Green Taxi

Thanks to Michael for this CNN article pointing out the push that Iceland is making in terms of reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels.  Iceland already has an abundant amount of natural resources such as waterfalls, volcanos, geysers, and hot springs that provide Iceland with energy and hot water.  Now they are reducing their reliance upon Oil by pushing into the hydrogen car market.  Auto manufacturers plan on using Iceland to test out hydrogen car prototypes.  This will work well in a country which has an abundant amount of water and electricity, the main requirements for a hydrogen fuel cell.

I would love to put Iceland on my list of places to visit soon.  The innovation and effort there sounds quite intriguing and I would love to see the hydrogen stations and cars in effect full-time rather than just on a few test cars like we see in the states.

Even if you think you know your favorite candidate already, I suggest trying out this Candidate Calculator to see who should vote for.  I was surprised to find out (albeit on only a quick run through of the issues) it said the candidate best matching my view on the issues is Mitt Romney.  I actually do not know the candidate that well, so I am going to go through his views and see if I really do like him or not.  I think it is probably correct, however the poll is a bit vague and I might have voted the opposite on a few issues depending on my interpretation of what I was voting for.

According to Nielsen/NetRatings, as pointed out by DirectNavigation, search engines performed over 7.7 billion searches in July 2007.  Using the common assumption for type-in traffic of 15% of overall search volume, that means that type-in’s accounted for more than 1 billion searches that month. 

I think my domains got about 10 of those.   While small, I like to view it as a 100% increase to the 5 I got the previous month.

I am a major proponent of philanthropy.  I intend to give when I do end up with enough money to give.  I am inspired by Buffett and Gates’ moves to give in size, and I believe in their decision to hold off in giving their money until they had made enough with it to give.  I would rather be able to give 10X in 10 years, if I am able to add X each year, rather than giving X in year one and have it only be worth 1.6x in 10 years, or whatever it comes to as being invested at 5% a year for 10 years.  The point of giving is because you are making more money than you are using.  That usually means you are making more than 5% per year on your capital.  If you give prior to making more of it, the amount you get to give will not be as much.  That said, if you wait until you are dead, you do not get to use what should be better than average judgement (you were smart enough to make more than you can use afterall) to direct where the money should be best spent.

In a new book on Chuck Feeney, called “The Billionaire Who Wasn’t: How Chuck Feeney Secretly Made and Gave Away a Fortune”, as described by MSNBC and Sahar, the author explains how he gave all of his money away secretly through his lifetime.  Considering he was one of the richest men in the world (as ranked by Forbes), yet managed to not let anyone know, it is quite an impressive feat.  I understand the need for privacy, however the situation poses an intersting question.  By not telling people he was giving his money away, was he not actually posing as a Billionaire, when in reality he was not?  And, more to the point, which brings more attention to oneself, being a billionaire, or being a philanthropist?  I suppose the fact that he gave it all away means that his intentions were always good, but now that he is writing a book about it, doesn’t that also mean his is now giving into the publicity that he always seeking to avoid? 

While that is more of a phsycological question I suppose, my main point is a bit different.  Whether or not he gave, or how much he gave, is not the point.  The point is what he gave his money to and whether that had a positive affect on society.  Most philanthropy helps in one way or another, but I am a believer of multiple levels of philanthropy.  I think maybe there should be a scoring or rating system or something.  If you give a million dollars that saves 10,000 children from dying somehow, shouldn’t that be worth more than giving a million dollars that only saves 5,000 children?  Obviously not something that is easy to rank, but when I read this book, I will look for what he gave to, how well that money was spent, and what became of those investments rather than why he gave and why he did or did not speak about it.  As Michael Lewis recently pointed out, if you are going to give, give to someone smarter than you (Lewis says richer, which in this case is the same thing)…or in Warren Buffett’s case, give to Bill Gates.