microsoft. And when something goes wrong, I pay someone else to fix it. The exact same thing is true about my car. When my grandfather says "well if you're just too stupid and lazy to figure it out, that's your fault" when someone's car breaks down people look at him a little funny.
Another thing about Linux that people like me are aprehensive about is the idea that once the OS is installed, it takes a lot of knowledge and work tweaking it to get everything running properly - drivers for hardware, setting up a home network, and so on. Maybe that is no longer an issue for some distros, but the fear lingers...
1. Insert CD.
2. Click OK.
3. Done.
I'm sure that's pretty obvious, so the question is: how close are Linux distros to being to that level, and if the answer is 'not close' then what are the obstacles to getting there and how are they being addressed?
Transportation is inarguably a major factor in boosting human productivity. I've lived in a lot of different countries, both developed and developing, and in the developing countries it is mobility and the capacity for transportation that blows open the doors to productivity - much more than computers or telecom, as far as I've seen. Transportation is definitely comparable in importance to water and power in terms of its fundamental impact on productivity.
It may be tha Bill Gates regards infrastructure problems as the jurisdiction of governments, but if I had $50 Billion to spend on improving quality of life in the developing world, I would spend it addressing the underlying infrastructure problems first.
And lastly, improving health care and handing out food could create a population explosion - it will of course save lives in the short run, but in the long run more people may die if they are born into a situation where there is no infrastructure. For example, in today's news there is rioting and fighting in Kenya over water shortages.
I can only assume you're talking about the long-awaited development of veritech fighters.
Sounds like Sim Earth meets Civilization. Could be cool. Here's hoping we see a cameo from the monolith again.
So if manufacturers make devices that will support both HD formats, how much more expensive will those be than devices which support only one format? (Obviously most if not all the devices will support legacy formats from CDs to DVDs).
UFIA booting?
... on the kind of work you're doing?
Transportation systems are still lacking by western standards, though you can get just about anywhere by car. But as far as communication infrastructure goes, wireless (mobile phone) coverage is superb in Oman and the UAE where I currently live and work - much better than in Southern California, for example. Fast internet is available both through fixed line and wireless service, though it is somewhat more expensive than in the west relative to the overall cost of living.
It therefore seems hard to argue that file sharing and digital distribution has a negative affect on music sales.
The reason why Google's policy is unfortunate is that it precludes contributing to any organization that does not have 501(c)3 status. That is a shame in the case of web-based organizations, since they stand to so readily benefit from Google's particular form of contribution: ad space on Google.
So for example, an organization in Iran that publishes a women's rights website to help women avoid horrid oppression and abuse in the form of sexual slavery, genital mutilation, and so on, would have to register as a 501(c)3 in the United States in order to be eligible. Ahhh, suddenly the responders' objections and rationalizations are rendered in an entirely different light. It is more than slightly revealing that ALL posters have assumed I am an American living in the United States and operating our site from there - no longer true, though it was when the site was made several years ago. In the case of the Iranian women's rights site, common sense says that Google could quite easily look at the site for 30 seconds and determine whether or not it was worth contributing to - and follow up with periodic 5-second checks to prevent scamming - but that is against policy. Why? Does their policy exist for accountability? Does it exist as a filter or quality control measure? Does it exist for their own legal protection so they don't, as one laughable responder suggested, imbezzle 'funds' in the form of free ad space to inside interests? Of course not.
Wake up people. It is for money in the form of tax deductions. It is simply a business decision guided by financial logic, and no more complicated than that. The other rationalizations responders are posting are like rationalizations for Bush's war in Iraq: naive, desperate, and sad. Google's CSR policy, guided by transparent non-philanthropic self-serving financial logic, is no different than that of any other major corporation. But that policy is inarguably hipocritical in the face of their saintly 'do no evil' mantra and their founders' claims that philanthropy is the primary concern, ultimate goal, and driving force behind Google.
No. I give everything I can.
1. NPO registration costs money and takes an enormous amount of time and upkeep - much more than designing and running a website. There is no reason for our organization to go to the trouble or expense of registering.
2. Accountability makes sense if you're handing someone cash. If you're a search engine giving a cheritable website hits, all you have to do is look at the friggin website to do your due diligence - which you are going to do in any case.
3. Complacency, duplicity, and hipocrisy lead to evil. Remember the civil rights movement? If you're complacent about racism, you're guilty of it. If you tolerate child sweatshops (by buying shoes from Nike, for example) you're guilty of supporting evil.
4. Google is donating services in kind in exchange for tax benefits. The goal of helping others is secondary. It is common practice in all large corporations. Shell, for example, gives vastly more than Google does. But the company makes no claim to 'do no evil', nor does it place philanthropy above profits as part of its founders' vision. And shell is not considered a philanthropic organization. They give with an agenda, and so does Google - they are buying more than just the satisfaction of doing good; they are buying something that has a dollar value. That is not philanthropy or altruism.
5. Nowhere did I complain that Google did not 'give' to my organization. I am pleased that they give at all, just as I am pleased that Shell and GM and Haliburton fund various NPOs. My problem is that Google is duplicitous and hipocritical about it (where the others mentioned are not), and if I didn't state that clearly enough in my first post it is because I overestimated the cognitive capacity of slashdot's readers.
Now if you actually do give $1 when you could just as easily give $10, that is not only complacent but righteous posturing - its purpose is as much to serve one's ego and advertise one's magnanimity as to actually bestow benefit upon another. That is giving with a personal agenda, and a gift with an agenda or with strings attached is no gift at all.
Sure, Google is not supplying arms to Nigerian rebels or using child sweatshop labor - it's not in the same league as Shell or Nike - but given its mantra of 'do no evil' and the emphasis on philanthropy as stated by its founders, there is absolutely no disputing their hipocrisy here.
Once again, following a private agenda under a masquerade of righteousness is a BAD thing. To take an extreme example, that is what suicide bombers do.
Google is on a very slippery slope.
I run a non-profit organization that is entirely web-based. Our website about emergency contraception IS our organization for all intents and purposes. We are not an incorpoated 501(c)3 NPO. Therefore we fail to qualify for any Google Grants or any other support from Google's non-profit arm. Bear in mind, support is not with actual dollar-grants, but in the form of free advertising on Google of course. That would be worth gold for us - obviously - and Google therefore measures the value of these 'grants' in terms of ad-revenue.
So why only support 501(c)3 NPOs? Because it's tax deductible. That way, Google can 'give' millions of dollars away and pat itself on the back for its philanthropy while simply switching profits from one pocket to another - in this case, from ad-revenue to the tax-rebates. And guess who does the valuation of their donations? Google does! Yay!
I find this more than a little slimy considering Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have stated that they ultimately want Google to have a greater impact on the world through its philanthropy than through its for-profit business. So, I wrote to them and asked them WTF? They replied, but refused to answer any of my questions and to date have not complied with my request that they clearly explain on their sitewhy they only 'give' to 501(c)3s.
So much for "do no evil". The most reprehensible evil-doers are those who parade under a banner of righteousness.
But I agree, it must all fit easily in your pocket, or there's no point in not havinga laptop. Especially for $500+.