What is Digg?183 Comments
- Alex4412, on 10/31/2007, -1/+223http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/index.php?sort= ...
ummm yeah... pwned - tdp301, on 10/31/2007, -1/+115I'm pretty sure "[pics]" is unnecessary with the title "Incredible, high resolution wallpapers"
- pleasureman, on 10/20/2007, -3/+58awww...that lion cub is so adorable it almost makes me puke...but seriously though...really great pics on that site
- kodybryson, on 11/07/2007, -4/+47I'm so glad they offer them in widescreen formats for those of us who aren't living in the stone age. I always love it when sites offer promotional backgrounds, for movies or something, in two formats like 800x600 and 1024x768.
800x600? Really? - inactive, on 10/31/2007, -8/+50They have everything except Goatse ;(
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/18/2007, -1/+37Let's just be thankful that the Goatse meme occurred before the time of cheap, high-res SLRs. Very thankful.
- stalefries, on 11/07/2007, -3/+37Anyone else think that the golf course pic is ridiculously over-saturated?
- inactive, on 10/19/2007, -1/+30I really, REALLY, don't need to see Goatse in high-resolution.
- ricodued, on 10/23/2007, -0/+25What, no 1280x1024? :(
- mattsx, on 10/22/2007, -3/+19insert obligatory digger's don't have girlfriends comment here
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -1/+17Yeah, InterFaceLife has a MUCH better selection of wallpapers.
- HHP2K, on 10/22/2007, -0/+16Some are okay, but most are blah. Not really desktop material.
- DenTPuzz, on 10/19/2007, -1/+16No, but most of us can afford 1440x900.
- asauterChicago, on 10/22/2007, -3/+17I am the only one that thinks, besides the fact they are high resolution, these kind of suck? I mean, a hot chick, a cub, a golf ball?? Seriously?
- billybibbit, on 10/22/2007, -2/+15pwned hard
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -1/+13Oh well.. make your own
- drizzlelicious, on 10/22/2007, -4/+15That girl in the third background is really, really weird looking
- twitchr, on 10/17/2007, -0/+11Wow! thanks for that link. there's some great wallpapers there.
- kevma, on 11/07/2007, -0/+11That, or the 'learn how to reply' comment..
- KloroFormd, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9@mlostracco:
I find it highly disturbing that you're keeping track of the guy. - 4ster, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10Interfacelift is where I go too
- DefaultGen, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9Goatse would be better if you could set it as someone's desktop background without getting pixelated.
- Disease, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9You'd be surprised.
- drastik21, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10I still like this one
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=510672745& ... - HueytheFreeman, on 11/14/2007, -0/+8C...Companion Cube? Where are you? I don't see wallpapers of your adorable weighted goodness...
- Macskeeball, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7Not necessarily, when you consider that Digg users can subscribe to feeds based on search results.
- Narcism, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7We're looking at 17 stock photos... available at any stock image site...
oh never mind.. dugg *bahhhhhhhh* (that's a sheep) - etruscan, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6What about Lemon Party?
- jogeek, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7more:
http://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/13-fantas ... - rickbauls, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6I'm sure the guy is still alive, he could probably make one for you if you needed.
- antitab, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6Just get the 2560x1600 ones and have them scaled. 2560x1600 is exactly 2x 1280x800 in each direction, so it should scale really well.
- wispygalaxy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6It sure beats a blinding white background.
- 560Benz, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6you forgot Digg's front page algorithm:
if (title.contains("pics"))
title.makeFrontPage();
The submitter of this story was just following protocol - SLYK, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7saggy redneck titties.
- dephrye, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Hell, intercacelift has 56 pages of 2560x1600.
http://interfacelift.com/ - saifatlast, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6Yeah, well all 8 of my 50" screens sport a rez that's 4 times as big as whatever you said! *waves giant e-penis around*
- Elranzer, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6In before eBaum steals them, puts his logo feces watermark across the dead center and offers them at only 640x480.
- specialK16, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6@mlostracco:
I have to be honest, I just throw up, I really did.
Is there anyway in flickr to report that ***** as the sickest piece of ***** that ever used the internet? - NyteStarNyne, on 11/07/2007, -1/+6*the reply thats so unnecessary it kills the chain and ends up getting buried*
- koweja, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5I'm pretty sure that there are some resolutions and prices between low-end and top-of-the-line.
- bgfinkel, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5agg no 1280 X 1024...whyyy
- ravs, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4It's such high quality that you can see the reflection of the white photo room in its eyes - amazing.
- specialK16, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4lol wut?
- mlostracco, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4His name is on Wikipedia and ya just gotta search for it. The More You Know.
Because of the internet, nothing's shocking anymore. - Twee, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Corn fields in denmark looks like the windows xp default wallpaper that too many people use.
- tMANwi, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6I second the WTF!? moment about the site not having 1280x1024. I feel so cheated!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Crap selection
- tyywebb, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3I'm a yuppie ***** and I resent that comment.
- jamble, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3They're good quality pictures but the subject matter is hardly very inspiring, much less "incredible"
- bradleyland, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3What's the point in running a wallpaper that is more than three times the resolution of your display? Here's what happens when you set that HUGE picture as your wallpaper:
* Windows downsamples the image to your native resolution
* Windows loads said image in to the window manager
There's no benefit to using such a huge file. -
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is