tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3341631939710629654.comments2011-02-01T05:06:14.027-05:00William Brahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05745122034443647490noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3341631939710629654.post-46217384381609066992009-01-18T11:01:00.000-05:002009-01-18T11:01:00.000-05:00Just came across your blog post and its discussion of social innovation and reference to socially responsible businesses.<BR/><BR/>If you are interested in socially responsible investing, you might want to go to my site. It's one of the most popular sites on this subject and uniquely covers the latest related global news and research as well. It's at <A HREF="http://investingforthesoul.com/" REL="nofollow"> www.investingforthesoul.com </A><BR/><BR/>Best wishes, Ron RobinsRon Robinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02939240770199747573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3341631939710629654.post-68136771935716917992008-10-07T15:41:00.000-04:002008-10-07T15:41:00.000-04:00If every country aims to be carbon neutral, and buys offsets to do so, then clearly this means that the carbon offsetting is not taking place on their own soil. So you can see that this in no way shape or form leads to anything. Obviously it would be impossible for every country to become carbon zero this way, because at that point there would be no place left to offset emissions without causing some other place to become net positive. And the whole idea of everyone offsetting their carbon emissions to one place who's positive carbon footprint is the sum of everyone's offsets is just smoke and mirrors nonsense. <BR/><BR/>Now add in the fact that carbon offsets are totally unregulated and unverified and you see that it is nothing more than a shell game. There is no true upside, beyond bragging rights. It would have no net impact from a global stanpoint, yet would result in huge sums of money transferred intergovernmentally, with no input or payback for the citizens FROM WHOM THE MONEY COMES. It's nothing more than a very expensive Dog and Pony show paid for by citizens, benefitting the only government. I bet none of you would willingly just give free money to your government if it was presented just that way. No wonder they package it under the guise of saving the world, or that every nation in the world is behind it no matter how it's packaged. It's just free money to feed further corruption beyond the staggering amount that already exists. <BR/><BR/>And you thought you were saving the world...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3341631939710629654.post-26817818170888584282008-05-27T14:31:00.000-04:002008-05-27T14:31:00.000-04:00Some social scientists place the study of open source collaborations into the field of Collective Intelligence. Both notions have about a 30-year history and practice. To a certain extent, Prediction Markets represent the other end of a spectrum of Collective Intelligence, whereby people bet that they know relevant information that is more predictive than those of others.<BR/><BR/>Some readers may not have heard about Creative Commons licenses, which are the equivalent for creative works of Open Source licenses. See also Science Commons.<BR/><BR/>One way to ease into open innovation is to get a financial commitment from the university to support open access journals such as PLoS. More generally, see Directory of Open Access Journals which lists 3300 open access journals. Quite a few of these have peer-reviewing standards as high as any of the best commercial journals. There are such journals in every field, and their quality range is identical to that of traditional journals. It is easy for any scholar to understand what is happening with open access publishing, and it gives them a framework for thinking about the broader issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3341631939710629654.post-21861055358199774272008-05-12T08:38:00.000-04:002008-05-12T08:38:00.000-04:00Dear William-<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your recent post about InnoCentive. I wanted to make you aware that we’ve recently changed our pricing model from the $80,000 annual fee you cite above to a transaction based pricing model. We did this in response to client requests for flexibility – they now pay per Challenge posted, rather than per year. On average, the cost to post is $15,000. That includes services from InnoCentive’s team of PhD scientists who can work with their organization to define their problem, articulate a problem statement, and administer the challenge for them. We also advise customers on what the right dollar amount for the award is. InnoCentive receives a commission only if the challenge is solved. <BR/><BR/>Also in addition to posting science related challenges we also offer challenges in Engineering & Design; Chemistry; Math & Computer Science and Business & Entrepreneurship. Thanks again for writing about us. If you ever have any questions or would like to learn more about us, please don’t hesitate to contact me.<BR/>Thank you,<BR/>Connie French <BR/>InnoCentiveConniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11704300763100416533noreply@blogger.com