digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

A World Without Humans? It All Falls Apart

reference.aol.com — NYC subways flood in 2 days, Fires rage after 5 years........See the destruction.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Alexa42, on 10/10/2007, -18/+42It looks much nicer
    • slayerab, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Could probably breath a whole lot better eventually too, oh wait....
    • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -4/+58But who would save all the animals from extinction?
    • capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12yeah, you say that now, but wait until the apes come.
    • OsiVert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+112 Monkeys?
    • dukeochutney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0good to know in 500 years the Earth will be 'perfect' again. mother nature crap. i prefer cohabitation without destroying the environment
  • valleyvideo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42Video's pretty cool. Obviously I'm not hip enough for SciAm's digital newscaster. Does he really add anything that a simple voice-over doesn't?
    • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ego gratification? Somehow I suspect the real guy isn't as buff. He probably put a 20 inch penis on the model, too.
  • duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -28/+17This is *****.
    • eohano, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Sources? References? Your intuition doesn't count either...
      • chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You can't exactly get references on the factualness of a theory.
  • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -11/+71Dugg down as inaccurate.

    Should be titled, "A Mega-City Without Humans? It All Falls Apart
  • jjhat1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35Direct link: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/
  • Godlesswanderer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+101Well, the world doesn't fall apart, just the city. The world itself goes back to how it was before we started messing with things.
    • betasp, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16How so? How long do the Nuclear Reactors screw to the land for miles and mles when we are not around to run them? What about the weapon depots that will decay into the soil and ground water? What about everything plastic? What happen to the stuff we left behind. There is no off switch to what we have done to the planet.
      • Exodust, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Nuclear reactors have a fail safe mechanism in which a human being has to press a button after every hour or else the reacot would immediately stop. Haven't you read the article?
      • Rbstr, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2As the plant corrodes would it not be possible for the reaction to start again?
        • Mewchu11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Please reread that comment for common sense. Your asking if something that's not working will start working by slowly falling apart.
          • gameforge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's decaying uranium. What prevents it from reacting is control rods. If the control rods decay before the Uranium does, the reaction starts again. And if I remember correctly, modern reactor control rods use water as a neutron absorber, with older ones using graphite. I'd like to say the uranium would decay before the control rods and thus never spawn a reaction again - but I'll bet it's more complicated than that.

            Say the containment housing rots, or something exposes the reactor core to external oxygen. The structure holding the fuel and control rods could begin to oxidize, rot or at least warp. If the control rods aren't located correctly, a very minute reaction could begin occurring. All of the water pumps and valves (cooling system) are still shut down, but a small reaction is taking place.

            Having access to fresh oxygen and an uncooled nuclear reaction going on is ingredients for a large, long-lasting fire. Now you have a Chernobyl with no humans to figure out how to cool things off and (sort of) stop the reaction and contain the radiation.

            I'm sure that's all a bunch of *****, but really... common sense? Are you a nuclear physicist...?
          • manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think uranium generates a nuclear reaction by itself. You need something to _start_ the reaction first.
      • centran, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Well as too the nuclear reactors. Most reactors are pebble bed reactors. They can not blow up or melt down thus screwing the land for miles and miles. The reaction could keep going but in an "idle" like state until it runs out of fuel. All coolant can be completely removed and they still wouldn't melt down.
        • mancat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Pebble bed reactors are still in an experimental stage and are certainly not the norm.
      • Jozer99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15The designers of these plants are pretty paranoid, and "the spontaneous disappearance of every human being on earth" is not nearly the weirdest situations they plan for. As said above, the reactors will switch off if they do not sense that they are being taken care of properly, even in a relatively short period of time (hours or even minutes). After awhile, if the reactor detects any serious problems with itself (i.e. losing computers, building rotting) the nuclear fuel rods will drop down into a "sarcophagus" made of lead and concrete hundreds of feet beneath the earth. The fuel rods will sit there for the rest of eternity, not poisoning anything (unless there are some unlucky microbes that get into the sarcophagus before it closes).

        The reason Chernobyl broke down so spectacularly is because the USSR felt their reactors were so good that it was not necessary to have the safety precautions other countries' reactors had (even then). 3 Mile Island happened not because the reactor was unattended, but because the attendants kept the reactor running when it should have shut down (which it tried to do automatically, after warning of a coolant leak).
        • gameforge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately, there are numerous RBMK reactors (like Chernobyl's) still in operation today with no such underground containment structure. There are also likely many cheap and crappy reactors which are "not designed for manufacturing electricity" that would laughably compare to even a pre-Chernobyl RBMK 1000 in terms of safety standards.

          It should be noted in reference to your comment about the USSR deeming their reactors too good for the safety precautions, they were mostly correct - Chernobyl's disaster was entirely a combination administrative/operator error; but those reactors are perfectly capable of being operated safely for many decades. And you know the Russians, they're perfect... nobody ever expected an operator to make an error. ;)
      • Ravatar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You do realize that the Red Forest, an area near Chernobyl that received one of the heaviest doses of nuclear radiation after the disaster there, is essentially a wildlife refuge for endangered species? Animals flourish there, and plants are mutating and changing rapidly.
      • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Earth will be around much longer than even the millions of years it will take for the radiation from the reactors to decay. We got at least 50 billion years before the earth will be consumed by the expanding son as it is.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2And, this would matter how? Humans are gone. And, if humans are gone, it seems likely that most, if not all, life of the higher order are gone, too.
    • Cameleopard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And just New York City, it's worth noting. I was looking at pictures from abandoned towns in PA just yesterday, and many things have held up against decay. NY's unique geography and prevalence of skyscrapers may make it fall apart at a fair pace, but it seems that smaller towns and inland roads would fare better, even after 40 years (the oldest town I was looking at was abandoned 40 years ago).
      • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1NYC will be around for tends of thousands of years, but like even the ancient mountains, rain and wind will decay it.
    • MrSidnet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Binary solo!
  • Freshjive787, on 10/10/2007, -4/+30so... in a world without humans, the things humans need would slowly fall apart, but how does that hurt other animals?
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20who will make the skateboards for dogs to ride around on?
      • JohnnyHotballs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4this is man's one gift to the world.
  • SuperCUBE, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Fires rage? Uhhh, I heard nothing of the sort.
  • HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I'm reading this now. It's a solid book, of course it's all speculative even though it's researched. It wanders off on tangents a bit ,but it's an interesting read. What's depressing is all the ***** we'd leave behind that won't go away.
    • Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Depressing for who? Animals don't get depressed about the environment.
      • HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1They do if it kills them, jackass.
        • Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I see you fail to grasp the concept.

          If everything is dead, there's nothing to be depressed. You do realize you just said that animals get depressed about the environment after it kills them, right?
        • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They do in hell! lol jk. the guy's an idiot
  • CDoug03, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7Concrete proof that Global Warming will occur with or without us....or not.
  • pizzler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15These pictures are cool.... http://www.worldwithoutus.com/big_slideshow.html
    • PainToad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seems much more realistic!
    • Computer_Kid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The rats are floating on a "fun barrel"
    • SiRwhilms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So basically... the world becomes Half Life 2?
  • DjOverEZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+84Know what's even worse? A world without hummus. Can you even imagine living without that delicious chickpea delight?
    • AslamAli, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2lol! what the hell, pretty random.
    • Eshestun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Ohhh, you bastard.

      Must find Mediterranean restaraunt and get me some hummus and tabouleh!
    • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You'd finally begin to see the global tapenade levels return to their pre-garbanzo numbers.
    • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A world without Hamas?
    • chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Dugg down, because I hate pointless stupid comments whose only purpose is to create humor from something that isn't even a comment that has anything whatsoever to do with the article.
      • edz0nk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Random humor-ish comments that has little or nothing to do with the original post... on Digg?!?!!

        This must be your first visit to the Internets, please refer to Google for a tourist map and general questions. Enjoy your stay.
      • edz0nk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3x2 sry.
      • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Absurdity makes me angry! I haven't been laid in years! Grrrrrrrrrr"
      • brjohnson789, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Aww, humor makes you cry? poor guy
  • ssteeg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Hilarious. I'm sure the Statue of Liberty will be intact during the next ice age.
    • Rickler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Copper plating for the win.
    • corvairkid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's even still somewhat intact after the big nuclear holocaust that causes apes to evolve into the dominant intelligent species. Just ask Charlton Heston.
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I had to digg this up. Why did people digg this down? LOL.
    • ryancalderoni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1haha yeah some of the art is a little outrageous, targeted at us obviously
  • Djharlock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2prelude to planet of the apes anyone?
  • shellshocklxbox, on 10/10/2007, -18/+1If the world was without humans, how did the buildings get there in the first place?
    • esotericguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Are you stupid or retarded?
      I just can't seem to make up my mind.
    • Lyavain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Obviously someone didn't pay attention...
  • betasp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I admire his ability to think outside the box. What would nature do with Nuclear Reactors? What about all of the chemicals and weapons that would leak into the ground? The article does not seem to be pro or con anything, just an interesting look at what humans have doe to the planet and how the planet might respond without us here.
    • hoju247, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nuclear reactors would decay like anything else. They're not special, they can't go boom without human help. Not that it would matter without people around. That's sort of the point of having no people around; nothing matters at all.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nothing matters at all as far as you're concerned, but the whole point is that this isn't exclusively OUR planet: it will go on without us and it does matter. If nothing matters without humans, why does anything matter with humans? Humans are just animals -- not special animals, regular ones.
  • N3M3515, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Skynet will live on FOREVER!
  • thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38I don't buy into this humans need to go away thing. We are the dominate species, creating civilization. Do people out there honestly hope we all just die? I am sorry but I value human lives over animals any day. But that doesn't mean we don't take care of animals. We can do lots more to take care of other creatures, stop pollution and climate change. But wanting humans to go away is bleak and depressing.
    • razrielle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2ever read rainbow 6?
      • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, but even in that novel, a small group wanted to stick around after the fact.
    • SleepingOrange, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL.. halfway through it right now... for the 10th time. Fantastic book.
    • GabingtoN, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3I don't value human life over animal life, all live is important. But if I chose a species of animals to die, it would be humans. Yes, we are the dominate species, but we've raped this world enough. What I find bleak and depressing is how much humans have effected (affected? :P lmao, I get those mixed up >_
      • Araxen, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4The truth hurts and people are burying you. Humans = the dumbest animals on Earth.
      • tasadar24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What I find bleak and depressing is your overly pessimistic viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, it is impossible to be an intelligent species with the ability to create technology and adapt as we are able to and not leave a single mark upon the world that birthed it. More then that, do you seriously believe that what damage we have done over the last couple hundred years(which is really when we did start truly having a global scale impact on the world instead of an impact here and there on crops and livestock) could not be reversed in the next hundred? Just think about what people were dreaming about 100 years ago, and think of what we don't even appreciate today. More then that, do you truly wish that life should just be that, living? If we were to be gone from this earth, what makes you think that there'd be anything left in 5 billion years when the sun expands? At least with us, a species that has continued evolution with technology, life will continue it's 3 billion year process.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5relax, i think it's more a hypothetical than an advocacy.
    • macguy815, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who knows maybe the human race will have an opportunity to redeem itself in the future. Maybe our offspring will deflect some cataclysmic asteroid from causing the next huge extinction.
      • TheGuruStud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They better not. People deserve a fiery death.
        • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Don't worry, Bruce Willis will be long dead by then.
  • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3How the hell would global warming occur when we are gone? If anything, wouldn't that reduce global warming?
    • Exodust, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12If it weren't for global warming, we wouldn't be alive in the first place my dear watson.
    • xerexes1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12It's a cycle called an ice age, perhaps you've heard of it?
    • misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You do realize that the earth has been much warmer in the past, long before our carbon emissions, than it is right now right? I mean, that's not a serious question... Is it?
    • FattyCorpuscle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In a few billion years when the sun gets ready to croak it will swell and scorch the surface of the earth...but it'll be a dry heat.
  • butafore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4One of the points of view. Not necessarily correct, but is worthy.
  • yomamaphat, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3This is yet another idea that is purely speculation. Common on digg, supported by popular opinion. That's what digg is, random links supported by poopular opinion. Yet I keep reading the *****! Amazing!
  • wetmetalthong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+46Pyramids last thousands of years.
    But our steel girders disintegrate in 100-150.
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Of course it doesnt take an army of slaves decades to build a skyscraper.
      • TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3touché
      • Spoomeister, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1"Of course it doesnt take an army of slaves decades to build a skyscraper."

        O RLY? Do you know how many people took jobs working on that (some falling to their deaths in high winds), for a pittance per week or month, because there was no other work available to them?
        • starfisch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2slaves don't even get a pittance
          • Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Relatively, they do. They're kept alive, which is all a pittance does for you. Why do you think labor laws were enacted, and indentured servants no longer exist?
        • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Are you seriously comparing NYC skyscraper workers to Egyptian slave workers?
          I think you need to pick up a history book and ask yourself which you would rather have, a ***** apartment in NYC with a screaming wife and barely enough food to eat, doing manual labor all day and yes taking the risk to your life of less than 0.5%, yet still have a bed, basic rights, enough food that your not starving and reasonable work hours or you are less than human as a slave working 18-20 hours a day, living off minimal basic grains moving stones in a desert and hopefully a piece of cloth to sleep on, being whipped if your too slow, too tired, complain, talk too much, or deviate.

          As I said before, how can you even compare these things?
        • dxanatos2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3>As I said before, how can you even compare these things?

          Pretty good, since contrary to popular belief, the pyramids apparently weren't built by slaves but well payed, -skilled and -fed workers.
      • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not built by slaves
        http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html
    • azngrl0330, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, well, I wouldn't like to live/work in a pyramid. The whole no windows, twisting maze, and random preserved limbs thing doesn't quite appeal to me, not to mention that the pyramid design is horrible in terms of maximizing use of space. Besides, we like new things that can be replaced in a few years with something newer. Hm... like cars.
  • BugManTheFirst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder where the "Fires rage" part was exactly as well.

    It's an interesting concept!! I wonder if some other species would drop by our planet and check us out though. That'd be cool!
  • BuddingMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35A world without humans would look strangely like "Half Life 2" according to the pictures.
    • joep0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0haha! that was the first thing i thought as well,
      i wish i had an extra vote bc i'd dig this twice.
    • ThecNiqueMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10First image with the red barrel, priceless.
      Personally, I've never seen a red barrel.
      • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18That's because people keep shooting them so they will explode.
  • AslamAli, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10The picture this author paints is actually quite beautiful...the world would heal itself from the cancer that is man.
  • Bossman1086, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6So the human world falls apart as mother nature reclaims the land we took and destroyed?
    • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Who says we destroyed it? Who decides what is considered "destroyed"? The point is everything reverts to the way it once was, but why is one way "better" than another?
      My God I can't stand these people who think that everything humans do its an act of Satan. Digg seems to be mostly atheist, yet they still act like there is some great justice to the universe that dictates right, wrong, normal, and abnormal, and humans are a violation of this residing in the evil.
      • paco0e, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I simply would have said "Shut up, hippie!", but I guess that works too...
  • dbldwn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11If there were no humans, who would care whether nature was pristine?
  • Durinthal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I find another version to be more interesting: http://www.engr.psu.edu/sts/Courses/walton/readings/EotW.html
    • eqisow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ermm, direct contact between the Earth's surface and 'space?" How the hell does that one work, exactly?

      Other than that, interesting.
    • salinemist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would pay big $$$ to watch that on pay-per-view.
    • rdosser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"One cluster of warheads stockpiled in Annapolis, Maryland detonates simultaneously...." Oh, yeah, you gotta watch out for those.

      Really a more interesting essay on the author's neuroses than anything else.
    • rguenthner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I love how all of the nuclear stockpiles have "failsafes" that cause them to launch. I think the author has the "Hollywood" view of the end of the world. It's much like how shooting a car will almost always cause it to explode in a movie.
  • scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3There are some human created things the world wouldn't recover from...

    * Creation of a stable black hole
    * Creation of strange matter that is more stable than ordinary matter
    * Creation of magnetic monopoles that could catalyze proton decay
    * Creation of a stranglet
  • JohnnyHotballs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12THEY ICED IT UP! GOD DAMN YOU DAMNED DIRTY APES! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!
  • stklaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Greening is the cause of extinction!
  • CannibalTom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Forest fires are not necessarily bad. They allow for new growth, and can actually be helpful. Believe it or not, but we actually intentionally start and control forest burns.
  • fiftyeggs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13If there were no humans, who would give a ***** if the subway floods?
  • arcangelgabriel, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Whooptie frikkin doo.
    • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you don't care, don't click. We don't care that you don't care. Your post contributes nothing.
  • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Plenty of misanthropic people out there. Humans may be sucking the life out of this planet...but you have to admit it would be a lot less interesting without us.
  • XxIronhidexX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Wow, look at that michelle3515 guy commenting on youtube, way to respect peoples beliefs. Damn idiots like that polute the world.
  • Robozilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Haha, I just started reading the book this article is talking about 2 days ago. Very cool stuff.
  • darthbob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That has got to be, the worst looking CGI video I've seen in 2007.
  • CSSHEP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the photo gallery should have ended with a screen shot from the end of Planet of the Apes
  • menwuur, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dont understand how the NYC subway would flood completely in 2 days.
    • EagleRock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They mentioned that in the explanation video. Because our power plants would fail without human interaction within a day or so, the pumps that keep water out of the subways would stop working, causing the subways to flood. That, in part with other changes due to nature, quickly deteriorate the city from the bottom up.
  • databoy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Our solar system is an irrelevant speck of dust on the scheme of things. The universe will still survive and function. So enough of the doomsday scenarios, get a life and enjoy it. 100 years of individual human life is inconsequential in relationship to the 10 billion years of solar system life. Find yourself a woman, get laid and learn to cook. The super asteroid can impact any time.
    • Jamminn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Find yourself a woman, get laid and learn to cook." :D Agreed!

      That made me actually LOL.
  • Jamminn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Good article, good read. Some of the images beared more than a passing resemblance to HL2... Reminds me of Bill Hicks; its not really "save the planet"; its "save the humans." The planet will be just fine.
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Buried as inaccurate. He showed the ice age as 500 years out instead of 5 years out as the Goracle says.
  • gtapro92, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3are you kidding me? http://digg.com/environment/A_world_without_humans

    Why is it that this one made it to the front page?
    • Eshestun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pizzler has many followers. Don't question his timeliness!
      • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I, for one, welcome our new green-leafed, dupe submitting Overlord.
  • stephengotlost, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2300-500 years looks like paradise
    • blast_flame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have never quite understood why people see a place wihtout technology as paradise. Lack of technology is being sick. Lack of technology is being covered with bugs. Lack of technology is struggling to get food on the table.
  • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I think I'm the first to say this....

    OLD!
  • PieterOpie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I am not here to judge anyone's intelligence. BUT this is a little tiny weensy bit less than brilliant. All the things that would not exist without humans "fall apart" if humans did not exist. Is that right? Why does this not compute with me?

    Back to school for me.....
  • chubbstar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1utter kippleization
  • cgc2020, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A good example of what will happen if we don't stop these damn liberals.

    Hopefully you won't take that seriously, but I'm sure I'll be dug down by the left-loving diggers.
  • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's out of context, if there is no observer there will be nothing to observe. If people vanish it will become nothing, our unique view of things make things the way they are now. Plus that lousy excuse of talking 3d model with its ridiculous shirt really gets on my nerves. Environmentalists should rethink the place of humans on the ecosystem, without them they wouldn't be there too...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.