What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
58 Comments
- kivab4b, on 11/21/2008, -1/+13Interesting to see Google focusing on this seemingly unrelated area to its core business
- Barackalypse, on 11/21/2008, -0/+10Google uses massive amounts of power for their data centers, its actually one of the things they need to look at carefully when trying to choose a location for a new one, cheap, available power.
- rsbryswrrl, on 11/21/2008, -6/+14I hate to break it to anyone, but unless the government somehow steps in and mandates the U.S. to "go green," there is no way companies, particularly the auto, oil/gas or electric power industries, are going to do it voluntarily. Solar, wind and hydroelectric power scare the pants off those industries because you can essentially power things at the consumer level without having to buy power or energy from their companies. Can't wait for those Ikea solar panels!!
- Barackalypse, on 11/21/2008, -2/+9Go to Google, type in "Shell Solar" or "BP solar" and then tell me big oil companies are "scared" of solar. They're investing in it, do you really think they care what form the energy they sell you comes in?
- BossX, on 11/21/2008, -3/+9No Earth = No Google
- frieddonuts, on 11/21/2008, -2/+8Has anyone noticed the comments on Digg shifting to the right? It seems like conservatives are far more vocal now that our incoming president is a liberal.
- Ultomato, on 11/21/2008, -1/+7cant wait to drive my electric car and charge it for free from a solar panel
- frieddonuts, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5I don't mind, I just found it interesting.
- CarStan, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5If america were to become energy independent, there'd be another upside to it: The USA could start exporting its oil, thereby making as much money as the OPEC-states today and paying off its debt this way.
(But the car infrastructure would have to massively change towards alternative fuels, too, wich is very unlikely) - jackdaniels06, on 11/21/2008, -2/+6Google is a leader! Others will follow.
- Tiak, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4...Yeah, except Google doesn't really directly benefit in the vast majority of these proposals...
- Tiak, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3dugg for "whites paces"
- inactive, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Sorry for the comment jack, but here's a direct link to the full keynote speech (and intro from Steve Coll).
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/eric_schmidt
Disclaimer: I shot the video. - csarak, on 11/21/2008, -9/+12Dugg, because I am also 'a big fan of infrastructure.' Let's bail out the people, not the companies (or, you know, both).
- krnldmp, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3The real reason Iran wants nuclear power. They don't want to burn any damned oil. They just want to sell it.
- krnldmp, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Don't be stupid.
- davidlow, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4Yes. There were some organized efforts to flood Digg with conservative commentary in the final few weeks of the election campaigns, and I think a lot of those planted commenters are returning here and there just out of familiarity.
There were even a few Digg stories during that time that had Republican comments only, with all left-leaning comments dugg down into the negative double digits. Good times, good times. - davidlow, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2I did not imply that either side is right.
- ZenMojo, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2Um...the interstate highway system? Fire department? Police department? Yeah, those nasty government-based infrastructure systems are a huge pain in the ass and should be destroyed.
- uncleosbert, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3actually, klein's thesis is that investing in public infrastructure would be a good idea. shock doctrine describes the dangers of expanding the role of the free market in response to crisis.
you might notice this in the title, "shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism". julian sanchez might have read it before he decided the title sounded really cool.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book - tamman2000, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2I have certainly noticed it, in the last few days in particular...
- quimbymouse, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2true story: in one second the sun emits more energy than has been used in the entire history of mankind.
- uncleosbert, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2you're missing the point: she's not saying she wants to design infrastructure. she's saying that it's generally better for the public to get something in return for economic tinkering. in the past, the results of free market experimentation were economic depression and the erosion of the middle class. please see chile and argentina for good examples of neo-liberal disasters.
"Chile's workers, who had paid the social costs of the illusory neoliberal 'miracle,' now paid as well the highest price for the errors of their nation's military rulers and Chicago Boy technocrats and the imprudence of their country's capitalists. Plant closing and layoffs drove the effective unemployment rate above 30 percent, while real wages for those lucky enough to retain their jobs fell by nearly 11 percent in 1979-82 and by some 20 percent during the 1980s. In addition, inflation jumped to over 20 percent in both 1982 and 1983, and the budget surplus gave way to a deficit equal to 3 percent of the GNP by 1983. By then, Chile's foreign debt was 13 percent higher than its GNP . . . Chile's economy contracted 400 percent more in 1982-83 than the rest of Latin America." ["The Pinochet Era", Winn (ed.), Op. Cit., pp. 41-2]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secC11.h ...
we should think twice before ignoring this evidence. - J16T3CH, on 11/21/2008, -4/+6Good to hear that Google's CEO can see a silver lining through tens of millions of lost retirments, jobs, and homes - BRAVO!
- Trent1492, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3I wonder still.
- krnldmp, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2They're just caught with their pants down again.
- domnu, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2If the government stopped stepping into other countries to ensure a supply of oil and the price of crude were allowed to reflect it's true market levels, then there would be significant incentives for companies to develop alternative energy technologies. As it stands, federal interference in the forms of wars and subsidies to the oil companies are the two major factors holding back true green power.
If you really want green energy to succeed, as I do, then the last think you'd want is the bumbling interference and inefficiencies of the federal government. - Barackalypse, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1So again I'll ask, why is spending the money replacing our power infastructure a better way to spend it than, say, build a high speed rail network connecting our 20 largest urban centers? People propose these things, but fail to account for the fact that there are many other things we could do instead, and some of those other things may be even better in the long run.
As far as technology eliminating jobs:
In 1900 40% of our workforce was involved in agriculture, by 2002 1.9% was. Now I suppose you could look at that and say look at all the jobs that were eliminated, but I'd counter and say what use is it to have people toiling in the fields when machinery can do that and free the people up to do something else?
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm - Tiak, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Because giving more biotech research grants wouldn't also stimulate our economy, and as such isn't a primary goal. Technically speaking, such research discoveries would eliminate quite a few jobs.
- Psamtik, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1It's the infrastructure that gets his mouth watering. It translates into more Googling.
- Tiak, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1So... If they put together some smart grid technology that makes it cheaper and more efficient to distribute power, then offer to build it for companies, companies won't adopt it?... If they offer money that can ONLY be used for the production of green power plants (under penalty of the chief executives being jailed) they'll say thanks but no thanks?... If the government offered a DARPA-eque contest for developing battery technology, companies wouldn't compete?...
Oh, please...
I mean, I understand looking at this through the lens of someone skeptical of skeptical of energy companies, but the nature of the incentives don't really offer many reasons for resistance when you look at them. People don't want gigantic, 40-foot-tall wind turbines in their back yards, but that is how they're most efficient, people don't want to build dams, and I don't really see how you can think hydroelectric power is available to the average person, and people certainly can't build geothermal plants, which are downplayed these days but are one of the better overall means of energy production available to us... The electric companies know they aren't going anywhere, and will do what is in their best interest for day-to-day operation. - Sheeplike, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1I'm guessing you didn't watch the keynote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-cBQl1IS5c - oboshoe, on 11/21/2008, -2/+3Oh noes! other opinions!
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Look into how much it costs to put a solar system on your own house, then talk about corporations being the leaders of not going green fast enough, it boils down to what consumer will pay. They'd go green in a heart beat if they had proof people would buy their significantly more expensive energy.
- Sheeplike, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1I just watched that keynote last night and thought he was spot on. It's actually a very intelligent view on what should be done. I didn't like the question asked at the end though, especially what watchdog did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-cBQl1IS5c - krnldmp, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2Until you see photovoltaic panels in Home Depot, Lowes, and WalMart "alternative" (which is a dumb name) energy hasn't really arrived.
- Scaryclouds, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1The sun also accounts for 99.8% of the mass in the solar system.
- Swivelstick, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Because our current energy sources cause illness?
- weech, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1if by interesting you mean disturbing.
Hey G - just stick to world domination of the interwebs. - BrendanSheehan, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1No Earth = No Google Earth
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1until she gets an engineering degree I'm not interested
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1What?? Online you can easily get a panel, charge controller, wire, and battery to power one 25 watt CFL for 300 bucks shipping included.
- Scaryclouds, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1It's obviously Google would benefit from more people being able to access faster internet connections, that is one of Google's major goals (pervasive internet).
The question is, despite this being self-serving, is the benefit we receive worth it? From a pragmatic perspective I would say yes. Though I would need more details. - Ultomato, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1do those collect and store enough to power a house and charge a car?
- Scaryclouds, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1But leftist diggers burying conservatives into oblivion is ok?
- inactive, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Aren't Googles server farms one of the largest energy hogs in the world?
- Trent1492, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1No, just not that indoctrinated.
- cubicledrone, on 11/21/2008, -0/+0Yeah. Nothing counts if it isn't on a shelf at Wal-Mart.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
